senate on c-span2, watch any time on c-span.org or listen on the go the free c-span radio app. watch our live, daily, unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, >> our countries are linked by trade and travel. >> on issues that matter to you, > >> our ongoing mission to save lives and meet the needs of our health care workers. on theg with briefings coronavirus pandemic, supreme court arguments and decisions, >> thanks for coming out to say hello, everybody. >> and a latest on campaign 2020. be part of the conversation every day with our live, call-in program "washington journal." and if you missed any of our live coverage, watch anytime on demand on c-span.org or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. joining us is tom schatz,

president of citizens against government waste and he will talk about the 2020 government "pig book." good morning. guest: good morning. host: can you tell us exactly what citizens against government waste is and where you get your funding? guest: citizens against government waste was created in 1984 following the release of the report under praise that in reagan.- president citizens against government waste has been issuing the "pig 1991, porkbarrel spending or earmarks, so we are funded by the taxpayers. the paper came about in 1991. we worked with the pork busters

coalition and created a seven point criteria for determining what would be an earmark or porkbarrel project in the appropriations bill. this year, we have had $15.9 billion which is up by almost 4% from the prior year. this is going on, by the way, even what congress claims is an earmark moratorium. before we get into what you found, can you define what you are calling an earmark? guest: the seven point criteria includes whether the project was -- in conference between the house and senate, was requested only by the house or senate, whether it was authorized, had to be aborted, -- by the president, the subject of hearings, or serves only local

interests, and we have use that criteria since 1991. host: tell us what you found this year. earmarks are not supposed to be in any bills this year. can you describe the type of spending you found that you think falls under that definition? guest: let's take a little bit of perspective. the congressional budget office said in june of this year, the monthly deficit was $864 billion. amounthest prior monthly was $234 billion, about a quarter of that, and on an annual basis $864 billion would have been the sixth largest annual budget deficit in u.s. history. when we talk about extreme spending, we understand there is a pandemic, there is a lot to do and a lot that needs to be spent , but we think fiscal restraint still needs to be considered

because eventually everything has to get paid back. 2020, we found $15.9 billion in earmarks come up again 4% from the prior year, and we are almost at the level 2010, the last year before the moratorium, $16.5 billion. say it is onlyle a few million here or there, we found 111 earmarks. this does add up. host: we keep saying there is supposed to be a so-called moratorium on earmarks, so how are members of congress getting this money in there? are they doing it in a way in which they are not calling it earmarks but it really is, or are they ignoring the moratorium

and saying we are going to do it and not say anything? guest: everything is in the congressional "pig book" and has been since the moratorium and before. , they arer definition saying, we just don't have any earmarks. members of congress claim they are not doing it at all, and under their idea they don't have them, but a lot of members of congress -- we had a dozen members participating in our press conference on wednesday that they agree with us, there are still earmarks and something needs to be done. host: what are your topline findings? can you talk about some of the things you found that would qualify as an earmark? the pacific coastal salmon recovery fund, that is one thing i was pointing out. can you talk about that and why that for into the congressional "pig book"?

guest: it was added without any consideration, no committees, no hearings, was not requested by the president or the budget. this is the third year in a row this project has been in the appropriations bill. we are fairly certain this was added at the behest of senator patty murray. even though names are no longer attached to the earmarks, which means there is no transparency, although in two cases we do because members admitted, but the pacific coastal salmon recovery has been around, and you wonder about atlantic salmon and other that may need assistance, but they go through the competitive process of funding. this is outside the regular process and the federal process at government agency. up thehen you bring

pacific coast salmon recovery fund, what is the justification for that money, or is the money just there? guest: it is there because members of congress added it to the appropriations bill. they do not need to justify it the way they might in other circumstances. these are written into the bills , a very small group of members. when they have the names 2010,ed, between 2008 and there were 81 members of the house and senate appropriations got 51% of the number of earmarks and 61% of the money. a very small percentage, 15% of congress, 51 percent of the earmarks and 61% of the dollars. that is the way it works. they write the bills, they are in the room, and they get the pork. host: another thing you point

out is the f-35, the joint strike fighter. billion funding. why are you calling a military acquisition and earmark in the "pig book"? gost: it is 22 aircraft that beyond the amount requested by the department of defense. way, 13%, that one earmark was almost 13% of all the earmarks in spending for fiscal year 2020. this program is 19 years in development, nine years behind schedule. the acquisition costs were almost double the estimate. the most expensive weapons system in history, it is just really a poorly run and poorly done project. ,he late senator john mccain

when he was chairman of the senate armed services committee he said the program is "a scandal and a tragedy many people have criticized it -- and a tragedy." many people have criticized it. a lot of criticism has occurred for the f-35, and to add more than the pentagon needs, especially now when we have strains on the budget, it is not a good idea. host: let's open up this conversation to our viewers as well. we are talking about congressional earmarks and the 2020 congressional "pig book" list earmarksthey an advocate against them being in future budgets. we will open up our regular lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, you can call in at (202) 748-8001. independents, your line will be (202) 748-8002. remember for this conversation about earmarks, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, on twitter at c-span wj and facebook at facebook.com/c-span. we mentioned this a couple times ,lready, but during the earmark the earmark system -- older earmark system congress had to put their names behind earmarks. that practice seems to have gone away. what do you think about the current system where these earmarks show up and there is no real indication of who is asking for this money? few examples, a senator murray with the pacific salmon coastal recovery.

we would like to see the names. we are not encouraging them to bring back earmarks formally because they claim they are not doing them. we would like them to ban them permanently. one name we know for sure is senator brian schatz, no relation, who added $17.4 million for a private operation, but that is almost their whole budget and he has done that three years in a row. nowsed to be $5.9 million, it is $15.7 million. there used to be a north southcenter. that operation stopped receiving federal funding in 2001 and we think the same should be done for the east-west center. it really should be privately funded, one of the few examples

where we know which member of congress did it. host: one of our social media followers has a question, but i have an addition to it -- what do you believe is the most egregious earmark? that, whatto add to do you believe is the most egregious earmark in this current "pig book" summary and the most egregious earmark you have seen during your time tracking this issue? "egregious" has a lot of meanings to the word. the latent earmark adding the money for this one organization, for example $16 million for the save america's treasures program, which has over time been a waste of time going to but we do not know where the money is going. private the only

organization getting an earmark that we don't know where or why. people probably do not remember, at the bridge to nowhere, highway zone 2005, members of congress went to jail over earmarks, lobbyists went to jail over earmarks. this is a reminder that you really have to be careful about how this money is being spent. our viewers join the conversation. donald is calling from wilson, north carolina, on the democratic line. caller: good morning. itquestion is this -- how is possible that we as taxpayers have to give accountability for the amount of money that we make each year by paying taxes on it, but yet they can fund that type

and not, $65 million, give accountability as to where the money is being spent and to whom it is going to? a lack of responsibility on behalf of the government control. but yet at the same time, we are penalized if we do not pay our taxes. guest: that's true, and that's why you mentioned the word "accountability" is critical. that is why we publish the congressional "pig book" and the other information on waste to make taxpayers aware of their money and hold lawmakers accountable. analysis, itour was a sign that the members were aware. in 2019, the senate republican conference, just the senate

republicans and not the whole senate, agreed to waive permanent ban on air marks. that was the first time any group of members of congress voted to agree to a permanent ban on earmarks. to answer the other question about one of the worst ever, near the top of the list or at the top, 50 million dollars for an indoor rain forest in carlsbad, iowa added by senator chuck grassley. because they were matching funds for that project in iowa, the city did not want it and eventually they did not build it. that was half $1 million for a teapot using them in north carolina, but that was at the top of the worst ever. host: that was one of the questions i had. do you go back and track the things that are actually -- the

money is earmarked for like the indoor rain forest, are ever actually built? the bridge to nowhere, was it ever completed? does anyone track whether the projects for which these earmarks are put in congress for are actually even built in the final phase? guest: some are, some we hear about the teapot museum was never built because the collection did not show up. there was once an earmark to study goth culture in blue springs, missouri, and they decided that the kids that walked around wearing black and looking weird were really ok, so they sent the money back occasionally -- back. occasionally, the money gets sent back. we have an earmark database for now on ourrk,

website. if someone wants to look up something, they can do that. host: you partly answered my next question -- what happens if something is earmarked for a teapot museum and is never built? does that go back to the budget? do the people who asked for the earmark get to keep it? guest: there are two ways, they physically themselves senate back. because it was an act of congress that created the earmark, it creates -- requires an act of congress to take it back because of the process and how it works, even if money is not used and sits around, it does not expire. congress has to literally take it back so former senators tom moneysused to take back that had never been used, but since it stays in the state pot,

they do not like the idea of sending it back. they would like to get it redirected. it is a little tricky to get it back except when some locals have decided, we will write a check and send it back. from ironstone, ohio, on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. the only thing that comes to my mind is both parties are guilty of working with earmarks. they have been doing it for decades. the only thing that really crosses my mind here recently is totally sensed that the fed put $2 trillion into the stock market to make sure it would not belly up, and once again it is a question of accountability, and nobody is raising hell.

i do not understand. i work and i pay my taxes and i vote, and that is my comment. guest: thank you for doing all three of those things. it is important to hold everybody accountable. my father was the president of our local school board and i could never cut class, which was fine, but everybody held him accountable for property taxes, how the school was being run, what kind of education. you can hold people accountable at any level of government, sometimes easier to do locally. at the federal level it is harder and tough to see how it affects everyone, but it is important to get out and go to a virtual meeting with your elected officials and eventually back in person, and ask questions about what is happening with your money. they do not like being held accountable, and the more they are responsible and act sponsor

responsiblyscal -- with fiscal discipline, the more money we will have. host: calling from decatur, georgia, on the democrat line. goler: i would like to say to paradise to my congressman john lewis. the last time the united states was debt-free was 1835 and it lasted about one year. we have been in debt since 1836. why is that never talked about? i understand we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. that is never talked about. k street, the lobbyists, we should take on that. guest: with k street, they have tried to have revolving door laws where members of congress do not go to work on k street. we have had a few of those

reforms, six months or year, certainly something that should be looked at further. in terms of the debt, we have had debt and now have more than we ever have. interest on the national debt is the third-highest expenditure in washington. if we keep spending like this, and understanding we are in a unique situation, it will eventually become the most expensive part of our budget, and that is very difficult to live with. the highest expenditure that an individual or family has is an interest on their credit card, they will never paid off on defense -- never pay it off. on defense, i don't think we have more than all of the world combined so i don't think that number is quite accurate. host: this might be too early to ask the question i'm going to ask, but i'm going to ask it anyway.

there is a lot of spending going on by the federal government since march because of the pandemic. earmark likeg any funding in those federal through bills sneaking without anyone commenting on them? guest: not yet, but it is early. we look at the annual appropriations bills more than the emergency spending. examples whenn there was funding recovery from hurricane katrina and others. they have added in particular projects or have helped the "emergencies" with different types of activities from years prior. they do have some built-in accountability in these bills, the cares act is one. our biggest issue is how much is being spent and how many

programs are not related, not necessarily earmarked, but unrelated to the pandemic. they put out the highway bill and the house was moving forward, a $5 billion highway bill. withoutules committee, committee consideration and any vote anywhere else, nancy pelosi $1 trillion to the $500 billion, triple the size of the bill, and 90% of that had nothing to do with transportation. that is what we are more concerned about, using this crisis as an excuse to promote a particular agenda or provisions that are not related to the pandemic. host: i am going to read a story callwas printed by roll back in march talking about the return of earmarks, and i want you to react. here is the story from march 1.

house democrats do not plan to revise earmarks during the appropriations progress, although they continue to discuss them with their colleagues. thertunately, there is not necessary bipartisan, bicameral agreement to allow the committee to earmark, written in a letter released friday i do not expect fiscal year 2020 how spending bills to include congrats and -- they have been banned since john bader -- john boehner received approval in 2011. democrats have continued with the practice, even though they have not warmly adopted a ban. -- formally adopted a ban. there have been discussions of how congress can bring back earmarks without receiving

negative press attention, or unnecessary or frivolous spending. steny hoyer has been one of the leading house voices saying he supports a return to earmarking. i am working to support congress is ability of the power of the purse to ensure transparency and accountability, the maryland democrat said. i am discussing issues on both sides of the aisle in both chambers. richard shelby of alabama has waste support for a return to the practice in some form -- has voiced support for a return to the practice in some form. do you see a groundswell in congress to bring back earmarks with some reform? do you think congress will do that sometime soon or in the future? guest: it looks like if

democrats retake control of the house, they will and if they take control of the senate, it looks like they will. look who supported that article? the republican chairman. one thing they like to do on capitol hill is spend money. , 51% of themoney earmarks, 61% of the money, earmarks are in equitable, corrupt, and costly. to the of congress go appropriations committee with a list of what they want and vote for hundreds of billions of dollars for a bill they might not support, leaving fiscal conservatives to say, this will get me reelected and i want this project, this little bridge to be built which has no national throughcause it goes the process as the department -- of the department of transportation, it is something they earmark in. we will be vigilant against

ringing back earmarks. host: -- bringing back earmarks. host: here are some selected "pig book" earmarks and i want you to talk about them. fighter joint strike and we also talked about the pacific coastal salmon recovery fund. what is the aquatic plant control program? "earmark a $24 million what is it -- "earmark." what is it? guest: it has been around for years. when they had the project listed and had the numbers listed in the back of the appropriations bill, we knew where it was going but unfortunately now we don't. host: tell us about the $26 million for the wild horse and burro management. guest: that has been around for

a number of years. that is a program that does help the wild horses, but it is so much larger than it was, 90% higher, 13.8 million since the year 2018. now it is 26 million. a very large earmark, no discussion, no debate, just add it in. programe starbase youth , $65 million. guest: that is in the department of defense, one of the many stem programs or reports on stem programs. amount,the largest ever $35 million. we don't know which programs are helpful, which work or don't work. in 2018, the government

accountability office onto $.8 million was spent. states is still in the middle of the pack in the world for science and math achievement so it is not working. host: vernon is calling from north augustine, south carolina, good -- north augusta, south carolina. good morning. vernon, are you there? caller: just a minute. host: i think vernon might be having phone problems. caller: i am here. on aspeaking today based citizen in good standing. [indiscernible] i have always been a person who .elieves in god

we are all accountable for something. we must give account. that theways believed government set up by the people, should people [indiscernible] yes, they are accountable to the people and second to themselves because they are representatives of the people, by the people. , but then we right , peoplename the person responsible for bringing forth the earmark. that is my belief. i just want to be heard, number one. the right to speak, freedom of speech and freedom of information, part of my rights,

so that is how i speak to you today. host: go ahead and respond to him. guest: everybody needs to be accountable and we help our legislators are accountable how they spend our money. there is a lot of levels of how people look at their lives and what they should include in accountability. it is the overall big picture that we are talking about. host: we would like to thank tom schatz from the citizens against government waste for bringing us the 2020 congressional "pig book" summary where they point out what they call unnecessary government spending and government waste. thomas, thank you so much for >> c-span's washington journal live every day.

sunday morning>>, bishop aubrey, chair of the newly firmed conservative clergy of color will be on to talk about race relations in the u.s. also, abc news chief white house correspondent jonathan karl on his new book "front row at the trump show." experience covering the white house. and former ambassador to poland discusses the recent election and the future of europe. watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning. join the discussion. coming up tonight on c-span. next, it's q&a with the late congressman john lewis, discussing his wife and involvement in the civil rights movement, including the 1965 march from selma to montgomery, alabama. then he speaks with students at washington dc's eastern senior high school as part of c-span's students and leaders serie