annexation of crimea. live coverage starts at 3:15 p.m. eastern on c-span3. tonight president trump will launch his press deidential campaign, and he will be joined by mike pence and melania trump. we will have live coverage live on c-span2 and on wednesday, actor danny glover, writer tanahasy cotes and others will talk about reparations from slavery. the sub come thcommittee hearin get started at 10:00 a.m. eastern and you can follow on c-span.org or with the free c-span radio app. we back with thomas shef from the citizen against government waste. he's the president and we will talk this year congressional pig book. tell us what citizen against

government waste is. >> it was founded under president reagan so we've been around quite a long time. since then, we have, of course, been investigating, researching and exposing and eliminating government waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. the congressional pig book has been around since 1991. we have identified 111,000, and 114 earmarks worth $259.8 billion. so when people say oh, it's just a few million here or a few thousand there, it adds up over time and they're corrupting and they're costly and inequitable and we can certainly talk a lot more about them, but it's one of the many publications that we put out each year and certainly something that we have been working on for a long time. >> so since we're going to be talking about money our viewers always ask this question. how is citizen against government waste funded? >> we are funded by ins and

associations and foundations and the vast majority of our money comes from individual taxpayers and always has. >> so since we'll be talking about federal earmarks, so let's set the stage. what is an earmark? >> an earmark fits one of our seven criteria which we developed in 1991 with the pork busters coalition and it was only added by the house or senate and not specifically authorized and not the subject of hearings and serves a local or special interest and the president's budget or the last funding so this has again been the same criteria since 1991 and this is, again, something that we've been doing and exposing for a long time. >> so what did you find in this year's search for government waste? what are the things we should look for in this year's congressional pig book? >> first of all, the numbers themselves are higher than they were last year, 15.3 billion and

that's a 4% increase over the $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2018 and it's doubled the 6.8 billion in fiscal 2017 and it's going in the wrong direction and that number is half of the record $29 billion in 2006 and the number of earmarks is 282 and that's up 22% from the 232 last year. so the numbers are not unfortunately, going in the right direction and there is some good news, and the chair of the house appropriations committee said that we will not have earmarks in the fiscal year 2020 and the upcoming appropriations bills that they're working on right now and the senate republicans, and this is the first time ever that any group of members of congress has agreed to a permanent ban on earmarks. right now they're subject to a moratorium. we are still finding earmarks because our definition is different and they agreed to a permanent ban. that's just a rule. it's not a law and it's a good

step in the right direction and they've seen the definition and the number keeps growing. >> so when you say that the senate republicans has to rule, and not a law. what's the difference there? does that mean it's not really in existence? tell me existence. it means they will not add earmarks to any of the bills while they are considering them in the senate appropriations committee. >> just republicans. >> just republicans but again they are the majority. by their definition they will not be adding them to their appropriations bills. the house is supposedly not going to do them as well. it's a little comply kaicated b they do a lot of things based on their rule which s which they c

change every congress. but it's a really important step and it hopefully should set an example for the rest of congress. >> what were some of the big things you found in earmarks this year that looked sort of weird? >> weird is a fruit fly quarantine at $9 million. the last time they added any of this money for fruit flies was ten years ago. there's 13$13.8 million for wil horse and burro management. >> wow. so where did these earmarks come from? who's putting these into these bills? >> that's a great question. in the 111th congress there was a rule that required them to add

their names to earmarks. during that time the 81 members of the house and senate appropriations committees constituted 15% of the entire congress but they got 51% of the number of earmarks and 61% of the money. so this is incredibly inequitable process where the majority of the earmarks and the money goes to a very small group of members. this year the only one we know for sure added $16.7 million for the east-west center in hawaii which was the entire federal share of the budget. they had a north-south center. they got rid of that in 2001. so the east-west center should go out on its own as well. it's only because of one member of congress that this money went in there. >> there are some people who

defend earmarks. virginia republican tom davis was on this program on monday and offered his defense of earmarks. >> so earmarks are merely project designations. it is an article i constitutional responsibility of the house of representatives. almost every project that went through was earmarked. there was an earmark in roads and bridges and how they built it. so it's a constitutional responsibility of the house of representatives. earmarks do two other things. they allow members to personalize their districts to show their constituents that there's a reason for keeping them around because they can bring back certain projects that may not get funded through the bureaucratic model. if i've got a bridge or something in that bill, it makes it a little bit easier to pass it. it was kind of the glue that held legislation together and it

brought democrats and republicans together. in my district i wasn't tom davis the republican. my presidential candidate never carried my district. i was a republican in a district that was designed to be more or less a democratic district but i was mr. woodrow wilson bridge, i was mr. widen 123. i was the one that closed the prison and got 3,000 acres of land to the county. it allows me to be a little bit more independent in my voting record because i had earmarks to fall back on than just voting with the party on certain issues. people are voting the party, not the person. it continued to advance the movement from a democratic model to a more parliamentary model in terms of how we're electing people. i think it's been bad for government. i'd bring them back with more

transparency and the like. >> so respond to representative davis's defense of earmarks. >> this is a corrupting process. as former senator john mccain said, when the members who have the power use that power, it's a corrupt system. that's not an exact quote, but he talked about the fact that the members of the appropriations committees get the majority of those projects. so it is not equitable. it goes to people in power. so it always kind of amazinges that otherwise liberal or conservative people look at this and say oh wait, i agree we should spread the money around the country where it's needed, which is where 99.9% of the money goes. what former congressman davis is describing is a very, very small part of the budget.

their article i power is to appropriate money. it's not to steal it from the rest of the country and stick it in your district. >> we want you to join this conversation about earmarks and whether they're a good or a bad thing. republicans call 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. independents call 202-748-8002. harold from illinois, join the conversation. >> caller: good morning. i think these earmarks are just another way to bribe congressmen or somebody to vote their way on a bill that they normally wouldn't vote on. i think the money in the politics is the main problem with all of this. maybe we should have some term

limits. i think congressmen will do whatever they can to stay in there. they only make $175,000 a year and most of them are harvard educated lawyers that could be six figure employees but they choose to keep that job for some reason. i think the lobbyists that go in there -- lobbying used to be where you get a number of people to sign a piece of paper saying they all agree with that and you take it to your congressman. you don't take an envelope full of money from a big bank and say i need this bill passed and could you get it through with one of them earmarks in it or something. >> we call earmarks legalized bribery except when it becomes illegal as it did in the 2000s former congressman duke cunningham went to jail, lobbyists staff. it can certainly become

corruptive. no doubt about it. it's something that members do use to help themselves get reelected but it's not really a big piece of what they do and not all of them have done it. so we don't think it should be coming back at all. that's why we're happy to see the senate republicans agree to a permanent ban. >> one of the things you found in this year's book goes for the f-35 fighter jet. we had a flyover in d.c. of one of those jets. let's look at some of the footage of that flyover. we were all in washington and we could all hear that flyover that happened earlier this week from that fighter. so what did you find out about the f-35 fighter and why is it in this year's congressional book? >> it's eight years behind schedule. it's far over budget. it's almost twice the amount per plane that they thought it would

be. the lifetime maintenance costs and operations costs will be $1.2 trillion, up 20% from a trillion a few years ago. most expensive weapons system in history. there were more reported problems this week. they added $1.8 billion in additional joint strike fighters, 16 planes spread across the services. it was certainly ironic. i happened to be on another network talking about earmarks at the time the f-35 flew over and there it was. yes, we should be creating new weapons systems. we should be working on defense but we shouldn't be wasting money like that. >> here's a question from one of our social media followers. what do you think of the thought that earmarks are tools used to establish consensus in congress? >> if that were true, they've had a moratorium for the last eight years. the record was $29 billion in

2006. we're now about halfway back there. before they agreed to this bipartisan budget agreement at the beginning of 2017 earmarks were 3 to 4 billion a year which is really low, back to where we started in '91. it helps pass more expensive legislation, because as the first caller pointed out, members get a few million dollars and then they vote for these very expensive bills. those projects don't benefit them. most of the money that is spent is based on the formulas. it's divided up based on population, need, if your bridge is falling apart you get on a list, you apply for the money. that's the way most of that is being done. former congress manaman davis t about the wood rrow wilson brid. even in his district it wouldn't have been more than 1% of all

the funding. >> let's talk to lynn calling from bountiful, utah. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you. i would say that nothing has improved since we did away with earmarks. our budget is exploding worst than it ever did. as far as the list of examples your guest gave for, i guess, what he would call ridiculous or unjustified earmarks, the 13 billion he listed for the horse and burro program is just enough to keep it inefficient. if we had more in that budget, we could have a system where it would ultimately bring taxpayer costs of warehousing horses down. the 13 billion that is being offered is just enough to give them very inhumane sterilization

rather than birth control and kill tens of thousands of them. that's just the cost for rounding them up and killing these environmentally beneficial animals. >> respond. >> again, this is about the process by which these projects are added not necessarily judging whether they're wasteful, all lowthough a lot om are. we look through the appropriations bills. we see whether the project matched the criteria that we developed back in 91991 with th congressional pork busters. these should go through the same process. 99% of money in washington is divided by formulas. >> earmarks are normally associated with congress. what's the white house's view of earmarks.

what's president trump had to say about it? >> president trump has said once that he thought earmarks might help get legislation passed. he hasn't said that since. i'd like to think that some of the things we have been pointing out have finally reached the white house. with the republicans and senate saying no earmarks, it really doesn't make since for anybody to say it should be going on right now. but it's something that we wish that others would talk about a lot more often. >> are emergency funding for natural disasters considered earmarks? are projects like the flint michigan water contamination funded through earmarks? >> no. an emergency appropriations bill, as long as it focuses on the emergency, would not be considered an earmark. it's the projects they add to those emergency appropriations bills that have nothing to do with the existing emergency or it may be something that happened many years ago. we see this all the time.

the solution is to have -- and they do have more than they used to -- an emergency fund that can be used when emergencies occur. we pretty much know other than obviously very, very serious events like hurricane katrina, rita and some other situations about the average that's spent each year on emergencies. fema and other agents should have a specific amount of money based on history that they can use without congressional appropriations to immediately deal with exigent circumstances like an emergency. >> let's talk to tim from wisconsin on the independent line. >> caller: mr. schatz, you can correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe a lot of earmarks, it is like the biggest form of

socialism we have in the country probably i would think in one way. and another thing, you talk about government waste, my god, most of those departments we have in the government like the department of education, of agriculture, those are totally unnecessary. we could save a ton of money if we just got rid of those departments. i realize that's kind of wishful thinking on my part, but things like funding planned parenthood with taxpayer dollars. there's so much waste that could just be taken away but there's so many people in congress that have a vested interest in a lot of earmarks, because like mr. -- i can't remember the congressman you had on before but mr. davis said that's a way to get reelected. since when is that a way to get a program in just so he can get reelected. i think they're one of the most

corrupting things in washington. >> i certainly agree with your last statement. it is corrupting. if they think that not getting earmarks will help them get elected, that's really the incentive we're looking for. if they're doing other positive things for the country and they're not getting earmarks in, that i think would help reduce spending. >> linda from iowa on the republican line. good morning. >> caller: i was curious about mr. schatz's time in contributing to this cause that he has and how does he get his funding? >> we mentioned the funding earlier. we get the vast majority of our money from individuals. we get some from foundations and some from associations. again, the organization has been around since 1984 following the report of the grace commission. i joined in 1986 so i've been

doing this for quite some time. >> you said earlier that republicans in the senate said they were not going to do earmarks. if i remember correctly, didn't years ago congress said they were going to stop doing earmarks? >> moratorium. that's not a ban. a moratorium as we know is a temporary suspension of whatever it might be. it's a temporary end to something. so our definition is not the same as congress's. although we point out in the pink book every year since the moratorium that projects that were earmarked before the moratorium we are still finding and we consider them to be earmarks after the moratorium. the east-west center is a prime example. brian schatz added it to the appropriations bill.

h he just added it in on his own in the senate. of course, the house agreed to that, which isn't helpful. it is our view without any question we can find an earmark. >> phil from florida on the independent line. >> caller: a few observations for mr. schatz regarding the overall spending versus military spending. i wanted to know, my understanding is 50% of our tax dollars go to the military. and the ndaa bill at the end of the year that's for national defense authorization act, when these bills come about you can pretty much throw anything in it and if anyone questions it, they come back with the old, you're

not supporting our troops. then there was the cost plus spending i learned of from the film "iraq for sale" about 15 years ago. i wanted mr. schatz to address these things that i just brought up. >> much longer conversation talking about military spending, but we do care about it. in the congressional pig book we identify wasteful spending on defense. going back to the grace commission, $424 billion of wasteful spending. 25 of that was defense. defense is not 50% of the budget. it's half of discretionary spending but there's also non-discretionary entitlement spending which is 60% of the budget these days. >> paul from greenfield center, new york, on the republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning.

how are you? >> just fine. go ahead. >> caller: yes. i want to terminate the president's fund, annual taxpayer subsidized payments to past presidents. think about it. president carter has been getting $500,000 a year for 38 years and i'll take my answer off the air. >> it is something that we've talked about. there is at least some minimal bipartisan support to reduce spending for future presidents. we can't do it for past presidents. i think congress is considering passing some restriction on how much money future presidents can make and also how much money they get for staff. many, many years ago past presidents were former presidents didn't make a lot of money. they needed the pension. now clearly that's a different situation. >> what's the trend been in congressional earmarks?

looking at your report, there was a steady incline through 2005 and it went down to zero in 2011 and 2013 and it seems to be creeping up again. is there a cause for this rise and fall? >> the anomaly was 2011 and 2013 because they passed what's called a continuing appropriations bill. so they didn't identify individual bills so we literally couldn't find earmarks, not that they weren't there. but they just kept the spending at the prior year's level without being specific about where the money was going. so the trend was after the moratorium to average about $3.5 billion a year. now it's back up to an average of 15 billion. and the difference has been this bipartisan budget agreement. they increased overall spending by 13%, but they increased earmarks by more than 70% over that period of time.

so this has been a massive increase, far greater than the increase in overall spending. again, one of the reasons why if they bring them back, they will again be out of control. >> is it easy or hard for voters to find out who's behind these earmarks. >> it's a lot harder than it used to be because they claim they are not adding the earmarks, therefore they don't have the transparency and the rules they had for transparency only apply during the 111th congress which is why we know that 50% of congress got more than half of the earmarks and more than half of the money. >> maria from westville, new jersey, on the independent line. >> caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. for many years we've been promised an audit of the pentagon spending and it's never happened. i want to know who's responsible for doing the audit and why it hasn't been done. as for earmarks, i'm more

concerned with international earmarks that we have. we give to nato and we never get any sufficient money back from them. they have a lot of benefits. they have free university in europe. they have a month off. our citizens are getting screwed. our social security fund has been looted and i want to know when the american eagle is doing to do a giant claw back on the pentagon and all the people in office who actually are traitors to their on country. thank you very much. >> pentagon audit they have done one audit and they of course didn't pass the audit. so we have very much been behind that. we think it's extremely important. citizens against government waste was behind the chief financial officers act which set in motion the idea that these agencies should be audited. in regard to nato it's not earmarked as such.

people might consider foreign contributions wasteful spending. it's also a very small part of the budget. >> david from columbia, missouri, on the democratic line. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i was listening and this is the first time c-span has ever answered the phone during the first ring of the phone and it just kind of threw my question right out of my brain but it has to do with how they got that tag line on people that are drawing like social security, the necessary spending for our schools, the necessary spending for our waterways, the necessary spending for forest revitalizati revitalization. there are all those things that are necessary. they've got a tag line on it and

i forgot the word that y'all used. i think that's shameful because when you're already making it to where people just cannot make a living anymore, that lives with the cost of living because they got to work two and three jobs, how can they pay attention to their politicians and stuff robbing them? >> look, in most people's cases the largest payment they make is taxes. you look at other investments that you make and you make sure it's being spent wisely. i think people need to do that more with their tax dollars. >> jeff from valley bend, west virginia, on the democratic line. jeff, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i've got a question as to who's authorizing all this spending for trump to fly all over the country every week and hold these campaign rallies, probably

costs a million dollars a trip. did congress authorize this spending or who's paying for all these campaign rallies? >> the campaign would pay for the campaign rallies. they have to reimburse the government as every other campaign has had to do for every path regardless of which party they represent. >> we would like to thank thomas schatz, the president of citizens against government waste who just put out the 2019 congressional pig book that identifies earmarks in our government system. tomgs, thank you so much for being with us this morning. >> thank you very much. live now hear on c-span the senate foreign relations committee will be getting an update on russia's action in ukraine five years after the annexation of crimea. we'll be hearing from a former u.s. ambassador to crimea during the discussion. expecting this to start shortly be shortly.