in the weeks that lie ahead, the famous and intellectual men and women that occupy those seats are going to have a lot to say about the society in which we live today in a solution for the ills of our times. saturday, american history tv will air the tempered season, free to choose with milton friedman. he coproduced a series with his wife and fellow economist wrote friedman and at first aired on public television in 1980. they also wrote a book with the same name. they take us to the location imported to the u.s. and world economy. the advocate free-market principles and limit policy and economics. watch free to choose, saturdays

on 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv from c-span2. a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed, the republic dies. get informed, straight for the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this, is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. on monday the congress is in session. we are joined by bloomberg government congressman reporterg congress government reporter jack fitzpatrick. there was a partial government shutdown that was avoided that it only affected about half a dozen agencies. there is another government

shutdown deadline coming up in march 22. what is the latest on those negotiations and will that be harder to pass? guest: those move a lot more slowly. they've done half of their bills , six of the 12 appropriations bills but have not done the biggest ones which were the toughest ones. the outstanding issues are the department of defense, the biggest nondefense bill which is labor, hhs and education and this year the toughest one to resolve is homeland security. you've heard plenty of arguments over immigration policy, border security that's played into the foreign aid debate. that makes it difficult to run the department of homeland security so that's a difficult one. it includes state and foreign operations, funding the department of state at a time when there is this debate over ukraine aid, israel and palestine, hamas. that is not an easy one either.

they've got a lot of money at stake and a lot of programs at stake and there are tougher issues left for next friday. host: leaving the toughest to the last on the is taking. what sort of pressure is speaker johnson under in his negotiations? is it looking like it's one of those bills that might get more democratic's of them republicans of work? guest: it certainly could. they got more democratic support than republicans of work in the vote for the first six bills. those were supposed to be the easier ones. one of the pressure points for a speaker is if you can follow that has stirred rule and get a majority -- the hastert rule. because this has to be bipartisan, it has to have the president support and has to have support of the democratic-controlled senate. you will not get 218 votes just

from republicans. you need something bipartisan. it is tough for the speaker to envision any circumstance in which he is not relying on a great number of democratic votes but if he can at least get a majority of his caucus to support it, that protects him to a pretty significant degree and he managed that for his first six bills. host: last week it was a $459 billion bill that you went through line by line, looking for earmarks. you some more reporting on the earmarks that were stuffed into that major package there. how many air marks are we talking about? guest: this is 6628 earmarks. it's not that easy to go through each one. we did manage to get through six different pdf documents and we work through it.

it's $12.7 billion. . there are other bills coming so there will be more earmarks in those. what we saw the first six is a weighted toward house republican priorities because the house republicans band earmarks in the education bill. that's a big one for democratic priorities and it's now something that only the senate includes earmarks in. we will probably see a greater push for democratic earmarks in the second tranche of bills, at least democratic earmarks of this as all the usual, a lot of money for police grants, local police department is the need radios. there is local infrastructure work on roads, work on water projects, sewer projects, a lot of local needs that members identify in their districts. host: before we get to the more

egregious ones, how does one get an earmark into a bill that's not negotiated in committee but negotiated behind closed doors in the leadership comes up with these? how to individual members get their individual earmarks into this $459 billion deal? guest: it's more official now. there has been some controversy with changes made at the last second. they submit formal request now for these local projects. not something that supposed to be done behind closed doors. it goes through a committee markup. there was a controversy in house republicans seeking to pull democratic earmarks when they tried to pull three projects for lgbt community centers and other issues. this one at the very end was

largely earmarks that were put through the committee process in a very official capacity but to pull behind closed doors. one was in lgb to sent her an in pennsylvania and another in nevada that does work with victims of sex trafficking and sex worker advocacy those were evidently too controversial for social conservatives so we are seeing some backroom negotiations but front, members post on their websites come here miry wesson here are the disclosures saying i am not financially invested in the organization so it can go to local governments or non-often but not for profit companies. there are major improvements compared to the old days back before it was dan for a while after the tea party wave of 2011. host: what are some of the controversial ones from that list? guest: i think the most

controversial ones other than the two that would be pulled over controversial among republicans, republicans in the house also band museum earmarks. senators did not. there was some frustration last year over things that conservatives seemed not serious about. i think you will see a big push from conservatives in this next tranche of those because it includes education grants and a number of those go to museums. there has been a bit of an ongoing fight over whether lawmakers should be able to do grants for museums. this last one was over the fights that were the most controversial over a couple of issues and lgbtq issues and sex worker advocacy. host: what are some of the museum grants? guest: the conservatives among

house republicans have said they want the federal nexis to put a number of things in house republican appropriations bills that are against dei policies. there is a big difference in the house and senate approach regarding museums for black history. when i went through all of the earmarks included in the house and senate appropriations bills come if you look for phrases among senate bills that say african-american or black history, minority cultural issues, those were the big difference that they appeared in the senate appropriations bills controlled by democrats and not in the house appropriations bills were conservatives have pushed for things like bridges, roads, military construction, that kind of think. host: jack fix patrick is our

gassed in this portion of the washington journal. another busy week in washington. the senate comes in at 3 p.m. if you want to join in the conversation, talk about earmarks, you can call now and the numbers to joining is democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001 independents (202) 748-8002. we talked about in our previous segment special counsel robert herr will be on capitol hill to testify before the house judiciary committee on his report on joe biden handling classified documents and other hearings you will be focusing on ? guest: the president's budget proposal is supposed to be sent to congress for the next fiscal year. they are still negotiating the fiscal 2024 bills.

host: so we get a peek at 2025. guest: yes and the president wish list and his broad vision for the next year. tomorrow, the senate budget committee will hear from the omb director. that will be partly a big fight over the direction of the deficit because it always is among republicans and democrats on big issues like that following the president's budget proposal. it's also a long series of requests for agencies from what kind of funding they need going into next year. we don't know exactly within the budget yet but there often are specific lessons about why this program that i like upper a cut or why isn't there more or less for this. tomorrow's hearing in the senate budget committee with the budget director for the white house will be an interesting one to watch. host: anything else you are watching for this week? guest: we had super tuesday last

week --. guest: i would like for it to be slower and the next awning deadline is next friday night. we don't know when they will put out the bills they are trying to negotiate we've heard a number of issues are wrapped up aside from congressional hearings this week. there may be some back and forth for action on whether we see the bills or figure out what issues are holding them up. i think that will take up a lot of oxygen on capitol hill as they get closer to the end of next week deadline to avoid a shutdown. host: let's take some calls. this is dave in new york, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. i was glad to hear your guest talk about the hasrtert rule. it's not an official and it allows a minority, a small

minority of the house like 100 people to blockade bill if the speaker invokes that. that's why we didn't get an immigration bill 10 years ago because speaker boehner said it doesn't have significant republic support even though it would've passed the house and it would've passed the senate and you would have gotten the same thing now. it's a terrible rule. do you have anything more you can say about the hastert rule? guest: the hastert rule might be slightly less relevant right now. there are plenty of complaints of bout it because you are correct in saying it's a relatively small number of house members host: a majority of the majority doesn't need to put a build the floor? guest: but the majority of the majority is the more than 100 members out of 435 members in the house. it's a fairly small minority

that could block legislation. if you been paying close attention lately, you've noticed there is a lot of discussion about a motion to vacate and the ability to threaten the status of the speaker of the house and potentially kick him out. one of the numbers that really matters in the house that could affect legislation is it only takes one member to require a vote on the motion to vacate. also, republicans in the house can only afford to lose two votes before they lose a functioning majority. on one hand, you can abide by the pastor rule and have a funding bill with democrats but if you have a very vocal minority, even smaller than the hazard rule threshold a little more than 100, things can be affected or blocked. it could be affected significantly.

we don't know exactly right now if there were a vote right now just on standalone ukraine aid, how many votes among house republicans what it get. that's up in the air. there is a significant amount of pressure on the speaker of the house from the house freedom caucus and what's likely to be a few dozen members were much more vocal. on one hand, the hester rule has had a significant effect on legislating and what can be brought up in the house over the years but this congress we had seen an even smaller number of more vocal people and that threat of going after the speaker that has a significant impact. host: what has that more focal group then the freedom caucus? what have they said about what it would take for them to have a motion to vacate? guest: there have been some red lines drawn.

marjorie taylor green bronson issues up regarding ukraine funding. at this point, as we come toward the next funding deadline, there hasn't been a massive push toward it lately. is something that could come up randomly. there were some red lines drawn around ukraine aid. there is a lot of pressure on immigration measures. we have not heard an explicit redline drawn but there was a lot of anger among the most conservative members about what was negotiated in the senate negotiated order and immigration measure that was supposed to be packaged with ukraine and israel aid. those are some of the toughest issues where you seen members walking toward that line. because it only takes one member to bring it up, it's a bit unclear. host: in maryland, this is ed, democrat, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i have a couple of questions on

earmarks. i know your marks were banned at one time so which party brought back your marks? question number two, which party spends more money on earmarks? do the democrats spend more money on your marks or is it the republicans? guest: the ban on earmarks started in 2011 and lasted about a decade. it was pushed by republicans especially after the tea party wave in the 2010 election. the push to bring earmarks back, there was definitely bipartisan interest but the first steps were by democrats who, when they

won in the 2018 election come you started hearing discussions about it and after the 2020 election, there were steps taken to bring them back. they probably would not have done that if there is not a significant amount of interest from republican legislators who wanted to include them. in the first couple of years, you saw a significant number of your marks proposed by democrats who led the push. when it comes to funding levels, they had tried to keep it pretty close but it depends who has the majority. there was a fight this last summer when democrats have the house majority, they set up about a 61-39% split between where the money goes to the majority gets more money but it's not 90/10. republicans have abided by that level despite them submitting fewer requests than democrats. right now in the house, you see more earmark funding by republicans because they took the majority in the senate area

it an advantage for democrats. when the last bills come out, i'm not sure how it will break down but it should be pretty close. the first couple of years, it was more money by democrats who had the majority in both chambers. host: get into the earmarks in your story. there were dozens of members who voted against that bill but got earmarks in the bill that passed that they voted against. guest: 42 members voted against it but had earmarks in it. 40 of them were republicans, more on the conservative side, some in more competitive districts, to democrats. this is evidence that shows earmarks can get members involved in the legislative process and maybe give them a stake but it's not some handshake deal that means you

vote for this bill and that means you get money. it may grease the wheels to some extent but it's not as direct an exchange. host: so is it a way for them to have it both ways? guest: yes, we've seen that the past couple of years especially on the conservative side, members of noted against the infrastructure bill but have some benefits coming back to their district area we will likely see some press releases or ribbon cuttings for the funding coming back to these districts. it's more on the republican side. remembers on the republican side had money in their and some has significant amounts. randy weber in texas was one of the tar desktop recipients. matt gaetz who once called earmarks a corrupt practice got a $50 million project in his district. you may see some critiques from

democrats and what they see as an a progress there but there definitely is some reason to believe that members who even vote against bill may tout the money they are bringing back to their district. host: the phone lines are as usual. this is an independent in queens, good morning. caller: good morning. i call your station once every six or seven months. let me make three quick points and i will move on. host: go ahead, we are running short on time. do you remember when donald trump said trust cia and the russians? [indiscernible]

two [indiscernible] donald trump of said file for bankruptcy during the first recession. joe biden and barack obama help the american people. they say whether the democrats doing for this country. the democrats saved america from two recessions. host: what's the third point? caller: i look around this country i see projects being built. republicans want to tell their constituents that we brought it to you.

joe biden brought the restoration projects in all these changes. more than 200,000 jobs in this economy. he's produced more jobs than donald trump ever did. even more than barack obama did. [indiscernible] host: we got your point. was there anything you wanted to follow up with? guest: you will probably hear a lot of that in the budget hearings on the president's budget. every time we go to these hearings regarding the president budget, it gets into the very recent trend over the last couple of decades of democrats coming in under tough economic circumstances. you hear about that debate over job creation what the unemployment rate is at the

beginning of a democratic administration. bobby scott in the house says there's supposed to be a house budget committee hearing on these issues next week. that goes to a lot of the arguments the democrats have made for these budget proposals. host: we will be covering the senate budget committee where the hearing is happening tuesday morning, tomorrow at 10:15 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and the free c-span now video half. the omb director will be before senators at that hearing. this is debbie from raleigh, north carolina. caller: i would love to see congress change the appointment of judgeships and have that be done by somebody else. this seems to take up a lot of their time. host: you mean the confirmation process?

caller: yeah, when they have to vote on four or 500 judgeships area it see to ta up an awful lot of their time and they should be spending it on passing valuable legislation. and they make sure the people who are elected are all a fight. don't let these phony baloney people come in, don't have this have them qualified for the job they are supposed to be doing. host: mitch mcconnell is stepping away from his leadership position in one of his legacies will be from his time when he was majority leader and his push for federal judge confirmations, move that is seen as influencing the judiciary for generations or decades. guest: some of these are such long positions. the supreme court is a long

lasting legacy of mate -- of mitch mcconnell in his role when he was senate majority leader area it's the impact he had on the judiciary. it does take up a lot of time on the senate floor to confirm judges. granted, the senate floor often goes long stretches where they don't have major must pass legislation they need to be moving and a lot of these negotiations happen especially of his bicameral negotiations when they're up against a funding deadline, those happen off the floor and outside committees it was possible to get their work done even if a lot of the floor time is taken up by these judicial confirmations. it is something that dominates a lot of their attention. if you watch the senate floor judicial confirmations are a major issue. it doesn't necessarily stop them

from doing other legislation but it is a big issue for the senate area host: viewers can watch the house floor on thursday evening. guest: at this point, not that i know of area you probably saw the president surprise at her head. it is technically something they are supposed to in force. that's a rule that usually applied more toward the normal functioning of the house when their casting both it would not be unusual someone were wearing a hat during the house vote for a staff member to ask someone to take it up. this was an unusual circumstance so we haven't heard of any steps that leadership is taking in response to that area it was an unprecedented situation and am not sure there is any to compare it to. host: i saw a quote from a

congressperson who is known for her hats. she does not wear them on the house floor but she takes her hat off a marriage you taylor green tooker -- put her hat on. guest: she was pushing the envelope so there are members when -- there are times when members test the limits. when there was a house floor sit in on gun control issues. they were livestreaming from the house floor which was against the rules of the floor because of the significant disruption. host: we aired some of the livestream from the house floor. guest: not that house leadership was happy about that. it was not ignored to the extent that marjorie taylor greene at has so far been ignored although that also was seemingly supposed to be a bit of a civil disobedience kind of obstruction

of the house to get their message out. if members start wearing hats they are not -- and there is not some sort of repercussion or no and asked them to remove it, i wonder about members who are known for their hats. members keep an exactly the degree to which the house floors are strictly enforced. host: isn't there of ban on the house floor? i've seen members with their phones out. guest: that is an example to my knowledge of a rule that's not enforced very much in the context of the state of the union. they are typically not supposed to be taking pictures in the house floor. to my knowledge, i don't know of any case in which they specifically waived that or change the rules on the state of the union. i believe that is an instance

where they don't enforce that rule. host: let me get one more call in, james in atlanta, line for democrats. caller: i have two issues. why is biden letting israel get between him and the american people. would biden is doing, he is disenfranchising millions. it's not only palestinians but a lot of black muslims and people who sympathize with israel. why does is really have so much power over biden? why is it note democrat can file a simple amendment on the floor? they vote against these bills like the infrastructure bills and no funding will go to your district. that will stop them from doing

what they are doing. if you vote against the bill, or any bills that require funding, none will go to your district and the people who vote for it [indiscernible] we'll let them live on their guns and eat their guns. guest: the first question on israel, clearly there is pressure on president biden to try to get israel to take a different tack toward hamas and gaza. he has reflected that verbally and set it times the things netanyahu is going overboard he has not changed his funding request to send aid to israel. it's becoming a bit of an issue in those discussions even though there is a piece of legislation that the senate voted on. they are not near enactment of

that because the foreign agent package was held up in the house. it's a tough issue in which there is a lot of pressure on the president and he is not changed his stance on the legislation though he has changed some of his rhetoric. that's about as much of an answer is i can provide. that's something on going. democrats have called it the vote no but take the dough issue on these earmarks. that is the slogan from democrats to criticize the members. i point out that part of the point of bringing back these earmark funds is to broaden the involvement of members who might otherwise largely be cut out of the legislative process for must pass legislation. if you give someone like matt gaetz or some hard-line conservative dream august numbers -- members who really vote for appropriations bills,

an opportunity to get something in there, you will probably still get a lot of people voting no even if they have money in there but it may have an act. it doesn't in mean they will both for it but i think the idea behind these projects is you give people some skin in the game. we can't predict if it would have been a different note out, in favor of fewer people had money in there for the general idea of this is even at people end up voting no against the bill itself, they are trying to it more members an opportunity to somehow involve in the bill and that may have some positive effect. host: are there some members who don't want earmarks, did you find someone who did? guest: i have not found any who said they would not recently but then did. matt gaetz is one example. a few years ago, he called a corrupt practice and recently started adding involved.

host: who are the ones going to the floor and calling out their? people like chip roy. some just as they were supposed to vote like mike lee has been on a tear against earmarks, rand paul. they continue to not be involved. you seen some movement and's some is not necessarily the met gaetz type it initially kay granger, the top republican on the house appropriations committee said i'm not going to submit request but has changed her stance and submitted some smaller earmark read west. you don't see all the members of leadership like from senator mcconnell. there has been a growing number of people submitting written west even among the conservative wing but there are still some very anti-earmark members. host: jack fitzpatrick, thank you for being with us.