it has nothing to do with earmarks. earmarks would make the problem worse. they are corrupt and would cause more spending, not less. host: give us a little bit of the history of earmarks, how they were used in the past and why congress moved to do away with them. guest: a lot of people are talking about the article one power of the purse and that is basic earmarking. members of congress would be sitting there dividing this money for their own purposes and districts. earmarking exploded after newt gingrich told the appropriations committee, who fund projects in -- 12 years later, earmarks reached $29 billion. the year before that, 2005 with the highway bill with the bridge to nowhere, $24 billion in earmarks, and then the republicans lost their majority. two thirds of the republicans have been elected since 2010 and do not know about earmarks, but were elected in part because they were not around. host: how much support do you think there will be for the idea of bringing them back just for the reasons that the president stated? guest: one of the arguments bei

earmarks exploded. i frankly think -- when i say exploded, over 1,000 percent increase over the years from '95 through -- i'm not sure the year that 100% was. when you took over, earmarks substantially increased. there came a point in time, if you read "young guns." i don't know whether you have read that book, mr. mccarthy and mr. canter and mr. ryan wrote the book. they were very critical of earmarks, talking about your party, not my party but talking about how they had expanded and in effect we came to washington and we became washington. i'm not one of those who believes that's a legitimate argument just because you are in washington. there are good people in washington and good people around the country. hopefully, we pay attention to the good people. at that point in time, it became clear to your party that you had substantially escalated earmarks in the "young guns," which was written in 2010. it may have been 2009. those three leaders were very critical of them. speaker boehner was not a propone

there was nothing like that for earmarks in that earmarks should any earmark have that same amplifying information which includes the historic funding level, economic analysis and justification for the project, make a legislation including earmarks available for public review and also create a viable enforcement next is and we would agree with the comments and observations about putting in a legislative language. it was hard to try to vote on earmarks. they would end up having limitation amendments. also, just quickly panelists-- the next panelists and myself worked with the lobbyists who were pro- earmark and came up with recommendations as well and i will quickly mention those. congress should limit earmark struck it to contributors, to eliminate the connection-- >> wait a minute. wait a minute. go back to that one. >> cut the cord between earmark and contributions. in limine, yes, sorry. to eliminate connection between legislative and campaign contributions legislative staff should be barred in participating in fund-raising activities. to ensure taxpayer money has been set-- it coul

look, i came here when we were doing earmarks. my predecessor did not do earmarks. i recognize that we had some serious transportation problems in denton and tarrant county. i availed myself of earmarks in the first couple terms i was up here. but i did not think that was a good way to go about the allocation of resources. i worried about it at the time. say a powerful and influential chairman of the rules committee that could pull all of those dollars to 635, and we had a very hard time getting any money for widening 380 between denton and decatur. so it's kind of a two-edge sword. really, i think what it comes down to, and perhaps what i'd like to ask our witnesses, is the whole issue of resource allocation. and you kind of have mentioned that. i'll just tell you, in texas we are facing a -- i don't even know what to make of the situation. the devastation from hurricane harvey, the number of dollars that we've already appropriated in disaster assistance, the bill we had on the floor of the house that's hung up in the senate, an enormous spending bill. the allocati

he said, you send me something full of earmarks, i will veto it. in -- and democrats said they will not do this. we want to continue the moratorium and put it into a statute. >> president trump says he wants to drain the swap and something no one likes is earmarks unless it happens in the district. how do you communicate in your -- to lawmakers that at the end of the day, when it comes down to it, maybe they are ok? swap, they are the do not just leave the swap like behavior -- they are a gateway drug. to bigger government and more spending. once you agree to accept and earmark, you agree to accept the entire package of legislation that includes everyone else's earmarks and every other government program that maybe into the bill. >> do you think by getting rid of earmarks, it would make the cost of doing business in washington easier or more difficult because there is not that negotiation that can do one, as you called it, a gateway drug? >> for the small handful of people who aspire to be able to control congress again, in the hands of a few, they

and during that time we had earmarks for part of the time and went without earmarks part of the time. 2005 i think everybody recognizes was the high point or the low point, if you want to put it that way. there were a total of 16,000 earmarks spread across 12 appropriation bills and one authorization bill. worth about $30 billion. now, you would think that if you had that much to grease the skids in washington, that we should have been able to pass all appropriation measures and move through the process. we've had more collegial compliant body. during that time in 2005, i just checked, we passed only five appropriation bills in the house. only five. we ended up with an omnibus bill. and that was when republicans controlled the house, the senate, and the white house. so this notion that we've got to have earmarks and if we just get back to earmarks, then this place will run smoothly, we'll get through the appropriation bills, 16,000 earmarks worth about $30 billion, only five appropriation bills approved. we all remember too well the indoor rain forest in iowa, the tea pot museum in no

, the old earmark system, how there was great friendliness when they had earmarks.had other problems with earmarks. maybe all you should start thinking back to going to a form of earmarks? trish: president trump shocking many members of his own party proposing to bring back earmarks. those are the pork-barrel spending things you hear about, we all get very mad about. they're used basically for congress to get things done. okay, you give me this, you will get a little money for the pet project that you wanted in iowa. a week later the idea is actually getting traction on capitol hill from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. focus of a hearing just wrapping up in the senate. adam shapiro is live on capitol hill with more on this adam? reporter: right, trish. we're all familiar with some of the earmark abuse of the past because there are no earmarks right now. but for instance, there was a bridge to nowhere, with the island only 50 people in alaska. much $200 million. there was $15,000 to research the effects of alcohol on the motor systems of mice. they did that at

with earmarks. maybe all of you should think about going back to a form of earmarks. this system -- no. >> you can see that got quite a reaction. it's a term you've likely hard or heard of this one, pork barrel spending. they are basically the same thing. congress works on a bill usually an appropriations measure which means something that requires spending. a member of congress adds an earmark or pork to that bill. the earmark many times has nothing to do with the original legislation or maybe it's related but it just funnels money to bloated pet projects usually in a congress member's district. president trump says it was way to grease the wheels for compromise. critics say it was ripe with construction and waste. for close votes on bill, opposing politicians could be given special earmarks that sent federal tlar tladollars to thei state or district. it could fund anything from defense contracts to bloated construction projects. let's take a look at a few of them. earmarks plopped into a defense a

that >> neil: the president wants earmarks back, do you? >> i'm not a big fan of earmarks, no.t our constitutional responsibility should lie with the entire 1.1 trillion that we're about to appropriate. not just a few small dollars. it's normally a way to provide leverage and increase spending. i don't know it's something i could support. >> neil: even though the president says it's way to get both sides talking. >> the president, this is not -- this one of the few things that is not the president's decision. it's really a decision of the house. so, you know, if you're going to say agrees the skids by spending more money that's not what moms and dads back home told me to do. >> neil: chairman, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> neil: so much has to be done, a little more than two weeks. the president says he started a discussion. today he did. "the five" is negligent. puts me at greater risk for heart attack or stroke. can one medicine help treat both blood sugar and cardiovascular risk? i asked my doctor. she told me about non-insulin victoza®. victoza® is not only proven t

>>> remember all the outrage about ridiculous earmarks. think about the bridge to nowhere in alaska or the teapot museum. you been there? >> nope. >> me neither. president trump says he wants earmarks back and if that happens maryland and virginia could win big. >> if there's a constant on capitol hill it's grid locked. >> it's laid upon the table. >> the president has an idea to get things going. >> maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks. >> his logic, let the money and deals flow. so members get rewards if they vote for tough bills. but earmarks were banned back in 2011 because they're often wasteful. think peanut research or tattoo removal. but in an analysis of earmarks by wusa 9 and the database ledge virginia cashed out. in virginia alone nearly $1 billion went to fort bellmar. one of the largest projects since the pentagon. it's the giant headquarters of the national intelligence agency. in maryland. calls that labeled earmarks quote, the gate way drug to corruption and overspending. >> what ab

. >>> president trump wants to bring back earmarks. you know those little items slipped into government spending bills. that could be a big win for us. and comments from singer kelly clarkson about spanking her children. lighting up our wusa 9 facebook page. >> a superintendent responding af z2i1zz z16fz y2i1zy y16fy and when youod sugar is a replace one meal... choices. ...or snack a day with glucerna... ...made with carbsteady... ...to help minimize blood sugar spikes... ...you can really feel it. now with 30% less carbs and sugars. glucerna. >>> new information tonight after this emotional video of a teacher being taken down and arrested. it happened after that louisiana educator spoke out at a school board meeting. spoke out against her superintendent who was getting a raise he and his staff are receiving threats ever since the arrest. the board president ruled diasha hardgrave out of order. when the marshal told her to leave. she complied and was arrested anyway. >> i'm a superintendent, i'm to blame. >> what did you do wrong? >>

you don't need earmarks.d smart coalitions of people who will get together and pursue the truth and do the right thing. i know that's wildly optimistic. >> it might not yield policy you or i like. i don't think there is necessarily a libertarian coalition to abolish the department transportation but there may be one to dial down domestic spying. that would be the sort of thing. but members of congress don't think it's their job to govern. they think it's their job to get re-elected. getting re-elected means standing with the party leadership and most of importantly avoiding tough votes. if you are going to avoid tough votes, then the on way to grease the skids is through this pork. the dollar amounts on pork barrel items, it adds up to little. but it creates corrupt incentives for federal government to get involved in ways it shouldn't be and brings in the private sector and the k street guys to suckle at the teat and it brings corruption. kennedy: a rare snow day in texas. one dad decided to circle the wagon

the swamp water is actually earmarks and it is insane to hold hearings on earmarks.ve, you and i agree on almost nothing. we agree on this. i wish you were advising. why don't you advise him this is so stupid u? this is would turn back the clock, waste money. and actually not bring anybody together. >> by the way, you know, one of the reasons historically that members of congress have put earmarks in the bill is to get re-elected. in this case, robert is right. so if any friends in the white house are lestistening, don't g there. you going to so disgust voters that you're going to lead them to vote out the guys. one other quick thing -- >> one of the biggest problems here, really, is that political power trumps, not to use an overused expression, the merits of any project. it's all once you admit earmarks, it's all about who has the power to get a particular pile of swamp grass to their own -- >> you both agree on this. i agree. i have something you will not fully agree on. robert, you wrote this, it is titled trump may be dumb, but he has plenty of emotional intelli

, the old earmark system. maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks. >> defined as specific money designated for a specific project at a specific place by a specific lawmaker. the house rules committee is expected to announce hearings in the coming days to look at the pros and cons of bringing them back. >> encourage the members to talk about budget process reforms. many have opinions on the issue but i want members to have conversations. >> we are asking for a chance to have that ideas and take the ideas we think are best and make a recommendation. >> i stand opposed to this legislation because spreading pork around to score enough votes to pass this turkey is wrong. >> john boehner led a crusade against earmarks. >> i told my constituents in 1990 that if they thought my job was to come to washington and robbed the public treasury on their behalf, they are voting for wrong guy. >> the project in alaska became a symbol of fiscally responsibility. it made the term earmark tox

dagen: gary b., yes or no on earmarks? >> well, yes i guess and here is why. dagen: good. >> we are the united states of america. we're not called the kingdom of america, where a king can rule, we have all of the states fighting with each other. you give me this i give you that that's the way it works, yes it's horrible but that's the way bills are passed because the states look out for themselves as it should be. dagen: jonas, my personal favorite earmark shame manure management what do you say? >> somethings right in the empire in the 80s in new york city you couldn't get a concrete truck to show up without greasing somebody's palms that's how it works and now small states like alaska are deciding big policy decisions like repeal ing obamacare because they're not getting the bridges to nowhere they get to get votes and now we have no policies any more. dagen: jess? >> no on the earmarks, but maybe we could reform the process and make it a little bit cleaner and then we could get that i agree this but i don't think the american people should be ripped off so

steve: what are earmarks?>> earmarks are targeted extending projects that lawmakers on both sides could say i have $100,000 that's going to go to the bridge and people got frustrated with it, the fix for it didn't fix it. they said you can no longer have earmarks and it's made it harder for the president and leaders of both parties to throw a bone to somebody so they will vote for repealing or replacing obamacare or the tax cuts. some people say that's great because we don't want to bring back corruption. no, the corruption has been changed so instead of lawmakersing earmarks, they pass a bill and the one million or two million gets passed between the republican branch. they're not elected, they're unelected bureaucrats. maybe bring back earmarks. they're going to have hearings in public, they're not doing this secretly. the president said it out loud. i would argue you bring transparency to it so democrats and republicans have to say i was behind that bridge to no where. i'm the one who put the money in there

going back to a form of earmarks.e are back with - -. kim, is the president right that your mark should be brought back? >> this may count as worst idea in washington ever.look, the president is right that we don't have a system that lends itself to getting stuff done. that was the case even back when we had earmarks. if he thinks that tossing people bridges and crossings and museums that suddenly democrats will support him. he might want to think his midterm strategy. the problem with earmarks is that they are a gateway drug to more spending at a time congress needs to be fiscally responsible.>> what about the argument that if you can just give a few little projects on the side to people, then you can make them vote - - help them make a hard vote on medicare reform. you'll save a lot more money in the long run. it's the grease for democracy and legislating. not a gateway drug. >> i would say # resist. democrats are not going to sign on to a medicare vote just because someone gave them a project in their district. the

speaker ryan: i was one of the guys who authored the ban on earmarks. there is a frustration among many of our members that the constitutional responsibility of the article one constitutional powers has been ceded to the executive branch too much. there is a legitimate argument to be made there, but i do have concerns about the old pork-barrel earmark process that i helped stop. but i do believe there is a concern about having more legislative branch oversight on how the executive branch spends money. but we have to make sure this does not -- we have to make sure we go do not go back to pork-barrel spending. >> are you worried is earmarks came back it could hurt members in the house? speaker ryan i'm worried it : could lead to bad government. that is what i worry about. >> steny hoyer said that republicans say the democrats will take back the house next year. speaker ryan: i cannot speak for that. republicans do not tell me that. >> final question, in regards to chairman ed royce. who is stepping down. should you readdress the issue of term limits? on c

had earmarks.course, they had other problems with earmarks. maybe all of you should start thinking about going to a four months earmarks, because this is -- >> dana: president trump ringing back the idea of earmarks. michael mayhem, president and ceo of communications and a former chief of staff or washington senator maria cantwell. chairman of the american serve linac conservative union. let me read to you what senator claire mccaskill tweeted. she said the president just embraced earmarks, talk about the swamp of swamp creatures, she is probably thinking about the bridge to nowhere and how that fueled a lot of frustration into country and fed into the tea party. what do you think of this idea that is there is some merit to having some way to get these deals done? >> i am lukewarm at best, but i do think it is interesting that claire mccaskill chose to criticize the president, because i thought that that was the most extraordinary video, i have seen coming out of the white house. i think the whole

i hear so much about earmarks and how there was a great friendliness when you had earmarks. of course they had other problems, but maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks. [ laughter ] no? well, you should do it. and i'm there with you. this system really lends itself to not getting along. it lends itself to hostility and anger and they hate the republicans and the democrats and in the old days, can you say what you want about certain presidents and others where they went out to dinner at night and all got along and passed bills. that was an earmark system and we should think about it and put better controls because it got out of hand. maybe that brings people together. our system the way it is set up will never bring people together. we will get this done. daca. i hope we are going to get infrastructure done. i think you should look at it and i see lindsey nodding. a lot of them are saying if you want to get along and get it rolling again, you have to look at a different form. this is obviously oust control. the levels of hatred and i'm

all of those things take the place of earmarks or certainly come before earmark discussion in my books vote likely to come in the house, congressman, to keep the government going for another few weeks. >> i don't think republicans in the house are going shut down the authorize. we're going to reauthorize chip, get rid of the medical device tax which hl hurts minnesota and see if senate democrats shut down the government over daca amnesty or anything else. we'll get it out of house and do the right thing by the american people. neil: are you worried your party gets the blame when that happens? >> i certainly think if the democrats shut down the government, we would get the blame. i think it's why they shouldn't shut the government down or any other chamber. >> there is doubt among more conservative members this might be a tough sell. they're worried it's stumbling, staggering more like it into a temporary continuing resolution, that's not the way to do things? >> there's no evidence whatsoever, we vote this down, the democrats come on board. why would you want to do that? there's good

the old earmark system. how there was a great friendliness when you had earmarks but, of course they had other problems with earmarks but maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks because this system -- this system -- no. well, you should do it and i'm there with you, because this system really lends itself to not getting along. it lends itself to hostility and anger and they hate the republicans and they hate the democrats and in the old days of earmarks, you can say what you want about certain president's and others where they all talk about they went out to dinner at night and they all got along and they passed bills. that was an earmark system and maybe we should think about it and we have to put better controls because it got a little bit out of hand. our system right now the way it's set up will never bring people together. i think we'll get this done, daca. i hope we're going to get infrastructure done in the same way, but i think you should look at a form of earmar

that was an earmark system. and maybe we should think about it and we have to put better control because it got a little bit out of hand. but maybe that brings people together. because our system right now, the way it's set up, will never bring people together. i think we're going to get this done, daca. i think we're going to get -- i hope we're going to get infrastructure done in the same way. i think you should look at a form of ear marks. i see lindsay nodding very happily yes. a lot of the pros are saying if you want to get along if you want to get this country really rolling again, you have to look at a different form. because this is obviously out of control. the levels of hatred. i'm not talking about trump. i'm talking, you go back throughout the eight years of obama and you go before that. the animosity and the hatred between republicans and democrats. i mean, i remember when i used to go out in washington and i'd see democrats having dinner with republicans and they were best friends and everybody got

that was an earmark system.ld think about it and we have to put better controls because it got a little out of hand, but maybe that brings people together. >> you know, casey hunt, and mika, let's start with you, mika, sten y hoyer is sitting there thinking i agree with every single syllable this man is saying when it comes to earmarks. you know, people, reformers wanted to get rid of earmarks for good reasons, but if you needed to get something done, you could use an earmark and get certain members to come over to your side on a vote and move legislation. >> yeah. and casey hunt, just remember any conversation that you ever have with donald trump, if you got him in a room and you sort of tried to nail him down on issues, you would ask discover that he's a democrat. >> on this earmark issue, the president is right. it was easier to get things done when earmarks were around. you can see the business guy who wants to be able to shut the door behind two people and offer things. you want this, you want that? i'll ma

had earmarks. but of course, they had other problems with earmarks. but maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks -- [laughter] because this -- [laughter] because this system -- this system, no. well, you should do it and i'm there with you, because this system really lends itself to not getting along. that was an earmark system and maybe we should think about it and we have to put better controls because it got a little bit out of hand. our system right now the way it's set up will never bring people together. i think we'll get this done, daca. i hope we're going to get infrastructure done in the same way, but i think you should look at a form of earmarks. i see lindsey nodding very happily yes but a lot of the pros are saying if you want to get along and if you want to get this country really rolling again, you have to look at a different form because this is obviously out of control. the levels of hatred, i'm not talking about trump. you go pack throughout the

>> you know, one defender of earmarks is dick derben who was sitting right next to him.ty of lawmakers its took them decades to get rid of earmarks and they did that under john. i don't think the people are going to -- >> share our pots of money. >> that would not be draining the swamp. that would be diving into it head first. zach wolf, thank you. >> nice to see you, zach and we'll hear the president today at 3:20 eastern time. he'll have a press conference with the norwegian prime minister. >> more than a dozen people are dead after powerful mud slides in california. will the weather cooperate for cleanup efforts, next. let's go to sumatra. where's sumatra? good question. this is win. and that's win's goat, adi. the coffee here is amazing. because the volcanic soil is amazing. making the coffee erupt with flavor. so we give farmers like win more plants. to grow more delicious coffee. that erupts with even more flavor. which helps provide for win's family. and adi the goat's family too. because his kids eat a lot. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountai

he worries his colleagues will sink into the worst days of porkbarrel spending if they return to earmarks. they must be wary of the abuses of the past, that it could lead to bad government. here's the interview with the speaker in its entirety during which he also talks about what's ahead in congress, his relationship with the white house, and his portico future. >> house speaker paul ryan, thanks for joining us on c-span. let's talk about this tax bill. members of your party are saying there need to be some fixes and revisions to the bill. what change, if any, is needed. >> it's good to be back. >> come by anytime. >> anytime you do massive legislation like this, this is the biggest revision. the last was in 86 and this is bigger than that. we know all along when you have such a massive rewrite you will have technical changes that will need to occur. we wrote our tax system on how we treat international economics and cash flow. we knew that would need some revising. so far, not a lot that really needs to be done other than what i would call small things. >> no republican support for the

. >> shepard: the president says that congress should consider going back to earmarks. we reported on this yesterday. earmarks with a provision lawmakers tack on to spending bills to pay for projects in their home state. that whole "i scratch your back, you scratch my back" is how congress works situation, that ended in 2011. house republicans banned it then saying it corrupts lawmakers and encourages them to support bad bills. they called it pork barrel politics. critics say earmarks help give washington its reputation as a swamp which the president has promised to drain. but the president says earmarks might help congress actually get things done. which they would. but conservatives were against that. chief white house correspondent john roberts live on the north lawn. >> good afternoon. you know, this talk about earmarks, trying to figure it where it came from, did somebody put the bug in the president's ear this would be a good thing to talk about at this meeting. i wasn't able to come up with any one particular kwvergs that got him on to the earmark idea. it was to

about going back to a form of earmarks.ll, you should do it and i am here with you because this really lends itself to not getting along. it lends itself to hostility and anger and hate the republican and democrats. in the old days of earmarks you can say what you want about certain presis and others who may not going out to dinner at night and they all got along and they pass bills, that was an earmark system. maybe we should think about it and we have to put better controls because they got a little bit out of hand, but maybe that brings people together. our system the way it set up will never bring people together. i think we would get this done, daca. i hope we'll get infrastructure done in the same way, but you should look at a form of earmarks. i see lindsay nodded and very happily. [inaudible] [laughter] if you want to get along and you want to get this country moving, rolling again, this is obviously out of control. i'm not talking about trump, the eight years of obama and before that. the animosity and hatred betwe

will not reside on earmarks.t will be based upon votes in the house and the success of the needs of the nation. >> proponents, including republicans who have all of a sudden jumped on the bandwagon, saying there are good things with this, you can get things done, that the bureaucrats won't be in control. that this is why you don't have any sort of bipartisanship, that this is glue that can knit together. they also say the numbers aren't that much in the grand scheme of things. five billion here, 15 billion there. >> right, right. the numbers are small. the bottom line, is that today, we as members of congress, cannot give any feedback about any sort of measure, any sort of project, that the state or that that district may have. it will allow us to make sure that we have to put our name there, and i believe the process would be one that would say it will be decided here where we appropriate money, not somewhere where we have to go fight and dig to find out and get information. that's what we had to do with cylendr

i'm wondering if earmarks are really the issue. >> the president suggested earmarks at that meeting two tuesdays ago, the projects that could have gotten people to the table. >> i actually was on the appropriations process and also served in republican leadership when we had a five vote majority. earmarks are congressionally directed spending. so you say to the burebureaucra democrat or republican, that the department of transportation we actually want to build a road here, we want to dredge this port there, or we want research in the case of something i worked on transitioning from tobacco to blueberry production. and what happens is you get skin in the game on individual spending. it does not break the budget because it is built into the budget and it does help pass legislation. >> got a huge laugh in that meeting two tuesdays ago. >> because this is about much larger issues. and to democrats and republican, it is about in part the fact that running government can be about short term cr to short term cr to short term cr. and if you talk to against hade hawks, many democrats, that is t

david: now earmarks for my lifetime have been part of the swamp.t pork, that is the definition of beltway, pork, right? >> no doubt about it. i was shocked when i heard that. but knowing president trump, there is something behind that. maybe he is tossing a softball to the establishment leadership in the house and senate because he wants to get these next bills passed. i can't believe for a second that this president is supportive of earmarks. i can't believe it. yes, they are part of the swamp. they're an indicator of the swamp we have here in washington, d.c. we all remember the bridge to nowhere. david: that's right. essentially where you trade a political favor for something in your district. so it is like getting a campaign contribution from other members of congress. but you don't think it is going to go out there? this is just something you threw out maybe to chide some people that thought, they could read his mind? >> it is going to be debated with our rules committee here in the house the next few weeks, the idea of a limited amount of ear

they want to evaluate the merits of restoring to form earmarks. a lawmaker's ability to direct federal funding for certain projects under pressure conservatives. dr. tom coburn, this must drive you have crazy. >> it's absolutely tone deaf. if they don't have any idea what the last election was about, it's in the about career politicians take our money to buy our votes with something they have direct to their states. he it's a disaster for republicans and a disaster for anybody that folks for it. anybody that votes for returning earmarks says i admit i'm corrupt and don't care about the future. all i care about is my position as a congressman or senator. charles: president trump used the word honesty. i don't have trust in lawmakers to do the right thing by the american public. >> what the american public doesn't understand is appropriation committees are run by staff, not by members. they are susceptible to all the lobbying that goes felon this country that will cause them to put stuff in bills that no member will ever know, but it will guarantee

i hear so much about earmarks, the old earmark system. of course, they had other problems with earmarks, but maybe all of you should think about going back to a form of earmarks, because this system -- you should do it. >> charlie? >> as i mentioned, i think that's the swampiest thing you could possibly do to bring back pork barrel spending. this was a reform the conservatives had been pushing for decades. it would be an extraordinary moment for republicans to say, yeah, forget about that, let's go back to buying congressional votes with pork barrel spending. i can't imagine it's going to go anywhere. >> charlie sykes, jen palmeri, thank you both so much. >>> meanwhile out west a terrible tragedy continuing in california. the desperate search there for eight missing california residents after days of devastating mudslides, leaving at least 17 people dead. krcrippled communities along th santa barbara coast trying to recover. gadi schwartz joining us with the latest from there. >> andrea, we know that 20 to 25% of the affected were homes t

explain what the president means maybe it would be a good idea to bring back earmarks? >> i think he's sharing a lot of the frustration the american people have now. we have people in different camps unable to get along. i think there's something said back in the day with earmarks it provided grease to get things done. but i think there's plenty of arguments to say it also did help create a swamp condition here, and people were incentiviz incentivized to vote for the bill on the wrong reasons. >> when they were prevalent and resulted in all sorts of crummy spending for projects, work, if you will in various districts and states, to get some piece of legislation the american public hated that. maybe it's time to bring back the earmarks. >> well, i think the president is frustrated with congress's n inability to get things done in a bipartisan fashion. >> thank you for allowing that meeting today to be open to our tv cameras. i think it was very productive, very important. >> we'll keep doing it, wolf. >> appreciate it. >>> just ahead, president trump tells republicans an