Congressional Votes

During consideration of a budget resolution for fiscal 2025 (Senate Concurrent Resolution 7), Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) offered an amendment to provide increased resources for local law enforcement by funding the COPS Hiring Program, a federal grant program administered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). It provides funding to state, local, and tribal law-enforcement agencies to hire or rehire career law-enforcement officers.

The Senate rejected Luján’s amendment on February 21, 2025 by a vote of 48 to 52 (Roll Call 81). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize federal involvement in domestic law enforcement, as affirmed by the 10th Amendment. The COPS Hiring Program undermines the decentralized structure of the U.S. federalist system, inserting federal influence into state and local policing and creating dependence on federal funding.

Representative Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) made a motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 546, the "Recruit and Retain Act," which expands the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) federal grant program intended to support the recruitment efforts of law-enforcement agencies, including local police, throughout the country.

The House agreed to Hunt's motion on May 14, 2024 by a vote of 370 to 18 (Roll Call 196). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to support local law-enforcement agencies. Federal funding of local police departments and county sheriffs comes with strings attached, usually in the form of oversight, regulations, and other homogenized standards — none of which are constitutional.

During consideration of the fiscal 2024 financial-services appropriations bill (H.R. 4664), Representative Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) offered an amendment to strike all funding for firearms and ammunition for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The House rejected Harshbarger’s amendment on November 8, 2023 by a vote of 187 to 238 (Roll Call 625). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to engage in domestic law enforcement, as the 10th Amendment clarifies. IRS agents should not be armed with guns, ammunition, or military-style equipment. Rather, the IRS ought to be defunded and abolished. The American people must demand that Congress end the weaponization of the federal bureaucracy, reject all efforts to create a nationalized police force, and work to repeal the 16th Amendment (income tax).

During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5515), Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the Due Process Guarantee Act amendment to uphold the right to due process for U.S. citizens and permanent residents on American soil. “This amendment … simply says that if you are a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident, you may not be indefinitely detained on U.S. soil without trial, without charge, without access to a jury or to counsel,” Lee said on the Senate floor. His amendment would negate language in the fiscal year 2012 NDAA that purportedly authorizes the U.S. military to indefinitely detain American citizens accused of being terrorists, without habeas corpus and without being tried and found guilty in a court of law.

The Senate rejected a motion to table (kill) Lee’s amendment on June 13, 2018 by a vote of 30 to 68 (Roll Call 122). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the war on terror must not be allowed to destroy constitutionally guaranteed legal protections.

This bill (H.R. 3249) would establish a Project Safe Neighborhoods Block Grant Program within the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice to foster and improve existing partnerships between local, state, and federal law-enforcement agencies to create safer neighborhoods through sustained reductions in violent crimes. It would authorize $50 million a year in each of the fiscal years from 2019 through 2021.

The House concurred with the Senate version of H.R. 3249 on June 6, 2018 by a vote of 394 to 13 (Roll Call 239). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government is not authorized by the Constitution to partner with, train, or subsidize state or local law-enforcement agencies. Our continued existence as a free people under the Constitution depends on the continued independence of our local police from federal and state control.

During consideration of the immigration bill (H.R. 2579), Senator Christopher Coons (D-Del.) introduced an amendment to provide “conditional permanent residence” (i.e., amnesty) to the unaccompanied minors who illegally entered the United States before turning 18 years old and have been recipients of President Obama’s unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The Senate did not vote directly on Coons’ amendment, but on a motion to invoke cloture (and thus limit debate) so the amendment could come up for a vote. The motion to invoke cloture was rejected on February 15, 2018 by a vote of 52 to 47 (Roll Call 33; a three-fifths majority of the entire Senate is required to invoke cloture). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Obama’s executive action creating DACA was an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power belonging to Congress, and because granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will, as has been the case with past amnesties, encourage even more border jumping.

This bill (S. 139) would reauthorize for six years, through 2023, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The bill would require the development of procedures for searching the NSA database that would protect the Fourth Amendment-guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens, while allowing the FBI to access information with an order from the secret FISA Court, in certain cases.

The Senate passed S. 139 on January 18, 2018 by a vote of 65 to 34 (Roll Call 12). We have assigned pluses to the nays because FISA, while supposedly put in place to gather intelligence on foreign targets, has been used to spy on U.S. citizens. While the bill does provide provisions to, ostensibly, protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, given the track record of intelligence agencies, it is unlikely that they would actually follow these rules. The FISA Court gives a green light to just about any surveillance request that comes its way, and FISA-approved NSA warrantless surveillance of American citizens has become common knowledge.

During consideration of the bill (S. 139) reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.) introduced an amendment to end NSA collection of communications data that is neither to nor from an approved foreign target, but rather communications “about” a foreign target entirely between American citizens. It would prohibit the FBI and intelligence agencies from searching the NSA database for information on U.S. citizens without first obtaining a warrant, except in certain circumstances. The amendment would also end “reverse targeting,” in which an American citizen communicating with a foreign target is also subject to surveillance.

The House rejected Amash’s amendment on January 11, 2018 by a vote of 183 to 233 (Roll Call 14). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because this amendment is an attempt to limit NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is unconstitutional, and NSA surveillance certainly falls under this category. Amash’s amendment would require the FBI to obtain a warrant, rather than merely FISA Court approval, in order to access the NSA’s database.

This bill (S. 139) would reauthorize for six years, through 2023, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The bill would require the development of procedures for searching the NSA database that would protect the Fourth Amendment-guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens, while allowing the FBI to access information with an order from the secret FISA Court, in certain cases.

The House passed S. 139 on January 11, 2018 by a vote of 256 to 164 (Roll Call 16). We have assigned pluses to the nays because FISA, while supposedly put in place to gather intelligence on foreign targets, has been used to spy on U.S. citizens. The bill does provide provisions to, ostensibly, protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, but given the track record of intelligence agencies, it is unlikely that they would actually follow these rules. The FISA Court gives a green light to just about any surveillance request that comes its way, and FISA-approved NSA warrantless surveillance of American citizens has become common knowledge.

This bill (H.R. 3180) would authorize classified amounts of funding through fiscal 2018 for 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities, including the Office of the National Intelligence Director, the CIA, and the National Security Agency. The bill would also require the director of national intelligence to submit to Congress multiple reports regarding Russia’s campaigns directed at foreign elections and its efforts related to cyber influence, including an assessment of Russian influence conducted during the three years prior to the bill’s enactment.

The House passed H.R. 3180 on July 28, 2017 by a vote of 380 to 35 (Roll Call 437). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the very idea of Congress authorizing classified amounts of spending is unconstitutional, as well as frightening. Furthermore, some of the agencies that this “classified” spending is funding are themselves engaged in unconstitutional activities, such as spying on and gathering data from U.S. citizens without a warrant. While assessing (dubious) Russian influence in U.S. politics is an acceptable use of federal funds, much of this bill’s spending is unconstitutional and should be rejected.

The Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime Fighting Act of 2017 (H.R. 1616) would, according to the bill, authorize "within the United States Secret Service a National Computer Forensics Institute" for fiscal years 2017 through 2022. According to the bill, "The Institute shall disseminate information related to the investigation and prevention of cyber and electronic crime and related threats, and educate, train, and equip State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges." (Emphasis added.) In the name of combating cyber crime, this bill would further erode the distinction between local law enforcement and federal policing.

The House passed H.R. 1616 on May 16, 2017 by a vote of 408 to 3 (Roll Call 258). We have assigned pluses to the nays because providing federal equipment and training to state and local law-enforcement officers not only is unconstitutional, but also further federalizes the police system.

The Securing Our Agriculture and Food Act (H.R. 1238) would expand the War on Terror to the farm and dairy front in order to "share information and quickly respond to agro-terrorism threats," according to the bill's lead sponsor, Representative David Young (R-Iowa). Congressman Young cited the 2015 avian influenza that “wiped out millions of layer hens, turkeys, and backyard flocks" in Iowa to justify the need for his bill, despite the fact that the bird flu was not caused by terrorists.

The House passed H.R. 1238 on March 22, 2017 by a vote of 406 to 6 (Roll Call 187). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill expands the "War on Terror" to include the fictitious and non-existent threat of "agro-terrorism" in the American homeland, thereby further interjecting the U.S. government into the agriculture sector, despite the absence of any constitutional power to manage this or any other sector of the American economy.

The warrantless electronic surveillance bill (H.R. 5825) would allow electronic surveillance of communications with suspected terrorists without first obtaining approval from the secret courts established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Furthermore, the bill would authorize unwarranted surveillance for up to 90 days in some instances if a threat was considered "imminent." Intelligence agencies would be allowed to conduct warrantless surveillance for seven days prior to gaining court approval if the threat was considered an "emergency situation." This controversial bill had full support of the Bush administration as a means to provide greater national security in a post-9/11 world.

The House passed H.R. 5825 on September 28, 2006 by a vote of 232-191 (Roll Call 502). We have assigned pluses to the nays because such a law would violate the Fourth Amendment by subjecting U.S. citizens to unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 5013) would prohibit the confiscation of firearms in the wake of a natural disaster. This bill is a response to the illegal confiscating of firearms from the victims of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005.

H.R. 5013 was passed by the House on July 25, 2006 by a vote of 322-99 (Roll Call 401). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens is a clear violation of the Constitution -- the Second Amendment guarantees that our "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

During consideration for the Homeland Security appropriations bill (H.R. 5441) Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) offered an amendment that would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used to seize lawfully owned firearms during a state of emergency. Vitter said this amendment was prompted by the confiscation of over 1,000 firearms by law enforcement officials in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The Senate overwhelmingly passed the Vitter amendment by a vote of 84-16 on July 13, 2006 (Roll Call 202). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because gun confiscation violates the Second Amendment.

The Senate version of immigration "reform" (S. 2611) would effectively grant amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants who already reside in the United States and create a guest-worker program for up to 200,000 immigrants a year. Although S. 2611 may provide additional security at the border, it would also reward those who have broken the law by granting them legal status and establish an immigrant verification system managed by the Department of Homeland Security.

The Senate passed S. 2611 on May 25, 2006 by a vote of 62-36 (Roll Call 157). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the bill would reward those who have unlawfully entered the country with legal status and greatly increase the level of legal immigration through guest-worker programs.

This is the final version (conference report) of the Patriot Act reauthorization (H.R. 3199). In the weeks following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress quickly passed the so-called Patriot Act, which gave law enforcement and intelligence agencies vast new powers to combat terrorism. The act increased the ability of law enforcement to secretly search home and business records, expanded the FBI's wiretapping and surveillance authority, and expanded the list of crimes deemed terrorist acts. When passed in 2001 the bill included a "sunset" provision under which the new surveillance powers "shall cease to have effect on December 21, 2005." The Patriot Act reauthorization bill (H.R. 3199) considered by Congress last year would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions included in the bill, and extend for four years the two remaining provisions.

The Senate adopted the conference report for H.R. 3199 on March 2, 2006 by a vote of 89-10 (Roll Call 29). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Patriot Act tramples on the constitutionally protected rights of U.S. citizens.

The House immigration bill (H.R. 4437) would improve border security by authorizing 700 miles of security fence to be built along parts of the U.S.-Mexican border, making unlawful entry into the United States a criminal rather than a civil offense, and increasing penalties for immigrant-related crimes. It would also require employers to verify immigrant status of new employees. It does not include the guest-worker/amnesty provisions found in the Senate bill (see Senate vote #29).

The House passed H.R. 4437 on December 16, 2005 by a vote of 239-182 (Roll Call 661). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the bill would improve border security. The House-passed bill is very different from the Senate-passed version. For immigration legislation to become law, the House and Senate versions would have to be reconciled and a final version sent back to both houses of Congress for their approval and then to the president for his signature.

This amendment to S. 1753 (National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003) would require each federal agency or department engaged in data mining to submit a public report to Congress. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced this amendment because of his concerns about Total Information Awareness-type programs being developed at various federal agencies. His amendment would require the reports to Congress to assess "the likely impact of the implementation of the data-mining technology on privacy and civil liberties..."

The Senate agreed to a motion to table (kill) this amendment to S. 1753 on November 4, 2003 by a vote of 61 to 32 (Roll Call 435). We have assigned pluses to the "nays" -- that is, those who opposed killing the amendment -- because federal data mining activity is clearly a threat to the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

This bill (H.R. 1885) would extend the "Section 245 (i)" program allowing certain illegal immigrants to remain in this country while applying for legal residency. The applicant must have been in the U.S. as of December 21, 2000; a family member or employer must sponsor the application and the familial or employer relationship must have existed by August 15, 2001.

Passage came on March 12, 2002 in the form of a resolution incorporating the text of a separate bill on border security and then sending the package to the Senate. The vote was 275 to 137 (Roll Call 53). We have assigned pluses to the nays. Congressional Quarterly noted that the vote "was a sign that a long-term move toward liberalization of immigration laws has been delayed, but not stopped, by Sept. 11."

The Senate adopted the House version of the anti-terrorism bill (H.R. 3162) without amendment on October 25, 2001.

H.R. 3162, known as the "USA Patriot Act," was passed by the House on October 24th, passed by the Senate the next day, and signed into law the day after that. The Act, introduced in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks, gives law enforcement and intelligence agencies vast new powers to combat terrorism. It expands the list of crimes deemed terrorist acts; increases the ability of law enforcement to secretly search homes and business records; expands the FBI's wiretapping and surveillance authority; and provides for nationwide jurisdiction for search warrants and electronic surveillance devices, including the legal extension of those devices to e-mail and the Internet. The bill includes a "sunset" provision under which the new surveillance powers "shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005." The very presence of that provision underscores the justifiable concern of some lawmakers that those new powers could be abused.

The vote was 98 to 1 (Roll Call 313). We have assigned a plus to the nay.

H.R. 3162, known as the "USA Patriot Act," was passed by the House on October 24th, passed by the Senate the next day, and signed into law the day after that. The Act, introduced in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks, gives law enforcement and intelligence agencies vast new powers to combat terrorism. It expands the list of crimes deemed terrorist acts; increases the ability of law enforcement to secretly search homes and business records; expands the FBI's wiretapping and surveillance authority; and provides for nationwide jurisdiction for search warrants and electronic surveillance devices, including the legal extension of those devices to e-mail and the Internet. The bill includes a "sunset" provision under which the new surveillance powers "shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005." The very presence of that provision underscores the justifiable concern of some lawmakers that those new powers could be abused.

The House passed H.R. 3162 on October 24, 2001 by a vote of 357 to 66 (Roll Call 398). We have assigned pluses to the nays.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) offered this amendment to add "gender," "sexual orientation" and "disability" to the list of federally designated victim groups protected under "Hate Crimes" law, thereby dramatically expanding federal jurisdiction. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) explained that the Kennedy amendment "would make a federal case out of every single hate-motivated crime that occurs in this country -- including all rapes and sexual assaults, which currently are prosecuted under State law."

The Senate adopted the Kennedy amendment to S. 2549 on June 20, 2000 by a vote of 57-42 (Roll Call 136). We have assigned pluses to the nays.

This amendment would authorize $1.5 billion a year through fiscal 2005 for community policing programs. According to amendment author Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), it would "give the states up to another 50,000 police officers over the next 5 years." But Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) objected to the measure, saying, "We are having the federal government provide for police in cities, and that is not a federal responsibility." It is also, of course, a step toward a national police force. The Senate rejected the amendment on May 20, 1999 by a vote of 48 to 50 (Congressional Record, page S5709, roll call 139; we have assigned pluses to the "nays" and minuses to the "yeas.").