Peter Welch headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Vermont
Born
May 2, 1947
Age 79
Phone
(202) 224-4242
Office
115 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Vermont

Peter Welch

Peter Francis Welch is an American lawyer and politician serving since 2023 as the junior United States senator from Vermont. A member of the Democratic Party, he was the U.S. representative for Vermont's at-large congressional district from 2007 to 2023. He has been a major figure in Vermont politics for over four decades and is only the second Democrat to represent Vermont in the Senate, after his predecessor, Patrick Leahy.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 789
Yes29%
No65%
Present0%
Not Voting6%
Party align95%
Cross-party3%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Peter Welch headshot
Peter Welch
U.S. SenatorDemocratVermont
SoupScore
Peter's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 69 sponsored · 393 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Two out of three beds in nursing homes are paid for by Medicaid. When you slash Medicaid, seniors get kicked out of nursing homes and those facilities can’t stay open to care for the patients who can pay. One in four nursing homes are projected to close.
When people can’t go to the doctor for minor issues, they end up using the emergency room instead. It drives up emergency room wait times even longer than they already are, and if patients can’t afford to pay, it puts more stress on hospitals’ finances.
When people lose their health care, they stop going to the doctor for check ups. When they stop getting check ups, they miss diagnoses of diseases that are treatable if caught early. More people will get sick and die.
SNAP food assistance is just $6 a day for families in need. It’s not a lot, but it helps hardworking families trying to make ends meet put food on the table. Republicans’ Big Beautiful Bill will take that help away from millions of families.
Two in three Americans oppose President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, because they know it will crush working families. But unfortunately, Republicans aren’t working for them. They’re working for the few billionaires who will get a massive tax cut.
Who stands to gain from President Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill?” Billionaires. Big Oil. China. Who stands to lose? Working families. Rural communities. Hungry children.
President Trump was supposed to lower costs for families. But his Big Beautiful Bill could raise mortgages by $1,000 a year. It could raise small business loans $800 a year. It could raise energy bills $400 a year. All to give tax cuts to billionaires.
How many times have Democrats tried to pass legislation that would actually help working families, only for Republicans to block it because they say they’re worried about adding to the deficit? And yet they’re adding $3.3 TRILLION to the deficit to give billionaires tax cuts.
Right now, one in five children across America are hungry. One in five. It’s almost beyond belief that President Trump and Republicans are working to take away food assistance for kids in order to give tax cuts to billionaires.
Folks are having a hard enough time paying for groceries and everyday needs. And now, Republicans are trying to pass Trump’s tax bill, which picks the pockets of working families to give tax breaks to the rich. Income inequality will only grow larger in America if it passes.
The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” would force more than 300 rural hospitals to immediately shut down and put hundreds more at risk. Even some of my Republican colleagues are sounding the alarm about this because they know it would be a total betrayal of rural communities.
Billionaires in this country are doing just fine. They don’t need a massive tax cut. The folks who need a break are working families, and President Trump’s so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" will crush them.
Today marks a decade since the Supreme Court legalized marriage for same-sex couples in the landmark case, Obergefell v. Hodges. 🌈 Vermont was a leader in the fight for marriage equality—we’ll continue to stand up for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.
Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill will kick 16 million people off their health care. That’s more than the populations of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, West Virginia, Idaho, and Nebraska COMBINED.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
789 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
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the CBA re: Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 1690)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (5-94)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (51-48)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-04-03H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-04-03S.J. Res. 26 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26YESNOMotion to Discharge Rejected (15-83)
2025-04-03S.J. Res. 33 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33YESNOMotion to Discharge Rejected (15-82)
2025-04-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-04-03H.J. Res. 24 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (53-42)
2025-04-02H.J. Res. 24 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-04-02S.J. Res. 37 (119th)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint Resolution Passed (51-48)
2025-04-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-04-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-04-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-03-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-42)
2025-03-27Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-03-27End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-03-27S.J. Res. 18 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-48)
2025-03-26S.J. Res. 18 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2025-03-26H.J. Res. 25 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (70-28)
2025-03-26H.J. Res. 25 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28)
2025-03-26Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-43)
2025-03-26End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-03-26Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-03-26End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-03-26Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-03-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-03-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (56-44)
2025-03-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (56-44)
2025-03-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-47)
2025-03-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)

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 13 / 16Next →