Patty Murray on War & Peace Democratic Sr Senator (WA)

Set timetable for Afghan withdrawal

But Murray said she supports a timetable for withdrawal. "We have a number of military families who have sacrificed so much for our nation," Murray said. "We owe it to them to know where and how long they're going to be there and how much more sacrifice they have to give."

Voted against the war because we didn’t have a clear mission

MURRAY: Saddam was an evil tyrant and we’re all glad he’s gone. I voted against the resolution to go to war in Iraq because we did not have a clear mission, we didn’t have a clear exit strategy, we were not honest with the American public about the costs-both in lives and in dollars. We’re there now and we must make sure our troops have on the ground the equipment and supplies and support that they need. We must reach out to other nations to get their support as well, because we cannot continue to endure the costs of this conflict.

Voted YES on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months.

• The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the US Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the [new limited mission].
• Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
• No funds under any provision of law may be expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the US Armed Forces after 9 months.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LEVIN: "The amendment requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At that point, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions:"

1. Security for US Government personnel and infrastructure
2. Training Iraqi security forces
3. Equipment to US service men and women to ensure their safety

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. McCAIN: "This year, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, our military has made significant gains under the so-called surge. Overall violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since [2003]. Improvised explosive device blasts now occur at a rate lower than at any point since September 2004.

"Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. We are succeeding under the new strategy.

"Given these realities, some proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake."

Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists.

• that it is a vital US national interest to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force;
• that it should be US policy to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of Iran;
• to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy;
• that the US should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LIEBERMAN: Some of our colleagues thought the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran [so we removed some text]. That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BIDEN. I will oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for one simple reason: this administration cannot be trusted. I am very concerned about the evidence that suggests that Iran is engaged in destabilizing activities inside Iraq. Arguably, if we had a different President who abided by the meaning and intent of laws we pass, I might support this amendment. I fear, however, that this President might use the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity as a pretext to use force against Iran as he sees fit. [The same was done with the Senate resolution on Iraq in 2002]. Given this President's actions and misuse of authority, I cannot support the amendment.

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. This legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the US Congress loses its will to fight. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.

Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.

1. The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
2. The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
3. Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

Opponents of the Resolution say:
• This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
• The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the American people at home.
• Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.

Supporters of the Resolution say:
• Congress talks almost incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11.
• One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is necessary because all the terrorists will come into Iraq, and then they wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach-motel theory. The fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 60 to 80 countries. Yet our resources are only heavily focused on this Iraq situation.
• In terms of differences from other Iraq amendments: This is binding, not just a sense of the Senate.
• Secondly, we have a date; other amendments are open-ended.
• Thirdly, this has an over-the-horizon force specifically to protect our security interests.

Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding.

• Request all future funding for ongoing military operations overseas, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, be included in the President's annual fiscal year budget proposal
• Call for the President to submit to Congress by Sept. 1, 2005, an amendment to his annual fiscal budget, that details estimated costs for ongoing military operations overseas.
• Ask that all future funding requests for ongoing military operations overseas appear in the appropriation bills in which such expenditures are normally included.

Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.

• $5.1 billion for security
• $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs
• $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance
• $1.3 billion for veterans medical care
• $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90% of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, would have to be forgiven by other countries.

Voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.

Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo.

Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo.

Voted NO on ending the Bosnian arms embargo.

Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism.

Title: Condemning bigotry and violence against Sikh Americans in the wake of terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Summary: Declares that, in the quest to identify, locate, and bring to justice the perpetrators and sponsors of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Sikh-Americans, should be protected.

• Condemns bigotry and acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans, including Sikh-Americans.
• Calls upon local and Federal law enforcement authorities to: (1) work to prevent hate crimes against all Americans; and (2) prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who commit hate crimes.

Wage war on Terrorism, not on fellow Americans.

On behalf of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-American Affairs, we offer our deepest condolences to those suffering from the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington DC. We strongly condemn terrorism of any kind.

As Americans, we must honor the victims of terrorism by upholding fundamental American ideals of freedom and democracy. We must not express our fears and anger by indiscriminately striking out against those with different names, skin color, religion, or origin.

Within the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, there have been reported incidents of hate crimes committed against Arab Americans and Americans f South Asian descent.

We urge restraint and ask Americans to wage war on terrorism—not on fellow Americans. While we all experience the shock and anger in the aftermath of the September 11th tragedy, we should not direct our hostility toward our neighbors in ethnic communities across the country.

America must not take revenge by blind retribution. We must preserve fundamental civil rights and defend the rights of Arab and South Asian Americans, who are our neighbors, friends, and colleagues.

No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq.

Sponsor's introductory remarks: Sen. BIDEN: This bipartisan resolution opposes the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. This resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, are against: deepening America's military involvement in Iraq by escalating our troop presence. Just as important, it says what we and many of our colleagues are for: a strategy that can produce a political settlement in Iraq. That's the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.

Excertps from resolution:
• Whereas the US strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress;
• Whereas maximizing chances of success in Iraq should be our goal, and the best chance of success requires a change in current strategy;
• Whereas the situation in Iraq is damaging the standing, influence, and interests of the US in Iraq, the Middle East, and around the world;
• Whereas more than 3,000 US military personnel have already lost their lives in Iraq, and more than 22,500 have been wounded in Iraq;
• Whereas on January 10, 2007, Pres. Bush announced his plan to deepen the US military involvement in Iraq by deploying approximately 21,000 additional US combat forces to Iraq;
• Whereas an open-ended commitment of US forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making the political compromises that are needed for violence to end and for stability and security to be achieved in Iraq;
• Resolved: That it is the sense of Congress that it is not in the national interest of the US to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the US military force presence in Iraq;
• the United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally-sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq.

Iranian nuclear weapons: prevention instead of containment.

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the nuclear program of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
• Whereas, since at least the late 1980s, Iran has engaged in a sustained pattern of illicit and deceptive activities to acquire nuclear capability;
• Whereas the UN Security Council has adopted multiple resolutions since 2006 demanding the full suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities by Iran, particularly possible military dimensions;
• Whereas, in Nov. 2011, the IAEA issued an extensive report that documents "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme";
• Whereas top leaders of Iran have repeatedly threatened the existence of the State of Israel;
• Whereas the Department of State has designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984;
• Whereas Iran has provided weapons, training, & funding to terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias in Iraq;
• Whereas Iran had forged a "secret deal" with al Qaeda to facilitate the movement of al Qaeda fighters and funding through Iranian territory;

1. Reaffirms that the US Government has a vital interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
2. warns that time is limited to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
3. urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until a full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities;
4. expresses that the window for diplomacy is closing;
5. expresses support for the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
6. strongly supports US policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
7. rejects any US policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.

Iran must accept long-term intrusive nuke inspection.

Excerpts from Letter from 85 Senators to President Obama We all hope that nuclear negotiations succeed in preventing Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapons capability. For diplomacy to succeed, however, we must couple our willingness to negotiate with a united and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime. We urge you to insist on the realization of these core principles with Iran:

• Iran has no inherent right to enrichment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Any agreement must dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a path to a nuclear bomb.
• Iran has no reason to have an enrichment facility like Fordow, and that the regime must give up its heavy water reactor at Arak.
• Iran must submit to a long-term and intrusive inspection and verification regime.
• Iran must not be allowed during these negotiations to circumvent sanctions.

Opposing argument: (Cato Institute, "Enforcing Iran Nuke Deal," Jan. 25, 2017): More than anything else, the Iran nuclear deal must be kept because the alternative is a return to ever-heightening tensions and clamoring by hawks in both countries. From 2003 to 2014, years of unrelenting U.S. sanctions and confrontation, Iran went from 164 centrifuges to 19,000. The hostile approach generates a more expansive, less transparent Iranian nuclear program and increases the chances for another disastrous U.S. war in the Middle East. Let's hope the Trump administration chooses not to go that route.

No military force against Iran without Congress approval.

Axios.com summary: The House passed a symbolic war powers resolution directing President Trump to halt the use of military force against Iran unless he obtains approval from Congress.

The big picture: A classified briefing on the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani [by the US military] left Democrats and even some Republicans deeply skeptical, with many claiming that officials did not provide evidence that there was an "imminent" threat from Iran. Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) said they will vote in favor of a similar resolution in the Senate [S J Res 68].

What opponents are saying: Former national security adviser and notorious Iran hawk John Bolton tweeted: "The 1973 War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Constitution allocated foreign affairs authority between the President and Congress. The Resolution should be repealed." Pres. Trump quote tweeted Bolton and added: "Smart analysis, I fully agree!"

What supporters are saying: Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was one of the few Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution, stating on the House floor: "Killing Soleimani was the right decision, but engaging in another forever war in the Middle East would be the wrong decision." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced legislation that would block funding for offensive military force against Iran without congressional authorization. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) is also seeking to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which has been used repeatedly to justify war in the Middle East in the wake of 9/11. Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the AUMF in 2001, criticizing it as a "blank check."

Legislative outcome: H Con Res 83 Passed House 224-194-13 on 1/9/20; S J Res 68 passed Senate 55-45-0 on 2/13/20. Vetoed 5/6; Senate veto override failed 5/7/20.

Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran.

RESOLUTION Affirming that any offensive military action taken against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress.
• WHEREAS article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States vests in Congress all power to declare war:
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated.
Sen. DURBIN. "We are now more than halfway through our fifth year in this war in Iraq. We find ourselves stuck as an occupier in a Middle East civil war. Thousands of our sons & daughters have been killed or injured. The total financial cost may be well over $1 trillion--money, I might add, that this administration has borrowed against our children's future.

"America's reputation internationally has been severely damaged and critical military, diplomatic, and intelligence resources have been diverted from the war in Afghanistan--a war I supported, and a country this administration has increasingly neglected. And now, after so many errors, so many lives, and so much damage, this administration is again raising the prospect of yet another war in the Middle East--this time a war with Iran.

"I fear this administration has learned nothing from the colossal error, colossal misjudgment in the invasion of Iraq. Let me be clear: I am gravely concerned about Iran's activities in the region and its nuclear agenda. But any offensive action against Iran must be approved by Congress.

"Recent statements by this administration give me concern that this administration is considering just this--an offensive military action against Iran without the consent of Congress. Both Pres. Bush and Vice Pres. Cheney have made public remarks about Iran that suggest an administration readying for military aggression. We know Cheney's historic views on fundamental checks and balances in our constitution. They are disturbing."

Source: Resolution on Iran (S.RES.356) 2007-SR356 on Oct 25, 2007

Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program.

Murray signed Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act
Expresses the sense of Congress that:
1. diplomatic efforts to address Iran's illicit nuclear efforts, unconventional and ballistic missile development programs, and support for international terrorism are more likely to be effective if the President is empowered with explicit authority to impose additional sanctions on the government of Iran;
2. US concerns regarding Iran are strictly the result of that government's actions; and
3. the people of the United States have feelings of friendship for the people of Iran and regret that developments in recent decades have created impediments to that friendship.
States that it should be US policy to:
1. support international diplomatic efforts to end Iran's uranium enrichment program and its nuclear weapons program;
2. encourage foreign governments to direct state-owned and private entities to cease all investment in, and support of, Iran's energy sector and all exports of refined petroleum products to Iran;
3. impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian financial institution engaged in proliferation activities or support of terrorist groups; and
4. work with allies to protect the international financial system from deceptive and illicit practices by Iranian financial institutions involved in proliferation activities or support of terrorist groups.
• Amends the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to direct the President to impose sanctions if a person has made an investment of $20 million or more (or any combination of investments of at least $5 million which in the aggregate equals or exceeds $20 million in any 12-month period) that directly and significantly contributed to Iran's ability to develop its petroleum resources. (Under current law the sanction thresholds are $40 million, $10 million, and $40 million, respectively.)
• Establishes additional sanctions prohibiting specified foreign exchange, banking, and property transactions.
• Includes refined petroleum resources.
Source: S.908&HR.2194 2009-S908 on Apr 30, 2009

Sponsored resolution to repeal 2002 AUMF against Iraq.

Murray co-sponsored AUMF Repeal Act
Resolution excerpts:
• Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 and 2002 currently remain valid law;
• Whereas, since 2014, U.S. military forces have operated in Iraq at the request of the Government of Iraq for the sole purpose of supporting its efforts to combat ISIS;
• Whereas authorizations for the use of military force that are no longer necessary should have a clear political and legal ending:
• Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States [that]
• The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq is hereby repealed.

Politico.com in OPPOSITION, 3/25/21: Republicans who opposed repealing the 2002 authorization said that it should be replaced because Iraq is still home to terror groups that threaten the United States. Rep. Michael McCaul called for consultations with first in order to craft a replacement. "Real AUMF reform requires Congress and the administration working together on actual text to replace the aging 2001 and 2002 AUMFs to provide authorities needed to keep the American people, and, most importantly, our deployed troops, safe from terrorists," McCaul said.

Heritage Foundation in SUPPORT (1/6/20): There has been an open and vibrant debate about whether the 2001 AUMF covers ISIS, a terrorist organization that did not even exist when the 2001 statute was passed and has disavowed and formally broken away from al-Qaeda, the group that is covered by the 2001 AUMF. Yet both the Obama and Trump Administrations claim that the 2001 AUMF covers ISIS and associated forces. Congress has shied away from the much-needed debate about whether the 2002 Iraq AUMF is no longer necessary.

Legislative Outcome: Passed House 268-161-2 on H.R.256 on 6/17/2021 (rollcall 172; no vote on S.J.R.10 nor H.R.3261 in 2021)

Source: SJ10/H3261/H256 21-SJR10 on Jun 17, 2021

Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

Murray co-sponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act
Declares it to be U.S. policy that:
• Jerusalem remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected;
• Jerusalem be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel;
• the U.S. Embassy in Israel be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.
• Makes specified amounts of such funds available until expended in FY 1996 and 1997 only for construction and other costs associated with relocating the U.S. Embassy Jerusalem.
Corresponding House bill is H.R.1595. Became Public Law No: 104-45. Source: Bill sponsored by 77 Senators and 78 Reps 95-S1322 on Oct 13, 1995

Click here for definitions & background information on War & Peace. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Patty Murray. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Patty Murray. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Patty Murray. Click here for a summary of Patty Murray's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other WA politicians. Click here for issue statements from WA primary archives. Click here for issue statements from WA secondary archives.
Other candidates on War & Peace:		Patty Murray on other issues:
WA Gubernatorial: Bill Bryant Jay Inslee Loren Culp Phil Fortunato WA Senatorial: Chris Vance Dave Strider Jennifer Ferguson Maria Cantwell Mike Luke Susan Hutchison WA politicians WA Archives	Senate races 2021-22: AK: Incumbent Lisa Murkowski(R) vs.Challenger Kelly Tshibaka(R) vs.2020 candidate Al Gross(D) vs.State Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson(D) AL: Incumbent Richard Shelby(R) vs.U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks(R) vs.Ambassador Lynda Blanchard(R) vs.Katie Britt(R) vs.Judge Jessica Taylor(R) vs.Brandaun Dean(D) vs.Mike Durant(R) vs.State Rep. John Merrill(R) vs.Will Boyd(D) AR: Incumbent John Boozman(R) vs.Candidate Dan Whitfield(D) vs.Jake Bequette(R) vs.Natalie James(D) AZ: Incumbent Mark Kelly(D) vs.CEO Jim Lamon(R) vs.Blake Masters(R) vs.A.G. Mark Brnovich(R) vs.Mick McGuire(R) vs.State Rep. Justin Olson(R) CA: Incumbent Alex Padilla(D) vs.2018 Senate candidate James Bradley(R) vs.Lily Zhou(R) vs.State Rep. Jerome Horton(D) vs.Mark Meuser(R) CO: Incumbent Michael Bennet(D) vs.Eli Bremer(R) vs.USAF Lt. Darryl Glenn(R) vs.State Rep. Ron Hanks(R) vs.Joe O`Dea(R) CT: Incumbent Richard Blumenthal(D) vs.Leora Levy(R) vs.Challenger Joe Visconti(R) vs.2018 & 2020 House candidate John Flynn(R) vs.State Rep. Themis Klarides(R) FL: Incumbent Marco Rubio(R) vs.U.S.Rep. Val Demings(D) vs.U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson(D) GA: Incumbent Raphael Warnock(D) vs.Navy vet Latham Saddler(R) vs.Gary Black(R) vs.Herschel Walker(R) HI: Incumbent Brian Schatz(D) vs.Bob McDermott(R) IA: Incumbent Chuck Grassley(R) vs.State Sen. Jim Carlin(R) vs.Michael Franken(D) vs.Bob Krause(D) vs.Former U.S. Rep IA-1 Abby Finkenauer(D) ID: Incumbent Mike Crapo(R) vs.David Roth(D) vs.James Vandermaas(D) vs.Natalie Fleming(R) IL: Incumbent Tammy Duckworth(D) vs.Peggy Hubbard(R) vs.Kathy Salvi(R) IN: Incumbent Todd Young(R) vs.Challenger Haneefah Abdul-Khaaliq(D) vs.Psychologist Valerie McCray(D) vs.Thomas McDermott(D) KS: Incumbent Jerry Moran(R) vs.Michael Soetaert(D) vs.Mark Holland(D) vs.Joan Farr(R) KY: Incumbent Rand Paul(R) vs.State Rep Charles Booker(D) LA: Incumbent John Kennedy(R) vs.Luke Mixon(D) vs.Gary Chambers(D)	MD: Incumbent Chris Van Hollen(D) vs.Chris Chaffee(R) vs.Colin Byrd(D) MO: Incumbent Roy Blunt(R) vs.Trudy Busch Valentine(D) vs.Eric Greitens(R) vs.Scott Sifton(D) vs.Eric Schmitt(R) vs.Lucas Kunce(D) vs.Mark McClosky(R) vs.Vicky Hartzler(R) vs.Tim Shepard(D) vs.Billy Long(R) vs.State Sen. Dave Schatz(R) NC: Incumbent Richard Burr(R,retiring) Erica Smith(D) vs.Mark Walker(R) vs.Ted Budd(R) vs.Pat McCrory(R) vs.Cheri Beasley(D) vs.Rett Newton(D) vs.Jeff Jackson(D) vs.Marjorie K. Eastman(R) ND: Incumbent John Hoeven(R) vs.Katrina Christiansen(D) vs.Michael J. Steele(D) vs.State Rep. Rick Becker(R) NH: Incumbent Maggie Hassan(D) vs.Don Bolduc(R) vs.State Rep. Chuck Morse(R) NV: Incumbent Catherine Cortez Masto(D) vs.Adam Laxalt(R) NY: Incumbent Chuck Schumer(D) vs.Antoine Tucker(R) vs.Joe Pinion(R) OH: Incumbent Rob Portman(R,retiring) Bernie Moreno(R,withdrew) vs.Tim Ryan(D) vs.Jane Timken(R) vs.Josh Mandel(R) vs.JD Vance(R) vs.Mike Gibbons(R) vs.Morgan Harper(D) vs.Matt Dolan(R) OK-6: Incumbent James Lankford(R) vs.Joan Farr(R) vs.Madison Horn(D) OK-4: James Inhofe(R,resigning) Luke Holland(R) vs.Nathan Dahm(R) vs.Rep. Markwayne Mullin(R) vs.Speaker T.W. Shannon(R) vs.State Sen.Scott Pruitt(R) vs.Rep.Kendra Horn(D) OR: Incumbent Ron Wyden(D) vs.QAnon adherent Jo Rae Perkins(R) vs.Jason Beebe(R) PA: Incumbent Pat Toomey(R,retiring) vs.Everett Stern(R) vs.Jeff Bartos(R) vs.Val Arkoosh(D) vs.Carla Sands(R) vs.John Fetterman(D) vs.Malcolm Kenyatta(D) vs.Kathy Barnette(R) vs.Sharif Street(D) vs.Conor Lamb(D) vs.Sean Parnell(R) vs.Craig Snyder(R) vs.Mehmet Oz(R) vs.David McCormick(R) SC: Incumbent Tim Scott(R) vs.State Rep. Krystle Matthews(D) SD: Incumbent John Thune(R) vs.Veteran Brian Bengs(D) UT: Incumbent Mike Lee(R) vs.Allen Glines(D) vs.Austin Searle(D) vs.Evan McMullin(I) VT: Incumbent Patrick Leahy(D) vs.Gerald Malloy(R) vs.Peter Welch(D) WA: Incumbent Patty Murray(D) vs.Challenger Tiffany Smiley(R) WI: Incumbent Ron Johnson(R) vs.Tom Nelson(D) vs.Sarah Godlewski(D) vs.Alex Lasry(D) vs.Chris Larson(D) vs.Mandela Barnes(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
Contact info: Email Contact Form Phone number: (202) 224-2621






Page last updated: Sep 16, 2022; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org