Is this saying what I think it's saying? (not Kerry-related)

SENATORS SEND BIPARTISAN LETTER URGING THE PRESIDENT TO
Report Says 95% Of Earmarks For Fy06 Are Not Legally Binding
For Immediate Release
Thursday, Mar 09, 2006

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) sent a letter to President George W. Bush, urging him to utilize his authority to stop wasteful earmarks written into committee reports and managers statements, but not in the text of legislation. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released this week concluded that over 95% of the Fiscal Year 2006 earmarks are not legally binding.

“The President was right in saying that earmarks need to be reduced, but now he needs to take an important step to make that happen,” Senator DeMint said. “If the President would tell his cabinet to ignore the thousands of earmarks that were not written into law, he could instantly solve most of the problem and make it much more difficult for Congress to micromanage our government with special interest projects.”

“The President talks a lot about wasteful spending in Washington, but he already has the power to do something about it,” Senator Bayh said. “Pork barrel spending is a threat to our economy, our security and our independence – it’s time the President used his authority to start cutting pork out of our budget. At the same time, I will continue working with my colleagues in the Senate to eliminate wasteful spending before it reaches the President’s desk.”

“The president does not need to wait on Congress to exercise line-item veto power,” said Dr. Coburn. “Under the law, wasteful earmarks that are only listed in conference reports can, and should, be ignored by executive branch agencies. If the president takes this stance, Congress will back down because they will be making an argument they will never win with the public. No rational voter will tolerate Congress holding up appropriations for vital services or national defense priorities so politicians can secure their earmarks and pet projects. I hope the president does not hesitate to use this power that is already at his disposal.”

“The President’s veto of earmarks in reports accompanying legislation would help put an end to one of the most disgraceful practices in Congress today,” said Senator McCain. “These earmarks do not have the force of law, but their sponsors have the power of the purse string – which, to my great dismay, seems to be just as strong. I applaud the President’s desire to help impose discipline on the Federal budget, and I trust that he will see fit to put the interests of the American taxpayer first by vetoing these harmful earmarks.”

”Right now we have a golden opportunity to tackle the earmarking problem which has overtaken the appropriations process,” said Senator Feingold. “The President should join us in this effort to restore sanity to the appropriations process and show the American people that we can and will be careful stewards of American taxpayer dollars.”

The letter reads in part:

If your Administration would reject even some of the most wasteful earmarks, it would ensure that scarce federal funds are spent on national priorities and it would make it substantially more difficult for Congress to load up annual spending bills with earmarks.

Unfortunately, too many of your agency heads believe they will face retaliation from Congress if they competitively award projects and do not follow committee report instructions. If these agencies are going to have the where-with-all to stand up and do what is right for taxpayers, and their agency’s missions, they need to know they speak for the President.


“House and Senate Appropriators have acknowledged the need for flexibility in how American tax dollars are spent,” concluded DeMint. “Now it’s time for the President to accept their offer and give his Administration the full flexibility to spend their budgets in an open, competitive way without fear of retaliation from Congress.”


http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1674

GOP axes Dems’ earmarks
Regula to punish opponents of Labor-HHS bill
By Hans Nichols

The House Republican leadership has endorsed an effort by Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), an appropriations cardinal, to punish Democrats en masse for their blanket opposition to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending package.

Regula’s plan to redirect all potential Democratic earmarks to vulnerable Republicans would breathe new life into a principle that Republican leaders have long wanted their more accommodating appropriators to enforce: If Democrats vote against appropriations bills, they shouldn’t expect special projects earmarked for their districts.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested that the potential punishment might be “criminal.”

“This could be — this could be — I don’t know, these kinds of threats, do they border on the criminal?” she said.

Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the Democratic Caucus chairman, called it “a clear declaration of war.”

But Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) commended the normally go-along, get-along Regula for his partisan fortitude in yesterday’s GOP conference meeting.

The $470 billion bill, currently before a House-Senate conference, has roughly $1 billion set aside for special earmarked projects in lawmakers’ districts, said Jim Dyer, staff director of the House Appropriations Committee.

Hastert’s words of encouragement were delivered at the Republican conference, said a GOP leadership aide. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) also is supportive of the strategy, said his spokesman, Stuart Roy.

“I pointed out to leadership that not one Democrat voted for this bill, in subcommittee, in committee and on the House floor,” Regula told The Hill.

more...

http://www.thehill.com/news/102203/earmarks.aspx

urging him to utilize his authority to stop wasteful earmarks written into committee reports and managers statements, but not in the text of legislation. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released this week concluded that over 95% of the Fiscal Year 2006 earmarks are not legally binding.