Barbara Lee on Environment Democratic Representative (CA-9)

Environment relates to racial & economic justice

Prohibits commercial logging on Federal public lands.

PROPOSED FINDINGS:

Congress finds the following:
1. Forest Service polls show that a strong majority of the American people think that natural resources on Federal public lands should not be made available to produce consumer goods.
2. Recreation and tourism in the National Forest System creates over 30 times more jobs, and generates over 30 times more income, than commercial logging on national forests.
3. Timber cut from Federal public lands comprises less than 5% of US annual timber consumption.
4. The vast majority of America`s original pristine forests have been logged, and what little primary forest that remains exists almost entirely on public lands.
5. It is in the interests of the American people and the international community to protect and restore native biodiversity in our Federal public lands for its inherent benefits.
6. Commercial logging has many indirect costs which are very significant, but not easily measured, such as flooding damage, damage to the salmon fishing industry; and harm to the recreation and tourism industries.

EXCERPTS OF BILL:

• Prohibits commercial logging and timber sales (with specified exceptions) on Federal public lands, with a two-year phase-out for existing contracts.
• Provides for payment of relinquished contracts.
• Establishes a National Heritage Restoration Corps to restore (and monitor) such lands to their natural pre-logging condition.
• Sets forth provisions respecting forest fire and hazardous fuel reduction.
• Provides for worker retraining of eligible persons whose jobs have been lost due to terminated timber and logging contracts.
• Sets forth fund allocation provisions, including amounts for an Environmental Protection Agency investigation of non-wood paper and construction alternatives.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness; never came to a vote.

Rated 95% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House. We run tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America. Through our National Environmental Scorecard and Presidential Report Card we hold Congress and the Administration accountable for their actions on the environment. Through regional offices, we build coalitions, promote grassroots power, and train the next generation of environmental leaders. The 2003 National Environmental Scorecard provides objective, factual information about the environmental voting records of all Members of the first session of the 108th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which Members of Congress should be graded. LCV scores votes on the most important issues of the year, including environmental health and safety protections, resource conservation, and spending for environmental programs. Scores are calculated by dividing the number of pro-environment votes by the total number of votes scored. The votes included in this Scorecard presented Members of Congress with a real choice on protecting the environment and help distinguish which legislators are working for environmental protection. Except in rare circumstances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment and issues on which no recorded votes occurred.

Health impact assessments for environmental health.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: A classic 1980s study demonstrated that poor neighborhoods are burdened with more environmental hazards than rich neighborhoods. The 1980s study established the field of `environmental justice`; this bill addresses environmental justice and health justice.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to require health impact assessments and take other actions to improve health and the environmental quality of communities, and for other purposes.

SPONSOR`S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: The Healthy Places Act of 2006 focuses on the built environment, which includes our homes, parks, and transportation systems. Like many other States, Illinois has already begun to take steps to improve the environment. City leaders in Chicago have recognized that many low-income families have no access to fresh foods and medicine because there are no grocery stores and pharmacies in their neighborhoods. Retail Chicago, an initiative of the city`s Department of Planning and Development, is now using redevelopment funds to entice local developers to bring grocery stores and pharmacies into these neighborhoods.

The Healthy Places Act of 2006 would expand these and other efforts to improve the planning and design of communities that can promote healthier living. It establishes and supports health impact assessment programs; better addressing environmental health issues; and creating a grant program to address environmental health hazards, particularly those that contribute to health disparities. Finally, the Healthy Places Act provides additional support for research on the relationship between the built environment and the health status of residents.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.

Promote conservation of rare felids & canids.

To assist in the conservation of rare felids and rare canids by supporting and providing financial resources for the conservation programs of nations within the range of rare felid and rare canid populations and projects of persons with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of rare felid and rare canid populations. Congress finds the following:

• Many wild populations of felids and canids, once considered common, are in decline, and many have declined to the point that their long-term survival in the wild is in serious jeopardy.
• Of the 37 wild felid species worldwide, all are currently recognized as species in need of protection. Of the 35 wild canid species worldwide, nearly 50% are recognized as in need of such protection.
• In addition to their intrinsic value, felids and canids are important aesthetic, economic, and ecological global resources that need to be conserved.
• Large felids and canids are considered both keystone and indicator species. Healthy populations of these species act as an important indicator of the integrity of entire ecosystems.
• Rare felids and rare canids face an array of threats, including loss of habitat and natural prey, intentional and unintentional takings by humans, disease transmission, and a vast number of other threats. These threats need to be addressed in a coordinated fashion.
• The purposes of this Act are to provide financial resources and to foster international cooperation (1) to restore and perpetuate healthy populations of rare felids and rare canids in the wild; and (2) to assist in the conservation of rare felid and rare canid populations worldwide.
• Related bills: H.R.1913, S.1033

Add polar bear & bluefin tuna to endangered species list.

RESOLUTION Recognizing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora on its 35th anniversary:
• Recognizes the important contributions the Convention has made in regulating international trade in endangered species and protecting such species worldwide.
• Recognizes the increasing importance of the Convention in addressing multiple and compounding threats on species and ecosystems arising from over-exploitation, habitat loss, invasive species, disease, and the effects of climate change.
• Applauds the Convention`s recent leadership in reaffirming strong protections for the African elephant, and other endangered species.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges:
1. renewed, expanded, and accelerated commitments to the Convention by all Parties to ensure the Convention`s contribution to species conservation;
2. the U.S. delegation to the Convention to utilize international cooperation to encourage other Parties to the Convention to collaborate effectively to curb excessive exploitation of species for international trade; and
3. the Convention to adopt stronger protections for the polar bear, sharks, bluefin tuna, and other endangered species at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties in 2013.

Regulate all dog breeders down to kennels of 50 dogs.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Animal Welfare Act to define a `high volume retail breeder` as a person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit: has an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs; and sells more than 50 of the offspring of such dogs for use as pets in any one-year period. Considers such a breeder of dogs to be a dealer.

Promulgates requirements for the exercise of dogs at facilities owned or operated by high volume retail breeders, including requiring daily access to exercise that allows the dogs to move sufficiently in a way that is not forced, repetitive, or restrictive; and is in an area that is spacious, cleaned at least once a day, free of infestation by pests or vermin, and designed to prevent the dogs from escaping.

Opponent`s Comments (GSDCA, the German Shepherd Dog Club of America):In the past, legislation has excluded home/hobby breeders. This bill would, for the first time, require home/hobby breeders to follow the strict USDA requirements, such as engineering standards designed for large commercial kennels and not homes. Such regulations would exceedingly difficult to meet in a home/residential breeding environment. If passed, PUPS would disastrously reduce purposely-bred pups for the public.

There is nothing in this bill that changes the status of already known substandard kennel violators. There is no increase in funding for additional inspectors, nor is increased inspection evaluation education included.

Dogs purposely bred for showing, trialing or other events often are not bred for several years due to many different reasons. Some of these dogs may never be bred, yet are included in the count.

Working kennels maintain a large dog population while they are evaluating dogs; if the dogs do not work out for the purpose for which they were intended, they are often sold as pets. This could bring those working/training kennels under USDA regulations.

Prohibit invasive research on great apes.

The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act prohibits:

1. conducting invasive research on great apes
2. possessing, maintaining, or housing a great ape for the purpose of conducting invasive research
3. using federal funds to conduct such research on a great ape or to support an entity conducting invasive research either within or outside of the US
4. knowingly breeding a great ape for the purpose of conducting or facilitating such research
5. transporting or selling a great ape in interstate or foreign commerce for conducting or facilitating such research.

• Defines `great ape` as any chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon.
• Defines `invasive research` as research that may cause death, injury, pain, distress, fear, or trauma to great apes, including drug testing or exposure to a substance or isolation, or social deprivation.
• Requires the permanent retirement of all great apes that are owned by the federal government and that are being maintained in any facility for the purpose of breeding for, holding for, or conducting invasive research.
• Sets forth civil penalties for violations of this Act.
• Establishes in the Treasury the Great Ape Sanctuary System Fund to be administered for construction, renovation, and operation of the sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees.

Prohibits breeding or possessing Big Cat species.

• Prohibits any person from importing, exporting, transporting, selling, receiving, acquiring, purchasing, breeding, possessing, or owning any prohibited wildlife species (current law prohibits importing, exporting, transporting, selling, receiving, acquiring, or purchasing such a species in interstate or foreign commerce).
• Defines `breeding` as facilitating the reproduction of prohibited wildlife species (any live species of lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, or cougar or any hybrid of such species) for commercial use.
• Defines a list of exemptions to such prohibition by authorized persons.
• Includes in the list of persons authorized to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, breed, possess, own, or purchase such species a wildlife sanctuary or a zoo accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums; and a person that is in possession of animals of such species that were born before the date of this Act`s enactment.

Establish an International Conservation Strategy.

Requires a report to Congress on existing US international conservation policies and programs to determine the extent to which such programs are:

• addressing natural resource challenges to ensure healthy and sustainable supplies of water, wildlife, fish, forests, plants, and other critical resources;
• advancing US foreign policy priorities in areas such as security, democratization, sustainable food production, and clean water;
• enhancing economic and wildlife conservation benefits derived from properly managed international hunting and angling tourism;
• addressing poaching, illegal logging, fishing, and wildlife trafficking;
• Establishes the Interagency Working Group on Global Conservation to strengthen the capacity of the US to collaborate with other countries, international organizations, the private sector, and private voluntary organizations to conserve natural resources and enhance biodiversity.
• Working Group will establish a International Conservation Strategy to provide a comprehensive plan of action that identifies specific and measurable benchmarks, goals, and time frames
• Prohibits any provision in this Act from being construed as restricting, limiting, or otherwise impairing properly managed recreational hunting and angling, or (2) the ability of any foreign jurisdiction or authority to authorize regulated programs supporting wildlife for local consumption and commercialization.

Rated 100% by HSLF, indicating a pro-animal welfare voting record.

112th Mid-Term Humane Scorecard: The Humane Society Legislative Fund has posted the final version of the 2011 Humane Scorecard, where you can track the performance of your federal lawmakers on key animal protection issues during last year. We rated legislators based on their voting behavior on measures such as agribusiness subsidies, lethal predator control, and the Endangered Species Act; their cosponsorship of priority bills on puppy mills, horse slaughter, animal fighting, and chimps in research; their support for funding the enforcement of animal welfare laws; and their leadership on animal protection. All of the priority bills whose cosponsorships we`re counting enjoy strong bipartisan support; in the House, each of the four now has more than 150 cosponsors.

The Humane Scorecard is not a perfect measuring tool, but creating some reasonable yardstick and allowing citizens to hold lawmakers accountable is central to our work. When the Humane Scorecard comes out each year, it helps clarify how the animal protection movement is doing geographically, by party affiliation, and in other categories. It helps us chart our course for animals by seeing where we have been effective, and where we need to improve.

Sponsored enforcing against illegal ocean fishing.

Congressional Summary:

Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act;:
• Authorizes additional enforcement measures relating to search or inspection of facilities or conveyances, records inspection, shipment detention, arrest, search and seizure, and service of civil or criminal process.
• Authorizes disclosing information internationally to ensure compliance, including international fishery agreements.
• Requires identification and listing of nations that violate conservation and management measures required under an international fishery management agreement to which the US is a party.
• Authorizes international cooperation and assistance, including grants, to help other nations achieve sustainable fisheries.

Proponent`s argument for bill:(by Mission Blue): Recognizing the growing threat posed by foreign illegal fishing, the International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act would safeguard U.S. ports, strengthen enforcement, and protect American fishing interests. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing spans the globe, threatening legitimate fishing operations, undermining sustainable fisheries management, and stealing a vital resource from needy communities and the world economy. Criminal fishing worldwide is estimated to take $10 billion to $23.5 billion worth of seafood annually, or 11 million to 26 million tons of fish--three to six times more fish than the entire U.S. commercial fishing industry catches legally every year.

Sponsored tightening restrictions on hydrogen sulfide emissions.

Congressional Summary:This Act may be cited as the `Bringing Reductions to Energy`s Airborne Toxic Health Effects Act` or the BREATHE Act.

• Repeals the exemption for aggregation of emissions from oil and gas sources (CAA section 112(n) paragraph 4).
• Considers hydrogen sulfide as a hazardous air pollutant, including oil and gas wells as sources of hydrogen sulfide.

Proponent`s argument for bill: (StopTheFrackAttack.org, July 2012 BREATHE Act Fact Sheet):

The BREATHE Act would close two exemptions in the Clean Air Act (CAA) that threaten the health of communities wrestling with oil and gas production in their backyard. The CAA established limits for major pollution sources; smaller sources of pollutants that are controlled by a single operator, located close to each other, are `aggregated` and considered as one source of emissions. Unfortunately, the CAA exempts oil and gas wells from aggregation. The BREATHE Act would apply the CAA to oil & gas production.

A 1993 EPA Report to Congress on Hydrogen Sulfide Air Emissions Associated with the Extraction of Oil and Natural Gas clear

Require labeling genetically engineered food.

Congressional Summary:

• [Require labeling] any food that has been genetically engineered or contains genetically engineered ingredients.
• Defines `genetically engineered` (GE) as a material intended for human consumption that is an organism produced through the intentional use of genetic engineering, or its progeny, without regard to whether the altered molecular or cellular characteristics of the organism are detectable.

Discussion of pro/con (Huffington Post 4/25/2013):

Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans--over 90%--supports mandatory labeling of foods with GE ingredients. 64 other countries already require such labels. However, strong opposition from the agriculture and biotech industries has scuttled proposals for GMO (Genetically-Modified Organisms) labeling laws in the past. The most recent and high-profile of these failed attempts at a GMO labeling requirement was California`s Proposition 37, which was narrowly defeated after opponents spent $50 million lobbying against it. `Unfortunately, advocates of mandatory GMO labeling are working an agenda to vilify biotechnology and scare consumers away from safe and healthful food products,` a Biotechnology Industry Organization spokeswoman wrote.

Argument in opposition (Food Democracy Now 5/26/2012):

Exactly 20 years ago today, the first Bush administration declared genetically engineered foods to be `substantially equivalent` to foods that farmers had traditionally bred for thousands of years. With this single policy, the US government radically altered the food supply, introducing novel genes into our food that had never before been consumed by humans. Corporate executives at Monsanto colluded with elected officials to make sure that their new `products` were placed onto the market as quickly as possible. Two decades later, Americans are still denied the basic right to know what`s in their food because of this infamous policy.

Extend to 2023 Superfund hazardous waste cleanup.

Congressional summary: Authorizes the use of funds in the Hazardous Substance Superfund for environmental cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Provides that disbursements of the Hazardous Substance Superfund:

1. shall not be counted as new deficit for purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010;
2. shall be exempt from any general budget limitations; and
3. shall be available only for the purposes specified in CERCLA.
   Authorizes Superfund through Dec. 31, 2023.

   Proponent`s argument in favor (Sponsor`s introductory remarks): Last week, the House passed legislation [outlined below] to weaken and fragment the already underfunded federal Superfund program. I am reintroducing legislation to reauthorize Superfund taxes on polluting industries; and provide more funds to clean up toxic waste sites. The Superfund program has resulted in the cleanup of more than 1,000 toxic waste sites. In the majority of cases, EPA works with the parties who have been found responsible for the pollution and they pay for the cleanup. [My bill] will reinstate Superfund taxes [on oil, chemicals, and corporations] to their previous levels.

   Opponent`s argument against: (Chamber of Commerce`s July 29 2013 letter supporting those House-passed bills): The US Chamber of Commerce strongly supports HR2279, the `Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act;` HR2318, the `Federal Facility Accountability Act;` and HR2226, the `Federal and State Partnership for Environmental Protections Act.` These three bills aim at modernizing CERCLA. HR2279 removes two impractical and unnecessary deadlines. HR2318 ensures that the federal government is a `good neighbor` when operating a superfund cleanup site. HR2226 would clarify that EPA must consult with the state when selecting a remedial action.

   Source: H.R.3870 14-H3870 on Jan 14, 2014

   Require reporting lead in drinking water to the public.

   Lee co-sponsored H.R.4470

   Congressional Summary:

   • The EPA Administrator shall, in collaboration with operators of public water systems, establish a strategic plan for outreach, education, technical assistance, and risk communication to populations affected by lead in a public water system.
   • Each operator of a public water system shall identify and provide notice to persons who may be affected by lead contamination of their drinking water, and corrosivity of the water supply sufficient to cause leaching of lead
   • In making information available to the public, the Administrator shall target groups within the general population that may be at greater risk than the general population of adverse health effects from exposure to lead in drinking water.
   OnTheIssues Notes: This bill responds to the drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan. In April 2014, the city of Flint (with a large minority population) switched its drinking water supply from the Detroit-based system to a river-based system, to save the city money. In August 2014, residents began complaining about water discoloration and a bad taste and odor. The city of Flint insisted the water was safe, but by 2015, high levels of lead and other contaminants were found in the water. In Oct. 2015, Flint switched back to the Detroit water supply, using an emergency loan of $7 million from the state of Michigan; that switch should slowly clear up the contaminants. The issue was still volatile enough that a Republican primary debate was held in nearby Detroit on March 3, 2016, and a Democratic primary debate was held in Flint on March 6, 2016 Source: Safe Drinking Water Act Improved Compliance Awareness Act 16-HR4470 on Feb 4, 2016

   Voted NO on requiring limited GMO labeling.

   Lee voted NAY DARK Act

   A BILL to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national disclosure standard for bioengineered foods.

   Cato Institute recommendation on voting YES: President Obama quietly signed legislation requiring special labeling for commercial foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs)--plants and animals with desirable genetic traits that were directly implanted in a laboratory. Most of the foods that humans & animals have consumed for millennia have been genetically modified, by cross-fertilization. Yet the new law targets only the highly precise gene manipulations done in laboratories. Anti-GMO activists oppose the new law because it preempts more rigorous regulation. And that`s exactly the goal of this bill, to the frustration of the anti-GMO crowd.

   JustLabelit.org recommendation on voting NO (because not restrictive enough): Senators Roberts (R-KS) and Stabenow (D-MI) introduced a compromise bill that would create a mandatory, national labeling standard for GMO foods. This bill falls short of what consumers expect--a simple at-a-glance disclosure on the package. As written, this compromise might not even apply to ingredients derived from GMO soybeans and GMO sugar beets. We in the consumer rights community have dubbed this the `Deny Americans the Right-to-Know` Act (DARK Act). We need to continue pressing for mandatory GMO labeling on the package.

   Heritage Foundation recommendation on voting NO (because too restrictive): The House should allow [states, at their choice,] to impose [a more] restrictive labeling mandate, but prohibit the state from regulating out-of-state food manufacturers engaged in interstate commerce. Instituting a new, sweeping, federal mandate that isn`t based on proven science shouldn`t even be an option.

   Legislative outcome: Passed by the Senate on July 7th, passed by the House on July 14th; signed by the President on July 29th

   Source: Congressional vote 16-S0764 on Jun 23, 2016

   Keep restrictive rules for predator control in Alaska.

   Lee voted NAY Disapprove Subsistence Hunting Rule on ANWR

   Library of Congress Summary: This joint resolution nullifies the rule finalized by the Department of the Interior on Aug. 5, 2016, relating to non-subsistence takings of wildlife and public participation and closure procedures on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.

   Case for voting YES by House Republican Policy Committee: The Fish and Wildlife Service rule--which lays claim to more than 20% of Alaska--violates ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act) and the Alaska Statehood Compact. Not only does [the existing 2016 rule] undermine Alaska`s ability to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands, it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government.

   Case for voting NO by the Sierra Club (April 6, 2017):

   • President Trump signed H.J. Res. 69, overturning the rule that banned `predator control` on federal wildlife refuges in Alaska unless `based on sound science in response to a conservation concern.`
   • Any rule mentioning `sound science` is in trouble under a Trump administration.
   • So what kinds of practices will the Trump administration now allow on our federal wildlife refuges? Activities that include shooting or trapping wolves while in their dens with pups, or hunting for grizzly bears from airplanes.
   • It`s all about ensuring a maximum yield of prey species like elk, moose, and caribou for the real apex predator: humans. So if having more elk requires killing wolf pups in their dens, then so be it.
   • The Obama administration`s rule (which Trump revoked) never tried to stop all hunting. Subsistence hunting was still allowed. What`s changed is that the predators on federal wildlife refuges are now under the control of the state of Alaska. And that makes them prey.
   Legislative outcome: Passed Senate, 52-47-1, March 21; passed House, 225-193-12, Feb. 16; signed by Pres. Trump April 3. Source: Congressional vote 18-HJR69 on Feb 16, 2017

   Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting.

   Lee co-sponsored strengthening prohibitions against animal fighting

   Sen. CANTWELL. I reintroduce today the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation has won the unanimous approval of the Senate several times, but unfortunately has not yet reached the finish line.

   There is no doubt, animal fighting is terribly cruel. Dogs and roosters are drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries such as punctured eyes and pierced lungs. It`s all done for `entertainment` and illegal gambling. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs, while others allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public.

   The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act will strengthen current law by making the interstate transport of animals for the purpose of fighting a felony and increase the punishment to three years of jail time. This is necessary because the current misdemeanor penalty has proven ineffective--considered a `cost of doing business` by those in the animal fighting industry which continues unabated nationwide.

   These enterprises depend on interstate commerce, as evidenced by the animal fighting magazines that advertise and promote them. Our bill also makes it a felony to move cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These are razor-sharp knives known as `slashers` and ice pick-like gaffs designed exclusively for cockfights and attached to the birds` legs for fighting.

   This is long overdue legislation. It`s time to get this felony animal fighting language enacted. It`s time for Congress to strengthen the federal law so that it can provide as a meaningful deterrent against animal fighting. Our legislation does not expand the federal government`s reach into a new area, but simply aims to make current law more effective. It is explicitly limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects states` rights in the two states where cockfighting is still allowed.

   Source: Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act (S.261/H.R.137) 2007-S261 on Jan 4, 2007

   Click here for definitions & background information on Environment. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Barbara Lee. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Barbara Lee. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Barbara Lee. Click here for a summary of Barbara Lee's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other CA politicians. Click here for issue statements from CA primary archives. Click here for issue statements from CA secondary archives.
   Other candidates on Environment:		Barbara Lee on other issues:
   CA Gubernatorial: Brian Dahle Caitlyn Jenner Doug Ose Eleni Kounalakis John Chiang John Cox Kevin Faulconer Kevin Paffrath Laura Smith Rob Bonta CA Senatorial: Adam Schiff Alex Padilla Gail Lightfoot James Bradley Jerome Horton Katie Porter Laphonza Butler Lily Zhou Mark Meuser Steve Garvey CA politicians CA Archives	Senate races 2024: AZ: Kyrsten Sinema(I,incumbent) vs.Ruben Gallego(D) vs.Kari Lake(R) vs.Mark Lamb(R) CA: Laphonza Butler(D,retiring) vs.Adam Schiff(D nominee) vs.Steve Garvey(R nominee) vs.Gail Lightfoot(L) vs.Barbara Lee(D, lost primary) vs.Katie Porter(D, lost primary) CT: Chris Murphy(D,incumbent) vs.John Flynn(R) vs.Robert Hyde(R) DE: Tom Carper(D,retiring) vs.Eric Hansen(R) vs.Michael Katz(I) vs.Lisa Blunt Rochester(D) FL: Rick Scott(R,incumbent) vs.Debbie Mucarsel-Powell(D) HI: Mazie Hirono(D,incumbent) vs.Bob McDermott(R) IN: Mike Braun(R,retiring) vs.Jim Banks(R nominee) vs.Valerie McCray(D nominee) vs.Marc Carmichael(D, lost primary) MA: Elizabeth Warren(D,incumbent) vs.Shiva Ayyadurai(R) vs.John Deaton(R) MD: Ben Cardin(D,retiring) vs.Larry Hogan(R) vs.Robin Ficker(R) vs.Angela Alsobrooks(D) vs.David Trone(D) ME: Angus King(I,incumbent) vs.Demi Kouzounas(R) vs.David Costello(D) MI: Debbie Stabenow(D,retiring) vs.Leslie Love(D) vs.Peter Meijer(R) vs.James Craig(R) vs.Mike Rogers(R) vs.Elissa Slotkin(D) MN: Amy Klobuchar(DFL,incumbent) vs.Royce White(R) vs.Steve Carlson(DFL) MO: Josh Hawley(R,incumbent) vs.Karla May(D) vs.Lucas Kunce(D) MS: Roger Wicker(R,incumbent) vs.Dan Eubanks(R) vs.Ty Pinkins(D) MT: Jon Tester(D,incumbent) vs.Tim Sheehy(R) vs.Brad Johnson(R,lost primary) ND: Kevin Cramer(R,incumbent) vs.Katrina Christiansen(D)	NE: Peter Ricketts(R,incumbent,2-year seat) vs.Preston Love(D) Deb Fischer(D,incumbent,6-year seat) vs.Dan Osborn(I) NJ: Bob Menendez(I,incumbent) vs.Andy Kim(D) vs.Curtis Bashaw(R) vs.Tammy Murphy(D,withdrew) NM: Martin Heinrich(D,incumbent) vs.Nella Domenici(R) NV: Jacky Rosen(D,incumbent) vs.Jim Marchant (R) vs.Sam Brown(R) NY: Kirsten Gillibrand(D,incumbent) vs.Mike Sapraicone(R) vs.Josh Eisen(R,withdrew May 1) OH: Sherrod Brown(D,incumbent) vs.Bernie Moreno(R nominee) vs.Frank LaRose(R, lost primary) vs.Matt Dolan(R, lost primary) PA: Bob Casey(D,incumbent) vs.David McCormick(R) RI: Sheldon Whitehouse(D,incumbent) vs.Patricia Morgan(R) vs.Allen Waters(R,withdrew) TN: Marsha Blackburn(R,incumbent) vs.Gloria Johnson(D) vs.Marquita Bradshaw(D) TX: Ted Cruz(R,incumbent) vs.Colin Allred(D) vs.Roland Gutierrez(D,lost primary) vs.Carl Sherman(D,lost primary) UT: Mitt Romney(R,retiring) vs.John Curtis(R) vs.Trent Staggs(R) vs.Brad Wilson(R) vs.Caroline Gleich(D) VA: Tim Kaine(D,incumbent) vs.Scott Parkinson(R) VT: Bernie Sanders(I,incumbent) vs.Gerald Malloy(R) WA: Maria Cantwell(D,incumbent) vs.Raul Garcia(R) WI: Tammy Baldwin(D,incumbent) vs.Eric Hovde(R) vs.Phil Anderson(L) WV: Joe Manchin III(D,retiring) vs.Don Blankenship(D) vs.Jim Justice(R) vs.Alex Mooney(R) vs.Glenn Elliott(D) WY: John Barrasso(R,incumbent) vs.Reid Rasner(R) vs.Scott Morrow(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
   [Title9]

   
   
   
   
   
   Page last updated: Sep 08, 2024; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org