Every Senator agreed this morning to the straightforward proposal I have been calling for since February: pay TSA, fund FEMA, fund the Coast Guard - but no funding for Trump's immigration operations without reforms to stop the abuses he's enabled.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Nevada
Catherine Cortez Masto
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 783
Yes34%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align91%
Cross-party9%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Catherine Cortez Masto
U.S. SenatorDemocratNevada
SoupScore
Catherine's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 101 sponsored · 240 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Senate Republicans had the opportunity yesterday to undo some of the damage they have done to working families by repealing a Trump job-killing IRS regulation.
They voted to keep energy costs higher.
The Trump Admin. has driven costs through the roof, and instead of doing anything about it, they're creating slush funds for themselves.
I introduced a bill to redirect Trump's "Board of Peace" slush fund toward cutting power bills for working Americans.
Our power grids are facing more demand than ever before, and that strain is creating a risk to our national security from bad actors who could take advantage of weak points to cause havoc.
That's why I'm working on a bipartisan bill to protect our electrical grids nationwide.
Donald Trump doesn't even believe his own lies about mail-in voting.
But that isn't stopping him from pushing legislation like the "SAVE America Act" to make it harder for you to vote and hold him accountable.
The takeaway is simple: This legislation will result in legally eligible Nevadans being barred from exercising their right to vote.
The SAVE America Act forces states to submit their voter rolls to a DHS program that has a history of flagging eligible U.S. citizens for removal with little to no explanation.
You may not realize your state removed you until election day. And to reregister, you'll need documents you may not have.
@democrats.senate.gov have brought clean bills to the floor of the Senate *eight* times this month to fund the TSA. Republicans didn't even have to vote for seven of them - all they had to do was not get in the way.
The GOP blocked TSA funding each time.
Is it a coincidence that Trump's CFTC Chair is looking the other way while his family tries to profit off of these markets that are breaking the law?
What is happening in our country because of the Trump Administration's cruel policies is horrific, and it is right for all of us to stand up to be advocates for our communities and our neighbors.
Know the facts: state REAL IDs like ours in Nevada would NOT qualify under Republicans' SAVE America Act for voter registration.
Senator Mullin has no relevant experience, and I’m concerned he’ll be a rubber stamp to Pres. Trump and Stephen Miller and run a DHS that is not fundamentally different from Secretary Noem’s. Americans cannot afford more of the same abuses of power. I will not support Senator Mullin’s confirmation.
Secretary Kristi Noem’s tenure at the Department of Homeland Security was disastrous because the Trump Administration’s immigration policies are ripping apart families and violating Americans’ constitutional rights, without making us any safer.
DACA recipients are following the rules, they're working, and they're paying taxes.
They shouldn't be at risk of losing their jobs because the Trump Admin. is creating months-long delays to renew their DACA status.
Under the Trump Administration, an election worker that makes a mistake while registering a U.S. citizen to vote would face harsher penalties than convicted fraudsters who stole millions from seniors and families.
Here's the truth: A Nevada REAL ID *would not qualify on its own* to register to vote if the Republicans' SAVE America Act became law.
This bill is not about voter ID, it's about voter suppression because Trump and his allies know Americans are fed up with their failed policies.
The CFTC is looking the other way while prediction market companies tied to Trump's family profit by trampling on state and Tribal law.
Chair Selig should keep in mind that ultimately this corruption will come to light and he will have to answer to Congress - potentially sooner than he thinks.
That may be Trump and Stephen Miller’s goal, but it is not who we are as Americans. Juan Chavez Velasco should be home, and Dreamers should have the pathway to citizenship they deserve.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History783 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
783 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-44) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-45) |
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.