The only reason TSA agents are going without pay right now is because Republicans are holding their paychecks hostage so they can shovel more money at ICE and CBP.
That's absurd. Republicans need to stop blocking our bill to pay TSA & start getting serious about basic ICE reforms.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Washington
Patty Murray
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 772
Yes23%
No71%
Present0%
Not Voting6%
Party align98%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Patty Murray
U.S. SenatorDemocratWashington
SoupScore
Patty's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 31 sponsored · 159 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
REMINDER: Yesterday, 49 Senate Republicans voted AGAINST funding TSA.
They are REFUSING to pay TSA agents unless they get to shovel more money at ICE with no reforms.
DHS desperately needs a leader who is focused on accountability & transparency—and who will make the changes necessary to restore trust in the agency on everything from the distribution of disaster aid to immigration enforcement.
That’s not Senator Mullin. I will vote NO to advance his nomination.
BREAKING: 49 Senate Republicans just VOTED DOWN our simple bill to pay TSA workers.
Republicans have now blocked TSA pay SEVEN times. It’s a slap in the face to the men and women who have been working without a paycheck for weeks.
Oh yeah, I’m sure the next thing the American people want after long lines at TSA is to get wrongfully detained, beat up, and harassed by ICE.
No blank check for ICE. We need reform & accountability.
In the meantime, how about you tell Republicans to just vote to pay TSA.
Trump: "If the Radical Left Dems don’t immediately agree to let our Airports be FREE & SAFE again, I'll move our patriotic ICE Agents to Airports where they will do Security, including immediate arrest of all Illegal Immigrants, w/heavy emphasis on those from Somalia, who have totally destroyed MN."
Good morning. Today, Senate Republicans will have the chance to FINALLY join Democrats and pass our bill to pay TSA workers.
Every Senator will be on the record. Will Republicans seriously block TSA pay, again?
ICE and CBP's recklessness reaches far beyond the tragic deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good. There have been numerous other instances of ICE and CBP shooting CITIZENS.
I am demanding commonsense reforms and accountability for ICE and Border Patrol.
WATCH ⬇️
Voter fraud is already illegal. And incredibly rare.
The average person is more likely to be struck by lightning than they are to commit voter fraud.
This isn't a widespread issue like Republicans want you to think—they just want to appease the election-denier in the Oval Office.
REMINDER: Republicans want to BAN abortion nationwide.
They fought to ban your health insurance from covering abortion just this past summer. They aren't quitting.
Every woman in America deserves full reproductive freedom—NO politicians in your doctor's office.
Trump's war of choice with Iran will keep driving up YOUR prices at the pump, at the grocery store, and just about everywhere else.
American families don't want to pay higher prices to drop bombs on Iran in a war they didn't ask for.
End the war with Iran NOW.
I'm on the Senate floor right now saying ICE & Border Patrol don't need more money—they need accountability.
Americans are demanding SERIOUS reforms. So I'm voting NO on the GOP bill to shovel more money at ICE without real change.
Instead, let's fund TSA—today—as we push ahead to rein in ICE.
Trump and Republicans' SAVE America Act is a disaster for democracy and I'm not going to let it get passed into law.
In Trump's America there is NO money to extend the ACA tax credits and prevent premiums from skyrocketing but there's always money for a war of choice with NO end in sight.
Republicans CHOSE to let this happen—and working families are paying the price.
$200 billion for a war the American people oppose? NO WAY.
Instead of blowing hundreds of billions on Trump's war of choice, we could save the ACA tax credits or make universal child care a reality—you name it.
Congress must END this war and focus on FAMILIES here at home.
Republicans blocked Democrats' bill to pay TSA workers AGAIN.
Then, they blocked our bill to fund all of DHS besides ICE & CBP...AGAIN.
We've given Republicans every chance to solve this TODAY. They refuse unless Congress cuts a blank check to ICE. Not happening.
Republicans slashed Medicaid & food stamps for hungry kids to give ICE more money than most militaries.
Then, Kristi Noem's right-hand man used that money to try to enrich himself with BRIBES.
There needs to be hearings, and we need accountability for this historic corruption.
The average person is more likely to be struck by lightning than they are to commit voter fraud.
Seriously. That's a real stat.
I'm voting NO on the SAVE America Act.
ICE and Border Patrol are sitting on a Republican slush fund.
But Republicans are holding TSA workers' paychecks hostage unless they can give ICE & CBP even more money without BASIC reforms to prevent masked federal agents from breaking into people's homes & hurting them.
Trump and Republicans' SAVE America Act isn't solving problems—it's creating them by making YOU shell out for IDs and documents like a birth certificate or passport.
They want to make voting more expensive—and Democrats won't let them.
Nearly 70 million women have changed their names.
Under Republicans' voter suppression bill, women may need to provide proof of citizenship AND documents to prove the name change, like a marriage certificate.
If you ask me, that's not very pro-family of Republicans.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History772 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
772 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 140 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 123 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2026-04-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-03-26 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-26 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 103 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-03-25 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 107 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S.J. Res. 116 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 116 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-03-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.
Page 1 / 16Next →