. host: good morning on this friday, november 18, 2016. on today's washington journal, the headlines focus on donald trump as he continues to assemble his presidential team. to trump has tapped general michael flynn to be his national security advisor and this weekend, mr. trump will meet reportedly toey discuss a potential appointment as secretary of state. his proposals and headlines as

mayors from some of the nation's largest sanctuary cities are fighting back against mr. townss -- from cities and that refuse to share information or turn over undocumented immigrants to federal authorities which leads us to today's russians. what is your view of section where cities? our special lines for today's questions you can reach us on social media. we encourage people who live in some of the sanctuary cities, some of the largest in the united states which included new york and los angeles and chicago.

more about sanctuary cities in the current standoff between mayors and the president-elect. -- stand to lose billions in federal aid if donald trump fulfills promises to starve them financially. more than 200 u.s. section where he cities won't turn over people to federal officers, seeking to deport them or share information about them, but many of these thats have calculated dwindling populations and labor be ameliorated by immigrants, undocumented or not. the mayors must cut delete the point at which resistance will harm the community which they plan to protect. it exposes state and cities vulnerability to losing some of these dollars in federal funds they receive for police to

sidewalks as they confront obligations and shrinking budgets. that is the focus today, section where cities, as we hear from our viewers. one of those sanctuary cities, chicago is seeing its mayor fight back according to the chicago tribune. rahm emanuel says he doesn't think donald trump will cut off federal funding to century cities. first we have michigan.

you oppose century cities. why that? america.ood morning, yes i do, because it is not -- i oppose their stance against criminals, not against people who are not criminals. people who have committed crimes and have been in their jails and they refuse to turn them over to theyederal government when have no business being here to begin with and they are taking up space in prisons, jails, committing crimes against citizens, legal and illegal. i am sure those people in ,hicago who are getting shot their children, grandchildren are getting shot every weekend, mayor rahm emanuel should be ashamed. he should be helping the government round of those people

up and get rid of those desk it them out of those -- and get them out of those poor neighborhoods. if they did not cooperate, they should cut off funding until they do. host: joining us by phone to tell us about this standoff between several major cities and the incoming administration, she is a reporter for bloomberg news. thank you for joining us today. guest: thank you for having me. host: what is a sanctuary city? guest: a sanctuary city ranges and definition. lot of cities don't like being tagged with that definition. it means a city that refuses to cooperate with the federal fold --nt or request to without a warrant or probable cause.

how it works is the federal government will require [indiscernible] cities are saying we don't have [indiscernible] or for whatever reason they are being released. they don't have a legal warrant to hold that person anymore, so they set them free and say they authority that legal to keep a person in jail anymore. even though the federal government has asked them to do that. a lot of cities and police departments have been sued because they have been sued for wrongfully holding people in violation of the fourth amendment. counties andes and police departments are afraid they are going to have legal

liability in this issue. that is one of the areas that gets lost in this debate. a lot of cities that are grandstanding are not saying we are going to stand tough on this issue because we believe it is the right thing to do. a lot of them are afraid they are going to be sued. idea about hown many sanctuary cities there are in the united states and whether some of the -- and what are some of the larger ones? guest: the definitions fluctuate. .he are more than 200 a lot of section where cities have decided to cooperate -- a lot of sanctuary cities have decided to cooperate with the federal government. the bigger ones and most notable are san francisco, chicago, new york city. these are the major cities in america. host: what has the

president-elect promised to do? guest: we don't know how they are going to translate from the campaign trail into the white house. what he has said, he has invoked sanctuary city on the campaign trail, targeting san francisco, seeing there was the murder of the lady by the undocumented immigrant. lot.s talked about it a he has a 10 point immigration plan that he has on this transition website. in that plan, he says he will withhold funding from sanctuary city. that is all we know. we don't know how he is going to define a sanctuary city. we don't know if he is going to follow through. there is uncertainty. the mayors want to stand by their people, even if they are undocumented. the reality is they could stand to lose billions of dollars in federal funding. host: has there been any

legislative effort to strip funding? absolutely. this is how this one would unfold. it is possible he could do something at the executive level through the apartment of justice. -- through the department of justice. these have been introduced for some years. they stalled in congress for one reason or another. have donethe bills what donald trump says they want to do. which is strip federal funding from sanctuary cities. republicanst the control both houses of congress and the fact we have a republican in the white house does indicate this could gain traction in the coming months. host: thank you for joining us

today. guest: thanks for having me. host: we are talking with our viewers getting your views of sanctuary city. -- use of sanctuary cities. we encourage those 11 sanctuary city to give us a call. cities.se section where tell us why? are you there? we will take a look at low bit more about what exactly section where cities are from the washington post. definitionhere is no of sanctuary. authorities --

-- theovernments from washington post goes on to say up next, we have nikki calling in from new jersey. you are a supporter for sanctuary cities. tell us why. are you there? lost we are going to go to tom. he opposes sanctuary cities. tell is why. number one, it is against the law. the obama administration says

federal law that governs immigration when in arizona they were asking people for ids when they stop people from traffic violations, but now -- when it comes to sanctuary cities, somehow the federal government is not relevant. the other thing to is you hear the word "equality" pass around a lot. why is i.t. percent of our immigration from one country, mexico. where is equality there? the other thing to is if these people were likely token voters, i guarantee you there would not be a sanctuary city in a town in the united states. the hypocrisy of them caring about these people is embedded in one thought, they know they will likely vote democratic.

the other thing is -- host: let me ask you this. are you concerned about people who have been arrested for some specific charge? or would you like to see local officials alert the federal government whenever they encounter someone who may be in the country illegally? alerting? i don't know. the federal and government to enforce immigration laws, that is what i am against. the attitude though is that these people need to be protected. no, they need to be protected for one reason, people think they are going to be voting democratic. please don't try to fully on that. -- try to fool me on that. host: after meeting with donald trump, bill de blasio spoke about his deportation policy.

let's take a look. >> i gave him the perspective of initiativeat any that would create a rift between our police all over the country and the communities they serve, that would make it impossible for police and communities to communicate. so distrust between law enforcement and neighborhoods would be counterproductive. , that proposal countered and flew in the face of all that was great about new york city, the ultimate city of immigrants. a place that succeeded because it was open for everyone. generation by generation of immigrants. i read -- i reiterate to him that the city and so many other cities will do all we can to protect our residents and to

make sure the families are not torn apart. host: according to bloomberg, mayor de blasio said last week he would consider destroying a database of undocumented immigrants with city identification cards before handing such records over to the trump administration. on the line is derek calling from brooklyn. you support sanctuary cities. what is your reaction to the mayor's comments? caller: i agree with the mayor. just go around on our emotions in getting rid of people because we are deciding they are no good for america. i hate the fact when something wants to be done, they use criminals to fuel immigrants who have committed crimes to get rid of everyone. if someone is here illegally and commits a crime and they are incarcerated, then you can do whatever proceedings you need to

do. if it is a minor or misdemeanor or stuff below that, there is no need for removal. if it is a major crime, felonies, guns and things, then you have some right to stand on to deport those people. as far as immigrants working heart trying to make a wage, why are we now getting rid of them? is that going to solve our problem? is that going to solve america's problem? we have albums beyond that. that.have problems beyond mr. trump, these are bullying tactics. for whoever voted for him, this is what you signed up for. this was the fear of the american people that it would take us records and it will. like mayor bloomberg -- de blasio stated, our nation -- the officers and citizens which in the communities will be destroyed and we have worked so

hard to put that together. why are we now choosing to go backwards because mr. trump has decided that all of the illegal immigrants, it is time for them to go? host: more information from the migration policy institute about who is immigrating to the united states. 14, 1 .3 million foreign-born individuals moved to the united states and 11% increase of over 2013. india was the leading country of origin for new immigrants. followed by china, mexico and canada. then the philippines which make up the majority of people who come to the united states. we have a call from california. your support of sanctuary cities. tell us why. caller: it is precedent. we are talking about criminals,

not the regular general person who has worked very hard, and i was thinking they should get amnesty and become americans, because they are the ones that by our groceries. they are the ones who by our close and support our beautiful nation. when people start going against president trump, i feel like there's something wrong with this country where we are supposed to unite, whether we say the same thing. if hillary decided to do the same thing, no. united we stand, divided we fall. host: can i ask you a question? are you afraid what might happen to some of the cities if they lose federal funding, money that can go to hire police officers or help build roads? saidr: know, like you

about the percentage of asians and other nationalities, we are talking about why do they just pick on one nationality? it is not fair, because it is more than just one nationality. we are talking about crooks. we are talking about people who killed. we are talking about people who have been incarcerated, not people who are doing the thing like anybody else. we have to stand together and support our president. if we don't, what is going to happen to the united states? we are going to stay half-and-half? don't they know it takes people work? not somebody who says this is going to happen. it takes paperwork to do these things and as a nation, if we are standing together, and we are helping our president to do

this, there is nothing wrong with it. host: just a little more about some of our headlines about picks toump's fix -- his new white house team according to the new york times, president-elect donald j. trump has offered the post of national security advisor to michael t flynn next we have rob calling in from new york.

you oppose sanctuary cities. tell us why. caller: good morning. yes i do. we have laws. i keep hearing from your callers about the criminal element. if you came here illegally and you did not follow the right immigration path, you are a criminal. they need to go. i totally agree. i think it does sound mean, but we have laws in this country. as far as mayor deblasio saying he thought the police would not be trusted in the communities, people don't trust them now. according to the guardian website, police have killed 933 people that were in custody. police, you are not trusted right now. you have nothing to lose. host: let me ask you this, you agree that people who break laws should face immigration consequences. do you agree that the cities that refuse to turn over these folks should have federal

funding stripped of them as trump has promised? caller: yes i do. they don't deserve federal money if they are not going to obey the laws. there should be some sort of a punishment. host: ok. lisa is calling from new york. you support sanctuary cities. caller: i think that if this continues, he will be able to grab any group. this is the beginning of the ending of all liberties. this sounds to me like germany. like a fascist state where even the good people from these countries are going to be swooped up because of the bad ms 13 members who are felons. they should be exit died it and they have been under any them aquatic law. it is very dangerous. we have to watch trump. this is bigotry. i feel there are people here who

are working and honest people a lot of these people are trying to get legalization. why should you be throwing them out? we were in a lot of trouble with the strong. -- with this trump. i can see not to germany. most of the actions -- whether it is an arrest, misdemeanor or something more serious, do you agree with in that sense, as opposed to folks who have not been arrested? would you support local officials reporting to federal authorities when someone is arrested? caller: i don't feel that if people are not getting in trouble and not breaking the law , and they are law-abiding citizens, they should not be swooped up. i feel that if they are spellers -- they are felons, go back to

your own country. we are in very hard times. we are going to lose our liberties because one day it will be the mexicans, the next the italians have the mafia. let's ban all italians. they are in the mafia. he is very dangerous. host: some of our other headlines about the upcoming and formerween trump massachusetts governor, mitt romney. the cover of today's austin herald point -- boston herald pointed out.

the two have buried the hatchet and will be meeting on sunday in new jersey pe fund is coming in from boca raton, florida. you oppose sanctuary cities. caller: thank you for taking my call. a number of colors have mentioned it is against the law. , i law-abiding citizens don't think it is the right thing to do. the other thing is i am always hearing this is about the criminal illegal aliens. who wants criminals around? what is wrong with kicking them out? come on, people. let's get some sense. for the other ones who are not causing any problems and they never have any contact with police, i am pretty sure they are going to get to stay here. however, they should not be allowed to ever become citizens

unless they go back to their own country and sign up like everybody else. that is how i feel. thank you. host: rahm emanuel reiterated his support for the undocumented immigrants in his city, even in light of donald trump's election. let's take a look at what mayor emanuel said. >> you are safe in chicago. you are secure in chicago. you are supported in chicago. administrations may change but our values and principles of inclusion do not. all states, backgrounds and all parts of the -- the city of chicago. a chance atrs them

the american dream. host: that is mayor emanuel talking about sanctuary cities chicago one of the largest in the country. senator jeff sessions is given the attorney general post by president-elect donald trump. that is in breaking news. sen. sessions: be the next attorney general if he accepts the offer from president elect donald trump. is dead he was the leading candidate reportedly. was the leading candidate reportedly. he separated himself from the other contenders

ryan is calling in from knoxville, maryland. you oppose sanctuary cities. caller: i oppose them. everybody keeps talking about whether they are criminals are not, but since when did crossing our borders illegally not be a crime? i don't know any american citizen should get a waiver for the first federal crime they break in america. you this, whatk about the fact that a lot of people who are here illegally to support the economy and some of these mayors are concerned that a lot of that job force could hurt the economy just as much as losing the federal funding? it can -- caller: it can

open up quite a few jobs for americans. that is what it could do. nobody really has a clue what it is going to do because it is all speculation. what it will do is open of jobs for americans who are sitting at home with no job to have. host: ok, ray is calling in from clinton, pennsylvania. you opposed sanctuary cities. caller: i was a police officer for 25 years. the law is the law. if you're here illegally across the border, you have committed a crime. all of this superfluous garbage like the woman from new york, take a break, go color with your crayons. they are not illegal citizens. i can tell you this much, hillary did not win the popular vote. as far as out in california, -- they areoregon,

not citizens. they are 7 million of them who voted on the democratic side because they are getting all of the freebies, the goodies. they have lost the middle class vote. they are going after this illegal vote. hillary did not win the popular vote. a little more about sanctuary cities according to the washington post. critics of sanctuary cities

robert is calling in from worcester, massachusetts. you support sanctuary cities. one of the reasons i support them is because everybody has the right to have a chance in this nation. what sanctuary cities due to black americans and white people , it takes jobs away. nobody is talking about -- if you go to dunkin' donuts, there is no black person that works in note dunkin' donuts and worchester, massachusetts. if you go to the hospitals and nursing homes, all of the kenyans work in

the nursing homes and halfway houses. you go to confession companies, you have all of the italians and you have the iris people. everybody -- like americans and white americans, we have got to get ourselves together. we are going to lose this nation. god is going to help us all but we have got to work together on this black and white, because this is a black and white issue. race has to be talk about desktop about. wightman are hurting just as much as the black man. olympia is calling in. you opposed sanctuary cities. caller: i oppose sanctuary cities because i am from california. i grew up in the central valley area where we have a lot of the migrant workers coming in. a lot of my friends were children of undocumented workers.

the reason i oppose these cities is because like a few of the other colors, it is the law. as a citizen, if i break the law, i am going to get punished. undocumented people who come into this country should also be punished. the punishment is to be deported. about: -- host: what theirs and 11 -- an estimated 11 people -- it is not feasible to support them all -- is it better to give them some sort of protection? so they can continue to help the economy while they are here? i have heard that argument. the bottom line is, you're right. you are not going to deport 11 million people. what can happen is when we find out they are undocumented, they can be deported.

a lot of politicians talked about some sort of pathway to citizenship. in the meantime, they are breaking the law, no matter how small the law is. if i go out and break a law already now, i am going to have to pay for it. host: another headline from the hill.

p

ot atve

erotesut

t on iita sits o

the fourth ranking position in

ed77%tputherues,ab

product , domestic adding "there is not a lot of fiscal space should a shock to occur," are you concerned about the price tag and what that might mean? concerned. it would be nicer if we heard yellen when president bama drove the deficit to $1.4 trillion. we cut it roughly in half the last five years with the republican congress. and i think the basic point is rue, we are live nothing low inflationary era and frankly president obama had the benefit compliant fed and keeping interest rates very low,

masked the ly seriously of the deficit he was running up, he was able to do it with cheap money. that will probably not be true for the next president, i do rate we will have a increase in december, increasing the deficit because cost of willwing money goes up, it roughly double by moving it up a percent. but, you know, i think the bigger issue and frankly i would of both the clinton campaign and the trump campaign this and frankly very critical of current administration. deficit is ing the spending on entitlements. medicare, medicaid, social constitute ether roughly well over 60% of all federal spending. you throw in interest on the debt and food stamps, you're about 70%. you don't have plans to reform in those areas, then any ly you don't have serious deficit reduction plan. with ally have a bill

democrat john delaney, from maryland, excellent member of would on social reagany, do what ronald did with o'neil, set up a would be 7-6. obviously that would be republicans. have to have nine votes to report out reform plan. pretty good r reform plans out there developed, but congress never them f.nerve to vote on we pass this legislation, the commission would produce a plan, bitart san within a year and congress would have to vote up amendment within 60 days. i think the next president will save nique opportunity to social security, that is not a bad thing, it's a popular and very successful program. needs adjustments simply because the baby boomers are longer thand living any previous generation. now that i'm 67, i think that is

thing, it does mean you have to change the funding mechanism for these otherwise, that is what is bankrupting the government and people want to focus on and i agree that there certainly ways to and but the big thing is the big thing and the big things are entitlement programs this administration refuse to address them, frankly the to one is going to have address them or you're going to be trying to run fere-election now with rising deficit. host: another point about the deficit, mcginnis, who has been guest on this show and broke own both secretary clinton's and now president-elect donald trump's plan and said mr. trump's would have bigger impact on the deficit in poelitico she there is risk we will see on-slot of deficit finance

cuts, s, tax infrastructure spending, more on stimulus, the name of in reality balloan the debt. -- here a concern that guest: certainly is on my part. maya very well and has educating bution to the american public about this threat tochlt be fair this, is donald trump's fault, he hadn't been in office, it was president obama that doubled the in eight years from 10 to 20 trillion dollars and it a republican congress that on ed putting the breakos that. the deficit between 5 and 600 dollars was 1.4 trillion and the deficit went up every had a at the president democratic congress, didn't begin to come down until he got really had cans who backbone. maya's point is a good one, so

yours, you can't, now that you got a republican, say happy again.e here unless we move ahead and address entitlement spending then i some of these things, which i agree with, i agree with infrastructure, we have cut back dangerously on defense in a very uncertain world, but you pay for them. to me, the best way to do that is through quicker economic hope you'll be able to stimulate, we're not growing very fast. deal , you will have to with entitlements. if a republican congress fails criticisms these will be fair and probably come through. host: okay. john is calling from big ohio, on the republican line. john, you are on with tom cole.n caller: thank you for your time today, folks, i've got two sir.tions, i'll go off sxheer let you answer them. is on the protection act

that was introduced into congress not too long ago, i wonder if you were familiar with knew if it would be brought up now that we have a republican president? and two, you talked a lot about obamacare. understand that you a tponed the cadillac tax, separately, but hurting eally what is premiums and our ability to for the state of ohio to -- be quiet -- it hurts our ability to get insurance to the state of ohio because it was the state of ohio taxes s of dollars in that were going to be added to the budget, their budget.

host: okay. caller: i'll get off here, thank you. guest: i'm not familiar with the and protection act. i'm sure, like a lot, honestly won't get dealt with between now end of the year because there are only two legislative eeks left after thanksgiving, assuming congress stays on schedule. so there will be important happens, the at continuing resolution itself, is an es act, which effort to streamline regulation research and new drugs coming on, inject intoing things ke cure for cancer and andalzheimer's, other pieces of legislation, as well. something called water resources act.opment very bipartisan and popular. think those are things most likely to get done in the shortrun n. terms of the tax, i think that

probably will there will be an rid of it, t certainly to postpone it again. this is something republicans feel strongly about. something a lot of democrats oppose, as well, this as really pretty bipartisan when it was done. nobody likes taxing healthcare labor ce and a lot of unions and republican employee negotiated reasonably good healthcare plans that would be "taxed" under they are ax fist excessive. some way s been employers and states have chosen to compensate employees, give not good insurance, that is a taxable benefit in the federal code. buck t more bang for the by doing that. there is a lot of interesting conomic debate about whether that is right or wrong. i think probably mostly academic. you're not going to get republican congress raising taxes on people's healthcare

i don't think the democrats are either. work through repealing obamacare. you repeal it, need for additional revenue is not there. earlier, we a point are running deficit, so you have to replace theay money built in we expect by lowering cost on the government, so it didn't need additional revenue or by making the economy grow faster. everybody wants to grow faster, generates a lot more in the way of revenue, not to mention job opportunity for peep will. kenneth from arkansas on the democratic line. you are on with congressman tom cole. yes, sir, i have a question i want to ask you and i have a statement i want to put with this. want to know if you the democratic coalition with the tuesday morning learning that bannone broke

campaign finance laws, i want to state it for you so you understand what i'm talking about. according to the records, 950,000 dollars paid to bannon's the ny over the course of campaign pie pro-trump super pac, make america number one. it is against campaign finance laws for super pacs to the tly correlate with campaign they support. host: all right. respond.t congressman guest: i'm not familiar with it, i never met mr. bannon and this i heard of this particular charge. gain, anybody violating campaign laws, it does happen from time to time and sometimes inadvertently. we've made the whole process so omplex, honestly, people sometimes get in trouble not meaning to. is avaded, that is wrong. you shouldn't be coordinating, happened, i expect the appropriate action to be made by law enforcement.

give people the benefit of a doubt, wait and see happens, but something wrong is done, it ought to be exposed and prosecuted. host: mariah from wisconsin on the republican line. marrie.rning, caller: good morning. adhere to the to hold on legislative no rules the making for administrative agencies until in? next president comes guest: we're going to try. the president and these agencies are within their rights to do this, it is not a good practice rules and a bunch of leave stink bombs, if you will, for the next administration. i don't think the bush white did that frankly to president obama, i would hope obama white house and administration doesn't do that trump.oming president we passed legislation that would repeal thoseuickly

rules and there's also existing allows congress to go back 60 legislative days any regulation that's happened near the end of an administration. incoming sly, the administration has to be willing to sign something, in this case, don't think that is going to be a problem. i think we're in a good position of last-minute regulation and president-elect trump made it clear he will executive orders and rules passed during the obama administration. that is a good thing and congress is going to be very cooperative in that effort. republican ght, congressman tom cole of oklahoma, thank you, sir, for joining today. coming up, washington times jointer stephen dinan will us to talk about the upcoming showdown over congressional earmarks. we'll be right back.

>> announcer: this week the supreme court heard oral argument in two consolidated of s brought by the city miami against bank of america and wells fargo, argueing that housing act, the banks were involved in discrimnatory mortgage practices black and latino home buyers, resulting in loan and fore closure and less tax revenue for the city. evening at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. > "new york times" book

reviewer, writers on the literary life from the "new york "washington eview, post" lawry, with the book all," new era in sxment justice move former presidential candidate bernie sanders will take your about his and talk book. unday gets underway at 10:30 and features white house press book ary with her latest "let me tell bujasper, my best dog," became america's room," book "in the dark with the underground railroad miami books r of and books bookstore, mitchell kaplan. sunday:30 easte to book t.v. dot for

comp sule. >>re ag stuto t iontellinmen mosnt ior o xtsidentld ttheominngressddre compion is o t ool an sch studreat6-12 udenh work or i thre to e o seveteumenta o$5will g the ent orwith the erall ,000cash pwill 15 ahareden 202017adlis janu thatugurnay. morenforon abo decongchecakaiem td

pol6789

mmon assumption, earmarks they increase spending, reclaim control of discretionary spending, 1% from the executive preceding year, the practice improved by requiring all projects to be on a public website with a written justification. earmarks all together diminished congress' ability to solve hard problems, take often

entrifrned o income difference, it is impossible if there is nothing left to give or take. to that?our reaction guest: with the ability to use earmarks to gain support for specific bill you are dealing with or legislation all around, the ability to get that has taken a hit in congress over the last six or been years, earmarks have curtailed. now i've done a lot of work over earmarks, he also entioned transparency democratis did add to the process. for reporters, it was very us a chance to look at what was going on. my lastetails here from ig look in 2010, i'm sorry, 2009, at the end of that era of earmarking. actually, congressman cliburnefrshgs south carolina, $50,000 for a

local library in jamestown, carolina, but when the bill came out, it was actually 100,000 in the bill and for jamestown, california. so congress was actually sending the library as wanted and sending it to a across the iles country. that went on, we're not talking 100,000 dollars, that for money.s that, is zero those are mistakes that happen in there. library to d up the say what they need today for, they needed the money because around, books lying they didn't have shelves to put them up. they asked for $50,000. do for y were going to $100,000 to build more shell sure.s, they were not congress was able to of his own ccord, double the amount of money, unclear if the library could have used it, the money wrong ected to the library.

yes, there are political reason earmarms are good and earmarks can be shady and there are are -- earmarks were criminal, actually had i think reporters termed a "bribe menu," people, hey,d tell if you give me this much for my ki get you an earmark in this bill or get a company directed to a to your company or a company of your choice. of e are people, members congress who have absolutely that abuse hasgs been corrected, a member of to jail could still go or with the control of the imposed and democrats that, is unclear. the example i gave you, that was era g the more transparept of democrats. there were shading dealings then. on host: the republican line, good

morning, regina. morning.ood really good setup there, thank you very much. john e former congressman mmarshall from pennsylvania, he -- everything turned and r armstrong to tourism i even see that the $60 million coal jobs, f the part of that funding is coming tourismto bring in more jobs. i tell you what, the coal miners and peep they'll lost their to coal and making different products for coal really aren't interested in more and i'd like to see congressman tom massey's bill, yesterday, where he is saying motor vehicle taxes only for motor vehicle projects, no bike lanes, no seaside trails, no scenic biways and take it back states wants if the to do this.

we will have the money for brimmings. tommy matthews bill comes before. sed as they have been stolen for year necessary recreation projects to be used actually for roads, bridges, highways, infrastructure. money. would have the host: let's give stephen a chance to respond. congressmanentioned one of the chief earmarkers, i think he passed away, left congress and has ince passed away, he was the top democrat on the house appropriations subcommittee defense, for years and years and years. through that powerful position money back to on southeast pennsylvania district. illustrates you don't necessarily need to just do managed to get a lot of money there, put projects weren't specifically

an earmark, request for heythis, he got because he could go to people in the governments and say, i want to project in my district, he didn't need to peak it in a bill, he was powerful enough, he could say, if you are not willing to play ball with me, i think that you like may not make it into next year's bill. examples, for many years there was drug basically e center, wave studying within the justice department, it was an agency, tion, federal dedicated to sort of intelligence analysis of the drugs, in egal particular across the southwest board sxer it existed in his for years and years because he was a powerful member of congress who protected it. congress, i believe it was slashed in half and i haven't checked is ntly, i'm not sure if it

still there in a sfauler form or what. end up w much faculty with federal spending going on states.t or host: former senator jim demince, republican from south piece in the e a ill, with a differing opinion saying the ban on earmark place. replain in look at part of what he said. now as another wave crashes over hearing calls are from people claiming that there's too much transparency in wheels of d that the government are paralyzed because senators and representatives can essentially bribe each intorg cooperation, this is adness, the people voted to drain the swamp, not decorate it with ear tlt marks. who is supporting and push to lift the ban what it -- mr. demince's sentiments are? eekt

uest: he is head of the -- the interesting thing about demince he was firm earmarker early in his career. when the tide turned on capitol hill and he started seeing pushback from conservatives is out of control, he flipd and became an earmark is common for a umber of today's earmark opponent. early inticed earmarks his profession. personalities in this are fascinating. calling in carolyn my -- i'm revealing weaknesses, calling from tennessee from our democratic morning, carolyn. caller: thank you for taking my call. called california that in said the top pay for social

security, take it out of your payheck was $250,000. dealt just like having with helping people fill out their income taxes, the i would like c-span to correct that. the last i checked, it was only $118,000, which is gone up year after year. first started paying in tmaxed out at $7000. 120,000, it is 118, would you please correct that? thank you for taking my call. guest: this is why i love c-span. she's right. $118,000, it is $117 or indexedg up to $125,000 amount for next year. she's right, stunning. reviewers, i love the resource of c-span, i do this every time it.on here, make a plug for as someone who lives and

breathes capitol hill in my greatest , it is the resource, your viewers see almost everything that i see and intelligence of the viewers is great. she is right, the number is level and she's right just dexd and increases about every year. legislative n the process do earmark come in and ow are they considered or vetted? guest: under the theory, they technically don't exist now at all. when they did exist, two places where they would come into the were s, sometimes they written into the bill, more often than not, written into the report language and there would 100 pages or in the case of several thousand page report was congress' explanation of what it intended for all the it has ive language written. at the end, you would find, once

transparency, find a chart where it showed this is the person who requested it, they requestd h and this is where it is going, figure how i was able to out what cliburne sought for in jamestown, that wound up going california., we got a look at this there is an interesting wrinkle to this, george w. bush contended that earmarks in legislation, he didn't have very much he could do about. he contended earmarks written reports didn't have the inding effect of law, they weren't voted on arizona legislation, they were in attachment released along with the bill. a move to try and argue that he didn't have to spend the on any earmarks written into the report rather than to the actual legislation. appear in a number or

did appear in a number of different places. the final thing we should talk terms of the current practice is the difference congressional s, research saying, no remarks and roups like citizens who are against government wait. a seven-part n is two t as long as you meet or three parts, they consider it earmark. it may have been an earmark in a bill, if money is still going to that project six years fter earmarks were gone, monsestill going there, it is a good sense that maybe some is still ongressman influencing things to make sure money gets there. some, a the part of belief there are earmarks going on. host: bob calling from campbellsburg, indiana, on the independent line. good morning, bob. you for taking my call. moretephen dinan, earmarks commonly referred to as pork

projects, i think, they have tendency to lead to spending and convenient way for incumbents to is that not true? obtain he way for to power that, is true. the spending is debated, we ed, earlier from the op the head of bipartisan policy center wrote saying it didn't spending. i actually, there is counter vidence tow that and two parts of counter evidence, when ofublicans took full control congress -- i'm sorry, of the ouse in 2011, they actually imposed spending controls and in fact two separate year where is droppedfederal spending for two straight years, which ould go against what the bipartisan policy center said about the correlation of spending. the other thing about this, former senator tom coburn,

served 10 years in senate, most prominent opoponent in his time there. coburn was i believe after his time in congress, he wrote a book and talked about a think in tion bill, i 1998 transportation bill if i remember correctly. here isip would come up a pot of 11 or 12 million, whatever t money to projects in your district. people are like, i am not sure. $16 million to direct to your district and that as their way of getting people to buy on to what they might have otherwise thought was a bloated bill. there are w, arguments on both sides, some say that it didn't affect the verall level of spending and there are two examples i just gave, which suggest maybe it did ffect the overall level of spending.

host: talk about the president's role in earmarks can a president earmarks in acific bill or will we have to take it thing?ve the whole guest: no line item veto, that s one reason presidents have sought line item veto, to go after earmarks, that doesn't that is why the ransportation bill, presumably could have struck out the projects he didn't like, but had bill.o the entire every member of congress who had a project they liked in that that anted to override veto. that is the politics there. he other thing worth adding, members of congress say the president himself does earmarms, when the president doesn't say i want x amount of money, but says money for thet of agency and of that amount of million going to law enforcement center in this area. president at is the

earmarks fhe's able to earmark, be able to t we earmark? the president's role is complex. they have the premiere power and that is where we are in the fight, trying to that power verse us a president. ost: roy from salome springs, arkansas, on the republican line with stephen dinan. caller: thank you. taking my call. my name is roy hammers, i used to be the mayor. a dam between the spring and -- that the court engineers in 1946, i believe. it fell down and now flooding down to that is river south of dam, why isn't there earmark for that? one.ld really like to see

and that is what earmarks are it?d for, isn't guest: oh, yeah, a good example where earmark might be particularly for local constituents who want their members of congress to federal money, yeah, that would be a prime example of -- i the specifics on this case, but that is something we're one local, maybe a whole bunch of locals say that project should be built and the local of congress or senator would have, be in touch with constituents and be able to for that if earmarks were there, that project might get added into the mix because lawmaker is istening to constituents closely. host: talk about the cost of earmarks, do they redirect the actually a bill or make bills more expensive? they by and large, redirect, i mean the question is coburn example,

greases skids and allows bigger bills to get through, people have their small corner of the bill they are for. that is debated. large, there is government will spend whatever, humanillion on health and services with the department or something like that. inside that money, member of congress go out and carve out small level on the order of are ly the projects hundreds of thousand or low millions of dollars. here are big earmarks, the bridge to nowhere, we heard about earlier from one of the callers, this is what drew earmarks in the mid-2000s middle part of the decade, that was a couple hundred millions for a bridge an island inland to with population of 50 people, airport on the island, did it make sense to keep the ferry service going was much ere, which less expensive on a regular

this or should you build bridge and because population of got sland was so small it dubbed the bridge to nowhere, ended up becoming the face of armarks and helped draw elimination of earmarks. think orth noting that i in 2015 or 2014, alaska itself cancelled theally bridge to nowhere and tdz we're sticking with the ferry service. host: katie, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. as worked formerly appropriations staff president on the senate and one of the getting lost is in the earmark debate is how the earmark prohibition tied the hands of the appropriations committee. you an example. 95% ave a building that is

done. and it needs a certain amount of dditional money in order to finish it off. -- the sits in there 2-1/2 years waiting for to federal budget process catch up or have you an mergency situation where a school burns down and you need to relocate the children s. that unfortunately being interpreted prohibits now days this is an emergency situation, in eed to redirect an item the federal budget, i'm interested in the gentleman's overlap on how this between directing money and line iteming money and earmarks is now being interpreted and be -- that should guest: i think probably we could the federal say

budget process and appropriations process themselves are broken or at a little bit unhinged. the e best of all worlds, administration, who has the iant pot of money for in the case of the natural disaster, resumably fema, or some other agencies has a pot of money to deal with those situations if it a federal responsibility. you expect the administration to be spending that money. administration is ignoreing that need, the local members of congress think is caller makes , as a point, the congress has lost a tool to force the administration to pay attention by foregoing earmarks, they can write etters, make phone calls and that does go on. it's become known as letter members of e congress fire off letters to the agency saying, i know we are not allowed to tell you specifically where to spend this money, but we would like it for this area. it is less n,

fefktive than a report language you have to spend money here. there is absolutely a disconnect in the budget process. host: don calling from douglasville, georgia, on the republican line. you are on with stephen dinan. thank you. question and comment. i'm a disabled veteran, i spent years and they decided they didn't need to do all the epairs, more spare parts than your car right now, if you haven't got a new car. but the main thing i'm looking at, if we want to take and get the budget under we rol, can we or why can't earmark like donald trump is aking no money, no pay for being president because it is an honor. and senators ress

and such do the same? take 10% and donate back i know stead of because they got million dollars at least and a million dollars to e, i could take and live off that, my whole family could live off that for a lifetime and lifetime. host: all right. you want to respond? guest: some members forego salary, r part of their ut, you know, in the scheme of udget deficit, it went up in the last fiscal year for the first time in basically six or talking half e're a trillion dollars, the amount of money that gos to salaries is too little to make a difference in that. host: okay. stephen dinan politics editor at "washington times," thank you so much for joining us. pleasure. host: that is all for today's "washington journal," we will be tomorrow. a.m. have a good friday.

and a view of the lobby of trump tower. trump has been holding meetings with his transition team. in a kansas congressman and jeffd the cia sessions is to be the u.s. attorney general. michael flynn was chosen to be national security advisor. trump meet with former massachusetts governor mitt romney.