Republicans just effectively ensured premiums will spike for 24 million Americans.
It’s a sad, sad state of affairs when the Republicans refuse to negotiate at all and leave us all footing the bill with higher prices and worse care.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Virginia
Mark R. Warner
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes36%
No60%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align91%
Cross-party9%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Mark R. Warner
U.S. SenatorDemocratVirginia
SoupScore
Mark R.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 54 sponsored · 188 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
There is no real Republican plan on health care.
Giving folks a one-time payment of $1,500 isn’t enough – it’ll only cover a fraction of the skyrocketing premiums Republicans are unleashing on Americans.
It’s pretty rich that Trump is traveling across the country on a meaningless “affordability tour” while he avoids negotiating a simple fix on ACA tax credits.
If he cared at all, he’d just get this done. Instead, he calls affordability a “hoax” and spikes costs for all.
So they can seize an oil tanker, but not a drug boat?
Wow. A Virginian named Naomi just called my office to share her monthly premiums are going up over 700% next year… for a worse plan.
Republicans COULD prevent this with a simple vote tomorrow. Instead, they’re choosing to let Americans like Naomi spend way more.
Tomorrow, Republicans have a chance to vote to prevent 24 million Americans’ premiums from spiking.
If they really care about affordability, this is the single easiest and most important vote to support. Somehow, I doubt they’ll do it.
We must protect the CFPB. Glad to be in this fight with you.
When costs skyrocket on health care premiums next year, millions will lose insurance entirely.
That damage won’t be contained. No matter what insurance you have, we will all be stuck footing the bill with higher prices and worse care.
Don’t let them try and make this go away.
Hegseth must release the full, UNEDITED video of the boat strike to all Americans.
Everyone deserves to be able to see and judge for themselves if this man should stay in this role.
24 million Americans will pay more for their health insurance next year if Trump doesn’t come to the table and negotiate.
Democrats have a plan to prevent it. Republicans just don’t seem to care.
The median age of a first-time home buyer is now 40 YEARS OLD.
That’s an absolute crisis.
And House Republicans just tanked our broadly bipartisan and Senate-passed bill to create more homes and lower costs for all.
I saw an incredibly disturbing video of the U.S. attacking survivors of a capsized boat in the Caribbean.
All of Congress and the American people deserve to see the full, unedited video of the boat strikes and make their own judgments.
There’s no ambiguity anymore. Independent investigators revealed Hegseth endangered servicemembers’ lives.
How is this man still in a job he’s dangerously bad at?
Families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, yet Trump and House Republicans are refusing to lower the cost of housing. Make it make sense.
Donald Trump ran on lowering costs.
Now he refuses to negotiate on the simplest and easiest way to ensure millions of Americans don’t face skyrocketing insurance costs.
All he has to do is extend existing credits to prevent massive upheaval. He refuses to do the bare minimum.
If you want to read more about the provisions of the ROAD to Housing Act, read more on my website here:
www.warner.senate.gov/public/index...
But it would have been a meaningful, important first step that provided real relief. And Republicans won’t even let us get that done. It’s inexcusable.
This is just SOME of what the bill contained. It was always just a first step, there’s a hell of a lot more we need to do to truly lower rents and mortgages for the millions of American struggling with skyrocketing costs.
It contained targeted fixes for some of the barriers rural communities face in financing new home construction. It also would have improved financing transparency for veterans to support access to more affordable mortgage options.
It included the Build More Housing Near Transit Act, to support a future where it’s easier to build housing near robust public transit hubs, so folks are better connected to work, businesses, and friends.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History890 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
890 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (66-28) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-43) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48) |
| 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 | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (53-47) |
| 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 | 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) | NOT_VOTING | 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 | NO | 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) |
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.