Ken Buck
RTo be claimed
Member, Restorative Justice Coalition, present
Former Member, Executive Overreach Task Force, United States House of Representatives
Former Vice Chair, Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Rules Committee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Government Operations, United States House of Representatives
Former Vice Chair, Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (Foreign Affairs), United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, and Trade, United States House of Representatives
Member, Restorative Justice Coalition, present
Former Vice Chair, Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Rules Committee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Government Operations, United States House of Representatives
Member, Committee on Foreign Affairs
Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law
Member, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship
— Publications:
Spouse's Occupation:
Former Vice Chair and Secretary of the Colorado Republican Party;
1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-life
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- No
2. Do you support expanding federal funding to support entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
- No
1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- No
Do you support the protection of government officials, including law enforcement officers, from personal liability in civil lawsuits concerning alleged misconduct?
- Unknown Position
Do you support increasing defense spending?
- Yes
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- No
2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes
3. Do you support providing financial relief to businesses AND/OR corporations negatively impacted by the state of national emergency for COVID-19?
- No
1. Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- No
1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)?
- No
2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- No
1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- No
1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- Yes
2. Do you support requiring businesses to provide paid medical leave during public health crises, such as COVID-19?
- No
1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- No
1. Should the United States use military force to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a weapon of mass destruction (for example: nuclear, biological, chemical)?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support reducing military intervention in Middle East conflicts?
- Unknown Position
Do you generally support removing barriers to international trade (for example: tariffs, quotas, etc.)?
- Yes
1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-life
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- No
2. In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending?
- No
1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Unknown Position
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- No
2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Unknown Position
1. Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- No
1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- Unknown Position
1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- Unknown Position
1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- Yes
1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- Yes
Do you support the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes?
- Unknown Position
1. Should the United States use military force in order to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a nuclear weapon?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support increased American intervention in Middle Eastern conflicts beyond air support?
- Unknown Position
Latest Action: House - 06/13/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Tracker:Latest Action: House - 06/13/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Tracker:Latest Action: House - 06/12/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Tracker:By Justin Amash, Ken Buck, Jared Golden, Scott Perry, Dean Phillips, Chip Roy and Abigail Spanberger We are members of Congress whose political ideologies and priorities run the gamut, but we are united in our determination to safeguard the constitutional duty of Congress to declare war and to ensure that the American people have their voices heard. This duty is essential to providing the men and women of our armed forces the support and clarity of mission they deserve. Leaders from across the political spectrum have too often avoided that responsibility -- and the full debate and engagement it brings. Congress must act now, before our inaction irrevocably undermines our constitutional separation of powers and endangers lives. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power to declare war in Congress. As representatives of the people, we have a responsibility to engage with them on the purposes, goals and risks of war. The Founders rested this authority with Congress to guarantee that the decision to send Americans into harm's way would be made by the individuals most accountable to the people. Today, less than half of 1 percent of Americans serve in the armed forces. Too often, military families experience multiple deployments while the rest of us, including members of Congress, go about our lives disconnected from their sacrifice. Our broken system is failing them. We have been at war in the Middle East for nearly two decades, under authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs) that our predecessors in Congress passed almost a generation ago. Men and women of our armed forces continue to risk their lives as presidents of both parties stretch these authorizations to justify often tenuously related military engagements. Rather than debating and voting on present conflicts, Congress habitually acquiesces to the executive branch's actions. This must change; the Constitution demands it, and the people we represent deserve it. Last week, the House of Representatives voted on a concurrent resolution regarding the use of force against Iran or its agents. For some of us, this vote was a positive step toward reasserting Congress's constitutional responsibilities. For others, it was an inadequate and inapt substitute for real action. Regardless of our respective positions on that vote, we firmly agree that Congress must reclaim its Article I responsibility regarding the use of force. To start, it is time to have a serious debate and vote on repeal of the 2002 AUMF, which authorized the use of force against Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. This authorization has fully outlived its purpose, given the death of Hussein, regime change and the withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2011, regardless of how one views the merits of that withdrawal. Just last year, the full House supported, on a nonpartisan basis, repeal of the 2002 AUMF as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, but this provision was later stripped from the final text as the House and Senate conferred. The 2002 authorization -- as well as a lingering 1991 authorization -- should be removed from the books, lest either be used to justify further military engagement beyond what Congress intended. We also must foster an informed debate on a strategic alternative to the 2001 authorization. It granted the president authority to use force against those responsible for the attacks on 9/11, or those who harbored such organizations or people, yet it has been used to justify an array of military engagements against targets that, although perhaps worthy, were in some cases nonexistent or unimagined 19 years ago. We are committed to developing and debating a new approach that provides the executive branch with the latitude necessary to fight the ongoing transnational terrorist threat, while also ensuring that Congress takes responsibility, as the Constitution requires, for the decision to send men and women off to war. Our debates and votes must affirm that the decision to proceed with war-making resides in Congress. The declarations or authorizations we pass must have a clear scope and requirement of periodic congressional reconsideration to ensure the proper defense of our nation and prevent ill-defined forever wars. We expect that any effort to reconsider the 2001 authorization will be difficult, contentious and emotional, but it must not be partisan. In the face of geopolitical challenges and transnational threats, it is more important than ever that Congress affirm its willingness to do its job, debate the hardest of topics and vote -- expressing the will of the people -- on the wars that may take the lives of those we represent. At a time of divisive, angry partisanship, the call to do right by our service members, their families and the Constitution is one that can and should unite us. We are a group of representatives who, despite our disagreements, stand together to affirm the role and duty of Congress. In the halls of Congress and at gatherings around the country, let us lay down our partisan swords and commit to do better by the men and women in uniform who take up arms on behalf of our nation and the Constitution we swore to support and defend.