president. the new york journal of books the president makes a fast engrossing read. read about how noted presidential historians ranked the best and worst chief executives from george washington to barack obama. explore life events that shape our leaders, challenges they face in the legacies they left washington journal continues. host: we are back with thomas. schatz, from the citizens against government waste. he's the president and we are going to talk about the congressional pig book. tell us what citizens against government waste is. guest: it was founded in 1984 following the commission under president reagan. we have been around for a long time, and we have of course been investigating, researching, exposing, and eliminating government waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

the pig book has been around since 1991. we have identified 11,014 earmarks, and so when people say it's just a few million the year, or a few thousand there, it adds up over time. the earmarks are correcting, costly, inequitable, and we should talk more about them. one of the many publications we put out each year, and certainly something we have been working on for a long time. host: since we will be talking about money, our viewers will always have this question. how was citizens against government waste funded? guest: by individuals and associations and foundations. the vast majority of our money comes from individual taxpayers, and always has. host: and also we will be talking about federal earmarks, let's set the stage. what is an earmark? guest: if it's one of our seven

criteria developed back in 1991 with the congressional park west or's coalition. to be not specifically authorized, not subject to hearings, serves only a local or special interest, it exceeds the budget or last year's funding. this has been the same criteria since 1991, and this is something we have been doing and exposing for a long time. guest: what did you find -- host: what did you find for this year search for government waste? what should we look for in this year's pig book? guest: the numbers themselves are higher than last year, $15.3 billion, that's a 4% increase over the 14.7 billion dollars in fiscal year 2018 and more than of 2017. $6.8 billion and that number is more than

half of the record $29 billion in 2006. the number of earmarks is 282, up 22% from 232 last year. thenumbers are not going in right direction. there is good news, the chair of the house appropriations committee said that they will not have earmarks in fiscal year 2020, the upcoming appropriations bill that they are working on now. and the senate republicans, this is the first time ever that any group of members of congress has agreed to a permanent ban on earmarks. right now they are subject to a their definition is different than ours. but if they agree to a permanent ban, that's a rule, not a law. it's a good step in the right direction. i think part of it is that they have seen the number keep growing. host: you would say the center republicans passed a rule and not a law, what's the difference? does that mean it's not really in existence? guest: it means they will not

add earmarks to any of the bills while they are considering them in the senate appropriations bill. host: center republicans are the whole senate? guest: senate republicans, but they are the majority. by their definition they will not be adding them to their appropriations bill. that is one of the reasons the house appropriations chair said that we do not have a bipartisan agreement to put earmarks in the bill. the house is supposedly not going to do them as well. it's a little complicated housee it's easier if the passed a bill in the senate passed a bill but they do a lot of things based on their rules, which they can change every congress, sometimes they don't go over to the next congress. it's an important step, and hopefully it will set an example for the rest of congress. host: what were some of the big things he found in earmarks? -- in earmarks? quarantine, $9

million. the last time they had that money for fruit flies was 10 years ago. a lot of these things go in and , $13.8 million for a wild forest and borough management, and to control brown tree snakes in guam. host: where do these earmarks come from? who puts these into the bills? guest: that's a great question. in the 111th congress there was a rule that required everyone to add their names to the earmarks. so on the back of the appropriations bill there was a list. during that time, to show the inequity of earmarks, the 81 members of the house and senate appropriations committee who constituted 15% of the entire

congress, got 51% of the number of earmarks and 61% of the money . so this is an inequitable process where the majority of the earmarks goes to a very small group of members. of onear we only know for sure, senator brian schatz, no relation, added $16.7 million west mentors in hawaii, which is the entire of the federal budget. the east-west center, and only because of one member of congress, that this went in there. air --ome people defend earmarks. tom davis was on this program on monday and offered his defense, here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> they are project designations, this is an article

one responsibility of the house of representatives. if you look at the history almost every project that went through had earmarks, there was an earmark when congressmen decided on roads and bridges and how they built it. it's a constitutional responsibility of the house of representative's. house of representative's. and they allow members to personalize their districts, to show their constituents that there is a reason to keep them around because they can bring back certain projects, they may not get funding because they have to go through the bureaucratic model otherwise. default vote to yes on the appropriation bill a set of now. bridge, and it's easier to pass, it's the glue that held guard -- ledger station together and it brought republicans and democrats together. neversidential candidate carry my district, i was a republican, and the district was designed to be a more democratic

district. but i was mr. woodrow wilson bridge, i close the prison and got 3000 acres of land given to the county. people may not like my party but they saw some quality in keeping me around. it allowed me to be more independent in my voting record, because i had earmarks to fall back on than just voting with the party on certain issues. that,members do not have so they are judged by their party, and as a result people are voting for the party, not the person. i think it will continue to advance the movement from a democratic model to a parliamentary model in terms of how we are electing p -- people, and i think it's bad for government. so i would bring them back, but with more transparency. host: could you respond to former representatives davis? >> -- guest: at least he didn't go to

jail with some of his corrupting colleagues. as former senator john mccain said, when the members have the power to use the power to corrupt the system -- he talked about the fact that members of the appropriations committee get the majority of those projects. it's not equitable. it goes to people in power. , that an otherwise liberal or conservative, people will look at this and say wait, i agree we should spread the money around the country, where it is needed. which is where 99.9% of the money goes. this is a very small part of the budget. article one is to appropriate money, not to steal it for the rest of the contest from the rest of the country and stick it in your district. host: we want you to join this conversation about earmarks. we are opening up our regular

lines, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. we are always reading on social media, and twitter and facebook. harold is calling from illinois to join the conversation. good morning. caller: good morning. i think these earmarks are just another way to bribe congressman or someone to vote their way on a bill that they normally would not vote on. i think the money and the isitics -- in the politics the main problem with all of this. and we should have some term limits. i think the congressman will do what they can to stay in their, make 175re, they only thousand dollars 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. and i think the lobbyists that go in there, it used to be where you would get a number of people --sign a piece of neighbor paper saying they agree with that and you take it to your congressman. you don't take an envelope full of money into a big bank and say i need this bill passed and could you get it thrown in with an earmark. guest: we called the legalized bribery, except when it becomes illegal as it did in 2000 with two cunningham -- duke cunningham going to jail, bob banned his lobbyist staff. -- and his lobbyist staff. and members do use it to help themselves get reelected, but it's not a big piece of what they do and not all of them have .one it we don't think it should be

coming back at all that's why we are happy to see the republicans in the senate agree to a permanent ban. goes one of the earmarks for the f 35 fighter jets. we actually had a flyover and d.c. of one of those jets earlier this week. let's look at some of the footage from that flyover, provided to us by abc news area -- news. we were all in washington and we hear that flyover that happened earlier this week from that fighter. what did you find out about the f 35 fighter and why is it in this? guest: it's eight years behind schedule, with a budget that's almost twice the amount per plane that they thought it would be. the lifetime maintenance costs and operations cost is $1.2 trillion, up 20% from $1 trillion a year ago. problems,reported

more this week, they added $1.8 billion in additional joint strike fighters, 16 planes across the services. i was on another network talking earmarks when the f-35 flew over. we should be creating new revenue systems, working on essentials, not wasting money like that. host: here's a question from one of our social media followers, what do you think about earmarks establishused to consistency in congress question mark -- in congress? billionhe record was 29 dollars in 2006. before they agreed to this bipartisan budget agreement at the beginning of 2017, earmarks were three doll -- $3 billion to $4 billion a year. low, backistorically

to where we were one. it helps pass more expensive legislation, because as the first caller pointed out, members get a few million dollars and they vote for these very expensive bills we had but those projects don't benefit them -- those bills. but those projects don't benefit them. some of it's based on population, need, if your bridges falling apart you get it on the list, you apply for the money, that is mostly houston. and with what the former congressman said, the woodrow wilson bridge is an interstate highway project, it was not near mark. and a lot of the things he mentioned were not earmarks, because even in his district it would not of been more than 1% of the funding. from lynn is calling bountiful, utah. good morning. you.r: good morning, thank i would say that nothing is

dided -- improve since we away with earmarks. the budget is worse than it ever has been. and as far as the list of examples are guest gave for what he would call ridiculous or , the 13ied earmarks 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 to 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 cap -- the cost for rounding them up and killing them these environmentally --

these environmentally beneficial animals. guest: this is about the process by which these projects are run, not judging how wasteful they are. it's proven to be more expensive the expected, so we look to appropriations bills, we see if the project matches the criteria that we developed back in 1991 with the congressional port budget coalition. merit,rojects may have they should go through the same process that every other project in washington goes through. 99.9% of the money spent in washington is provided by formulas, not because some member of congress decided on their own to added in -- add it in. host: what does the president have to say about earmarks? guest: he once said that he thought they might help get legislation passed, he has not said that since. i would like to think that the things we pointed out have finally reached the white house.

and with the republicans in the senate saying no earmarks, it does not make sense for anyone else to say it should be going on now. but it is something that we wish others would talk about more often. host: another question from one of our social media followers. our emergency funding for natural is asterisk considered earmarks? was flint michigan's water contamination fund funded through earmarks? guest: know, and emergency appropriations is not considered an earmark. it's the projects they add to those that have nothing to do with the existing emergency. or maybe something that happened many years ago, we see this all the time. we dolution to that, and have this more than they used to, and emergency fund to be used when emergencies occur.

obviously serious events happen, like hurricane katrina, rita, and other situations. fema and other agencies should have a specific amount of money, based on the history that they can use without congressional appropriations to immediately deal with exigent circumstances like emergencies. gets an when congress bill they add on to it. host: are not scholars from wisconsin, tim, on the independent line. caller: good morning. me if i'm, correct wrong, but i believe a lot of is thes are just -- it biggest form of socialism we have in the country. and you talk about government waste, my god, most of those departments we have in the government, like the department agriculture, those

are totally unnecessary and we could save a ton of money if we got rid of those departments. that that'sng wishful thinking on my part, but fundingike lending -- planned parenthood, there is so much waste that could be taken away, but there are so many people in congress that have a vested interest in a lot of earmarks. i cannot member the name of the congressman you had on the floor, when mr. davis said that's the way to get reelected, but since when is that a way to get a program? just so you could get reelected? i think it's one of the most corrupting things in washington. guest: i certainly agree with your last comment, it is corrupting and it is a priority for some members to get reelected. but if they think not getting earmarks will help them get elected, that's the incentive we are looking for.

if they are doing other positive things for the country and they are not getting earmarks, i think that would help reduce spending. host: linda is a caller from iowa, on the republican line. good morning. curious about mr. contribute into this cause that he has. how does he get his funding? guest: we mentioned the funding earlier, the vast majority of our money comes from individuals, some from foundations and associations. the organization has been around since 1984, following the report of the grace commission. i joined in 1986 and have been doing this for some time. host: you said earlier that republicans in the senate said they were not going to do earmarks, and you talk about

nita lowey in the house. didn't years ago congress said they would stop doing earmarks? guest: moratorium, that's not a ban. it's a temporary suspension of whatever it might be, a temporary and do something. our definition is not the same as congress, although we point out in the pig book, since the moratorium projects that were earmarked before the moratorium we are still finding and we consider them to be earmarks after the moratorium. is aast-west center perfect example. it was added to the appropriation bill and the state department did not request the it was added in in the senate, but the house agreed and that was not helpful. you can argue under almost any definition that we can find, there is an earmark. host: bill is from crescent

city, florida, on the independent line. i have a few observation for mr. schatz regarding the overall spending versus military spending. i wanted to know, my understanding is that 50% of our ,ax dollars go to the military and i remember the military-industrial spending, and the bill at the end of the year for national defense authorization act, when these bills come about, you can pretty much throw anything in it, and if anyone questions that they come back with the old you are not supporting our troops. and there was the kloss -- cost plus spending that i learned about on the show iraq for sale,

50 news ago. i wanted mr. chas to address these things that i brought up. longerit's a much conversation, talking about military spending. in the congressional pig book we do identify wasteful spending. going back to the grace commission, which under president reagan found $104 billion of wasteful spending, 25% of that was defense. defense is not 50% of the budget, by the way, it's about half of discretionary spending but there's also non-discretion entitlement spending, which is 60% of the budget these days. host: let's talk to paul, on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning gentlemen, how are you? host: were doing well, go ahead. guest: i want to terminate the president's fund. pass paymentszed

to past presidents. think about it. president carter has been getting $500,000 a year for 38 years. and i will take mansour off the air. talk: it is something we about, there is some minimal bipartisan support to reduce funding for you to presidents but we cannot do it for past presidents -- for future presidents, but we cannot do it for past presidents. i think congress can pass some restriction on how much they get .rom the taxpayers past presidents and former presidents did not typically make a lot of money years and years ago, but now it's a different situation. the trend in congressional earmarks? it seemed like there was a , andy incline through 2005 it went down to zero in 2011 and

2013 and it seemed to be creeping up again. is there a cause for this rise and fall? was 2011 andomaly 2000 13, where they passed a continuing appropriations bill. they did not identify an individual bill so we could not find earmarks. not that they were not there. but they kept the spending at -- prior lee years year's level without being specific about where it was going. the trend was after the moratorium to average about $3.5 billion a year, and now it is up over the past years to a level of $15 million. the difference is the bipartisan budget agreement. they increased overall spending increased byrmarks more than 70% over that period of time. this is a massive increase, and one of the reasons why, if they bring them back, they will again be out of control. host: is it easy or hard for voters to find out who is behind

these earmarks? guest: it's harder than it used to be. they claim they are not adding earmarks that they don't have the transparency. and the rules that they have for transparency only apply during the 111th congress. which is why we know that that 15% of congress appropriators got more than half of the earmarks in the money. is calling from westville, new jersey, on the independent line. caller: i have a couple of questions i hope can be answered. for many years, we have been promised an audit of pentagon spending and it has never happened. i want to know who is responsible for doing the audit, and why it has not been done. morer earmarks, i'm concerned with international earmarks that we have. -- give to nato and we never get sufficient money back from them.

they have a lot of benefits, free university in europe, and our citizens are getting screwed. our social security fund has been looted and i want to know when the american eagle is going to do a giant low back on the pentagon and the people in office who actually are traders to -- trey taurus to their own traitors to their own country. guest: the pentagon has not passed their audit and we think it's important to protect citizens against government waste. the chief financial officers set in motion the idea that these should be -- and a regarding nato, this is a very small part of the budget and it's not earmarked exactly. on theavid is calling democratic line. good morning. caller: hello, how are you. host: i'm doing good, go ahead.

listening, this is the first time c-span has ever answered the phone during the first ring of the phone and it just came through. howuestion has to do with they got that tagline, with people drawing social security and the necessary spending for waterways,d our these areitalization, all things that are necessary and they have a tagline on it, and i forgot the word that you've all used and i think it's shameful. already making it to her people cannot make a living

anymore. -- how can people pay attention to their politicians if they have to work two or three jobs? guest: in most people's cases the largest payment they make his taxes. if you look at the other investments you may can you make sure it's being spent wisely and i think people need to do that with their tax dollars. calling from west virginia on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question as to who is authorizing all of this spending for trump to fly all over the and holdvery week these campaign rallies which probably cost a million dollars a trip. did congress authorize this spending? who is paying for all of these campaign rallies? thet: the campaign pays for

campaign rally, they have to reimburse the government as every campaign is had to do for every president regardless of which party they represent we had -- represent. host: we would like to thank , and the citizens against government waste to just put out the congressional pig book that

that is followed by a discussion on government spending with tom schad, the president of citizens against government waste. whistleblowers recently testified at a house veterans affairs subcommittee hearing on the role they played in exposing issues facing patients at va healthcare facilities throughout the country. the whistleblowers recounted their experiences, exposing failures in the agencies system, and the reli