PORKBUSTERS UPDATE:

According to a new report (PDF) by the [Congressional Research Service], 95% of all pork projects are not legally binding. The report concluded that only 543 out of 12,852 earmarks were actually written into the text of the last year’s appropriations bills. As for the remainder, the report states, “Earmarks that appear in committee reports and the statements of managers do not legally bind agencies…”

This means that if Bush is serious about cutting pork, he doesn’t have to wait for a line-item veto.

UPDATE: Duane Oyen emails:

Back when I was a lowly contracts guy for DoD, the only thing that got more attention than “the General is on the floor!” was “I’m responding to a Congressional Inquiry!” The lowliest Constituent Service clerk in a congressional office only needed to send a note over to any agency and (s)he was Queen/King for A Day. It was like “The Jet Song” from West Side Story- “When you’re a staffer, you’re the swingingest thing, little boy, you’re a man, little man, you’re a KING!” Any reference in any comnmittee, conference, or floor report was treated as gospel law, unless a top agency exec was following the issue and decided that the battle was worth fighting.

This almost never happened- why? Because what goes around…… and there was/is always a way to nail someone next time if your pet language was ignored. So, compulsory or not, if there was language there advising a directed grant/procurement, you needed to write a non-compete determination & findings (D&F) to justify the exception to competition open competition, and you attached a copy of the language to the D&F when you sent it up to the Head of Contracting Activity for signature.

Never ever got questioned on one of those. The entire GC/JAG was there helping write the sole source justification.

So, the real answer still is enhanced recission authority, kill the original impoundment act, get rid of current services baseline, and so on. In fact, it is hard to imagine any reform that would be more
important than dumping the CSB.

I agree that agencies will almost never ignore those directions on their own initiative. But if the President pushes it, as part of an announced anti-Pork program, then I think things are different. Plus, even the threat of that sort of thing would likely encourage Congressional action.