Jeff Flake’s anti-earmark pork-fighting amendments
In 2006, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) forced 19 separate House votes on individual earmarks, and he lost all 19 of them. The broader push against earmarks did succeed later. Congress stopped approving earmarks in 2011, at the start of the 112th Congress, and the moratorium held for a decade. Earmarks returned for fiscal 2022 as Community Project Funding in the House and Congressionally Directed Spending in the Senate. Under these rules, each request carries the sponsor’s name, is posted online and comes with a certification that the member has no financial interest in it. For fiscal 2027, House members could request up to 20 projects. As of November 2026, though, no full-year FY2027 bill has been enacted. The government is running on a stopgap, P.L. 119-103, through December 11, 2026.
What the 19 amendments were
In the spring and summer of 2006, Congressman Jeff Flake (R, Arizona’s 6th District) proposed 19 amendments in order to force yes-or-no votes on earmarks in a bloated appropriations bills. That wording comes from a blog summary written at the time. Each amendment would have removed the money for one specific earmark from a fiscal 2007 spending bill. All 19 failed by wide margins.
The roll calls still mattered as a record. Before these votes, earmarks usually passed inside large bills with no separate vote, so it was hard to tell which members backed them. Flake’s amendments put each member on the record, project by project.
To read the votes correctly, remember that each amendment proposed to cut an earmark. A YES vote supported removing the earmark. A NO vote kept it.
The earmarks Flake targeted
The amendments covered projects in several states and spending bills. Five of them (Votes 298, 299, 302, 303 and 304) were offered to H.R. 5631, the fiscal 2007 Defense Appropriations Act. The amounts below are the figures listed in the summary written at the time.
| Roll call | Earmark targeted | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| House Vote 190 | Dairy education in Iowa | $229,000 |
| House Vote 191 | Hydroponic tomato production in Ohio | $180,000 |
| House Vote 192 | National Grape and Wine Initiative | $100,000 |
| House Vote 204 | Virginia Science Museum | $250,000 |
| House Vote 205 | Juniata Locomotive Demonstration | $1,000,000 |
| House Vote 277 | Swimming pool in Banning, California | $500,000 |
| House Vote 278 | “Facilities” in Weirton, West Virginia | $100,000 |
| House Vote 279 | Multipurpose facility in Yucaipa, California | $500,000 |
| House Vote 280 | Strand Theater Arts Center in Plattsburgh, New York | $250,000 |
| House Vote 298 | Mystic Aquarium in New London, Connecticut | $1,000,000 |
| House Vote 299 | The Jason Foundation in Ashburn, Virginia | $1,000,000 |
| House Vote 302 | Northwest Manufacturing Initiative | $2,500,000 |
| House Vote 303 | Lewis Center for Education Research | $4,000,000 |
| House Vote 304 | Leonard Wood Research Institute (Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri) | $20,000,000 |
| House Vote 334 | Arthur Avenue Retail Market | $150,000 |
| House Vote 335 | Bronx Council for the Arts in the Bronx, New York | $300,000 |
| House Vote 336 | Johnstown Area Regional Industries | $800,000 |
| House Vote 337 | Fairmont State University | $900,000 |
| House Vote 338 | Tourism Development Association in Kentucky | $1,000,000 |
Together, the 19 earmarks came to about $34.8 million. That was a very small share of the fiscal 2007 appropriations bills. Flake and his supporters argued that the amount was never the point. They said the votes were about how spending decisions get made.
How Arizona’s House delegation voted
The original post described the Arizona delegation’s votes and mixed up the labels. It called the anti-earmark side “NO.” Since each amendment cut an earmark, the anti-earmark vote was YES. Here is the corrected breakdown, using the House districts of the 109th Congress (2005-2006).
| Member | Party and district | Votes to cut earmarks | Position on the 19 votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeff Flake | R, AZ-6 | 19 of 19 | Voted to remove every earmark |
| Trent Franks | R, AZ-2 | 19 of 19 | Voted to remove every earmark |
| J.D. Hayworth | R, AZ-5 | 19 of 19 | Voted to remove every earmark |
| John Shadegg | R, AZ-3 | 19 of 19 | Voted to remove every earmark |
| Raúl Grijalva | D, AZ-7 | 0 of 19 | Voted to keep every earmark |
| Jim Kolbe | R, AZ-8 | 0 of 19 | Voted to keep every earmark |
| Ed Pastor | D, AZ-4 | 0 of 19 | Voted to keep every earmark |
| Rick Renzi | R, AZ-1 | 0 of 19 | Voted to keep every earmark |
The split did not follow party lines. Republicans voted on both sides. Kolbe, a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, sided with keeping the projects.
How the vote was read at the time
The summary was written by Jim Lippard, an Arizona blogger, and posted on The Lippard Blog in August 2006. Pastor was Lippard’s own representative, and Lippard wrote that he was sorry to see Pastor back every one of the earmarks. He also argued that voting the same way 19 times, in either direction, suggested members were not judging each project on its own merits.
Even so, Lippard said he found the all-YES record more principled. He wrote that inserting earmarks had become an “invitation to corruption,” which is how Talking Point Memo puts it in his post (the outlet’s name is Talking Points Memo). That was his opinion. Members who defended the projects made a different argument: they said lawmakers know their districts better than federal agencies do, and that earmarks do not add to total spending because they divide money that has already been appropriated.
Flake’s sponsor-name campaign
At the time, Flake said he planned to keep challenging every earmark that does not include the name of a sponsor. He also posted an “egregious earmark of the week” on his House website under the “earmark reform” category. These were the main public tools of his campaign, along with the floor amendments.
That demand for sponsor names was met soon after. In January 2007, the new House majority adopted rules requiring sponsor names on earmarks and a certification that the member had no financial interest. The Senate adopted similar disclosure rules later that year. From 2006 to 2010, the PorkBusters campaign, run by bloggers, pushed for the same transparency. It urged readers to call their members of Congress and to send in tips about earmarks found in spending bills.
What happened next: the ban and the return of earmarks
Over the following 20 years, earmarks went from disclosure rules to a full ban and then back again under new names. These are the main milestones.
- 2007: Both chambers began requiring sponsor names and no-financial-interest certifications for earmarks.
- 2011: Starting in the 112th Congress, the House and Senate stopped accepting earmark requests from members. According to the Congressional Research Service, the disclosure rules stayed on the books during the moratorium.
- February 2021: House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) announced that the committee would accept Community Project Funding requests for fiscal 2022. The Senate followed with Congressionally Directed Spending.
- 2021 rules: Members had to show community support, certify they had no financial interest and post their requests online. The program was capped at 1% of discretionary spending, and the Government Accountability Office was given a role auditing a sample of projects.
- Fiscal 2025: The year ended under a full-year continuing resolution. Roll Call reported that earmarks were left out of it, so there was a gap of about one year.
- Fiscal 2026: Earmarks returned in the final spending bills. Five of the twelve bills were signed into law on February 3, 2026 (P.L. 119-75), ending a four-day partial shutdown that began January 31. The Department of Homeland Security bill was not done by the February 13 extension deadline. It became law on April 30, 2026 (P.L. 119-86), after a partial DHS lapse that began February 14. The Senate Appropriations Committee posted its FY2026 Congressionally Directed Spending list on its website.
How big earmarks are today
How much money counts as earmarks depends on who is counting. In its 2026 Congressional Pig Book, Citizens Against Government Waste counted 8,392 earmarks worth $23.7 billion for fiscal 2026. The group said that was the fourth-highest total it has tracked. CAGW uses its own definition, which is broader than the official House and Senate lists.
The National Taxpayers Union used a narrower method. It counted 2,880 earmarks totaling $5.25 billion across the four FY2026 bills it reviewed. It found that the Labor-HHS-Education bill alone carried 987 earmarks worth more than $1.4 billion.
How the process works for fiscal 2027
House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK) raised the limit to 20 Community Project Funding requests per member for fiscal 2027, up from 15, citing high demand. The other rules include:
- Requests go in through the committee’s online portal.
- Each request needs a statement explaining its federal connection.
- Funding covers one year only.
- Memorials, museums and commemoratives are not eligible.
Under these rules, several of the 2006 projects in the table above, including the Virginia Science Museum and the Mystic Aquarium, would likely not qualify as House requests today.
Requests do not become law until a full-year appropriations bill passes. On September 2, 2026, the President signed H.R. 6500, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027 (P.L. 119-103). It funds the government from October 1 through December 11, 2026. The House passed it 370-48. The Congressional Budget Office projected an annualized $1.701 trillion in discretionary budget authority under the stopgap. Fiscal 2027 earmarks depend on what Congress does before that date.
Where Flake went
Flake served in the House until January 2013 and then in the Senate until January 2019. He kept opposing earmarks the whole time. President Biden later nominated him as ambassador to Turkey. He started that job in January 2022 and left on September 1, 2024. More recent public profiles list him as director of Arizona State University’s Institute of Politics.
FAQ
Did any of Flake’s 2006 earmark amendments pass?
None of the 19 amendments in the roll-call list above passed. All failed by wide margins. Contemporary reporting by CQ noted that a few of his other challenges to the fiscal 2007 Agriculture bill were settled by voice vote. Those were not part of this list.
Are earmarks still banned in Congress?
No. The moratorium ran from 2011 until fiscal 2022. Since then, earmarks have been allowed as Community Project Funding in the House and Congressionally Directed Spending in the Senate. Requests must name the sponsoring member, be posted publicly and include a certification that the member has no financial interest.
What is the difference between Community Project Funding and Congressionally Directed Spending?
Both are earmarks: money that a member of Congress directs to a specific recipient or project. Community Project Funding is the House name, and Congressionally Directed Spending is the Senate name. Each chamber’s Appropriations Committee sets its own eligibility rules, request limits and deadlines.
How many earmarks can a House member request for fiscal 2027?
Up to 20, spread across the subcommittees that accept them. The limit was 15 the year before. Making a request does not guarantee funding, and nothing is final until a full-year appropriations bill becomes law.
Do continuing resolutions include earmarks?
Generally, no. A continuing resolution extends existing funding levels and does not add new member-requested projects. That is why fiscal 2025, which ended under a full-year stopgap, had no new earmarks. It is also why fiscal 2027 earmarks are on hold while P.L. 119-103 is in effect.
Do earmarks increase total federal spending?
Supporters say they do not, because earmarks direct money within totals Congress has already set. Critics, including Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayers Union, argue that earmarks make members more likely to vote for larger bills. Federal budget records do not settle this question either way.
Sources
- Overview of Continuing Appropriations for FY2027 (Division A of P.L. 119-103), Congressional Research Service
- H.R. 6500, Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027, Congress.gov
- Cole Releases FY27 Programmatic Language and Community Project Funding Guidance, House Appropriations Committee
- FY 2026 Congressionally Directed Spending, Senate Appropriations Committee
- Community Project Funding: House Rules and Committee Protocols, Congressional Research Service (R46722)
- Jeff Flake’s anti-earmark pork-fighting amendments, The Lippard Blog (2006)
Featured image: Jeff Flake. Photo: United States Department of State / Wikimedia Commons, Public domain (file page)
About this article
- Fact-checked before publication.
- Published · Updated
