Jeanne Shaheen headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from New Hampshire
Born
January 28, 1947
Age 79
Phone
(202) 224-2841
Office
506 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|New Hampshire

Jeanne Shaheen

Cynthia Jeanne Shaheen is an American politician and former educator serving since 2009 as the senior United States senator from New Hampshire. A member of the Democratic Party, she served from 1997 to 2003 as the 78th governor of New Hampshire. Shaheen is the first woman elected both governor and a U.S. senator, and was the first female governor of New Hampshire.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 783
Yes41%
No55%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align86%
Cross-party14%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Jeanne Shaheen headshot
Jeanne Shaheen
U.S. SenatorDemocratNew Hampshire
SoupScore
Jeanne's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 80 sponsored · 283 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Trump’s tariff taxes are disastrous for businesses and Americans around the country. New Hampshire is going to be particularly hard-hit. The last thing we need is higher gas prices and more expensive heating oil when families are already stretching their paycheck to cover costs.
In honor of #HarrietTubmanDay, I’m renewing my push to put Harriet Tubman, an American icon, on the $20 bill. Women and girls, especially communities of color, deserve to see themselves represented and celebrated – and I won’t stop fighting until we see it through.
I'm glad that many of the planned tariffs on Canada and Mexico have been postponed, but businesses in our state still face uncertainty. I visited American Calan Inc. to learn more about their work and how these tariffs are already impacting them.
Government funding runs out in 1 week and what are Republicans in Congress focused on? Turning your tax dollars into Musk and Trump's slush fund. Republicans must return to the negotiating table to avoid a shutdown and fully fund the government in a responsible, bipartisan way.
Access to quality, affordable child care is among the top concerns I hear about from Granite Staters, and we need to address this challenge head on. That's why I'm working across the aisle to introduce comprehensive legislation that will increase supply and lower costs for families.
I'm introducing bipartisan legislation to help working families in rural areas maintain access to safe and affordable housing. We have an opportunity to come together to get this done – and I’m encouraging both parties to do just that by advancing our commonsense bill.
Some Congressional Republicans want you to believe that cutting Medicaid will save money. In reality, they plan to use those savings to pay for a billionaire tax break. Medicaid cuts would be disastrous for New Hampshire where nearly half of all beneficiaries are children.
Nobody likes long waits at the doctor's office. But we know if Republicans refuse to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits, we will lose more than a quarter million jobs, hurting our hospitals, doctors and pharmacies.
Trump’s speech last night sounded more like reality TV than reality. Fact: there aren’t millions of people over 100 years of age fraudulently claiming social security benefits.
President Trump called for an end to people hundreds of years old collecting Social Security benefits — a claim his own administration has debunked.
The Air Traffic Control system needs comprehensive reform and investment, not a temporary fix. My bipartisan legislation would expand the workforce pipeline, enhance training facilities and equipment, improve recruitment and retention efforts and more.
I’m disappointed but not surprised that Trump didn’t utter a single word about improving access to child care tonight. If Trump really wanted to lower the cost of everything then ensuring access to quality, affordable child care would be a top priority.
Tariffs won't lower costs for Americans. Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico alone will increase food costs by $110 for families. So next time you’re at the grocery store and shocked by your high bill, thank Trump.
Speaking of the budget: let's not forget that House Republicans want to gut Medicaid. If Trump gets his way here, billionaires will win big and folks who are just trying to access affordable health care will lose.
POTUS's real tax plan? To give his billionaire friends like Elon Musk a tax break on the backs of working people. During his campaign, Trump promised voters he wouldn't touch programs like Medicaid or Social Security but the proposed Republican budget tells a different story.
As elected officials we need to be responsible with your tax dollars and cut waste where we can. But instead of working across the aisle, DOGE is using a wrecking ball to indiscriminately target vital programs and services that Granite Staters rely on.
We know energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to deal with our energy needs. Trump’s decision to cut off funding for clean energy projects and halt energy efficiency programs won't lower costs for Americans—it'll raise energy prices.
Republicans blocked my bill to lower costs for Americans. My bill would have helped ensure that households across the country are not forced to pay higher prices on everyday goods because of Trump's reckless tariffs on Canada and Mexico.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
783 total votes
ExpandCollapse

Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.

DateBillQuestionPositionParty MajAlign?Result
2025-02-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-46)
2025-02-04Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (77-23)
2025-02-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-03Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (59-38)
2025-02-03Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-01-30End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (83-13)
2025-01-30End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (62-35)
2025-01-30Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (80-17)
2025-01-29End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (78-20)
2025-01-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (56-42)
2025-01-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (56-42)
2025-01-28H.R. 23 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-01-28Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (77-22)
2025-01-27End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (97-0)
2025-01-27Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (68-29)
2025-01-25End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-23)
2025-01-25Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (59-34)
2025-01-24End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (61-39)
2025-01-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2025-01-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-49)
2025-01-23Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (74-25)
2025-01-23End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (72-26)
2025-01-22S. 6 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required)
2025-01-21Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45)
2025-01-21Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46)
2025-01-20Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (99-0)
2025-01-20S. 5 (119th)Final passageYESNOBill Passed (64-35)
2025-01-20S. 5 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESNOAmendment Agreed to (75-24)
2025-01-17S. 5 (119th)End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (61-35, 3/5 majority required)
2025-01-15S. 5 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-49)
2025-01-15S. 5 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESNOAmendment Agreed to (70-25)
2025-01-13S. 5 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (82-10)
2025-01-09S. 5 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-9, 3/5 majority required)

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.

← PrevPage 16 / 16