Trump’s tariff taxes will mean higher prices for everyday goods, directly hurting American families.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|New Mexico
Martin Heinrich
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 783
Yes32%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align93%
Cross-party6%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Martin Heinrich
U.S. SenatorDemocratNew Mexico
SoupScore
Martin's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 42 sponsored · 247 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
I’m joining countless New Mexicans in calling on Secretary Deb Haaland to make sure we protect the Caja and get it designated as a national monument.
www.kunm.org/local-news/2...
We cannot have a strong American middle class without reinvesting in American manufacturing.
That’s what we did with the Infrastructure Law, CHIPS & Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act.... not by raising prices on working people with a tariff tax.
BREAKING: The House has PASSED my Good Samaritan mine clean up bill.
This victory belongs to every person who rolled up their sleeves to fix this longstanding injustice, & I’d like to thank those who have carried the baton to get us to this point.
Next step: President Joe Biden's signature!
With my Good Samaritan mine clean up bill on the floor of the House today, I naturally walked past this great New Mexican and paused to pay my respects and seek some good luck.
Reposted bySenator Martin Heinrich
Thousands of abandoned mines pollute our ecosystems and threaten our watersheds in Colorado and across the West.
I urge my House colleagues to vote in support of our bipartisan bill to clean up these mines, reduce pollution, and improve water quality.
To safeguard the lands, waters, and way of life in the Pecos from the dangers of future mining, the Forest Service must complete initial steps of the mineral withdrawal process. This is how we ensure that future generations can continue to benefit from this critical watershed.
I agree with AG Torrez: Time is running out.
The U.S. Department of the Interior's "solution" that would require the City of Las Cruces to cut it's groundwater use by 93% is NOT a solution.
sourcenm.com/2024/12/10/m...
Today, my legislation to help Good Samaritans clean up long-abandoned hardrock mines faces its final hurdle before it goes to the President's desk.
I urge all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives to vote YES on this bipartisan, commonsense bill.
Climate action is WAY cheaper than climate inaction. Democrats have made solid progress, but more is needed. And the longer we delay, the more expensive and catastrophic the consequences will be for future generations.
If the Department of the Interior gets its way, Las Cruces won’t have the water it needs to function, and neither will Ag producers.
We need the Biden administration to step in to resolve the TX v. NM case without catastrophic damage.
www.abqjournal.com/news/article...
These guys literally want to take us back in time. Apparently making your neighborhood breathe dirty air is “great”, but American manufacturing jobs making EVs are “woke.”
www.reuters.com/business/aut...
Our Capitol has survived civil war, depression, and insurrection. Don’t underestimate its resilience.
Apprenticeships are good for workers, businesses, and local economies.
That's why I led bipartisan legislation to support apprentice and pre-apprentice programs like Sophia’s at SMART Local 49.
Republicans' plan: Raise prices on YOUR everyday costs. Cut taxes for THEIR wealthy donors.
The kids at Lincoln Elementary in Gallup, NM show up every day bright eyed and ready to learn – just like the students at all the 767 Title I schools in our state.
Republicans’ Department of Education plans to slash funding for these schools slam a door in our kids’ faces.
The only thing that New Mexicans battling chronic kidney disease should have to worry about is getting better. That’s why I’ve introduced legislation to protect those with kidney failure from being kicked off of their health care when they need it most.
www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_v...
Casting politics in terms of good and evil is dangerous and destructive. The "federal government" is your Social Security, it's your uncle's VA cancer treatment, it's the national park where your kids spent their vacation. We're better than this, America.
subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eene...
Republicans’ economic plan:
1. Use tariffs to hike up prices on food, appliances, and other everyday goods.
2. Give tax handouts to the super rich.
3. Cut health care and nutrition programs Americans rely on.
Sounds great for their wealthy donors... & terrible for working families.
Great to meet with folks from Protect Our Winters to highlight the progress we've made to protect our precious public lands and discuss the work ahead to tackle climate change and deliver a brighter future for the next generation.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Schumer Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Decision of the Chair H.R. 1 | NO | NO | ✓ | Decision of Chair Sustained (53-47) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Decision of the Chair S.Amdt. 2360 to H.R. 1 (No short title on file) | NO | NO | ✓ | Decision of Chair Sustained (53-47) |
| 2025-06-28 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-06-27 | S.J. Res. 59 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 59 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-06-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-40) |
| 2025-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-42) |
| 2025-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (61-35) |
| 2025-06-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (58-33) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-46) |
| 2025-06-17 | S. 1582 (119th) | Final passage | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Bill Passed (68-30) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-40) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (46-39) |
| 2025-06-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (44-33) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-27, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Amendment Agreed to (67-30) |
| 2025-06-12 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 2307) | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Motion Agreed to (64-33, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Failed (45-52) |
| 2025-06-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-06-11 | S.J. Res. 54 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 54 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (39-56) |
| 2025-06-11 | S.J. Res. 53 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 53 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (39-56) |
| 2025-06-11 | S. 1582 (119th) | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (68-30, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-43) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-41) |
| 2025-06-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-06-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-41) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-40) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-43) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-43) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-43) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-38) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-46) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-37) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (72-26) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-36) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (59-37) |
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.