Good luck to everyone heading out to the woods for the start of deer hunting season today. Be safe and happy hunting!
www.thealpenanews.com/news/2025/11...
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Michigan
Gary C. Peters
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 846
Yes33%
No65%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Gary C. Peters
U.S. SenatorDemocratMichigan
SoupScore
Gary C.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 79 sponsored · 124 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
President Trump promised to slash electricity costs in half. Today, Americans in almost every state, including Michigan, are facing higher bills.
We must bring down costs and make everyday life more affordable. Michiganders can’t continue to afford these rising prices.
There are fewer health plans available on Michigan’s marketplace for next year, and it’s hurting Michiganders’ wallets right now.
This directly relates to the expiring ACA tax credits, Trump’s tariffs, and Republicans’ massive health care cuts this year.
www.michiganpublic.org/politics-gov...
My alma mater, Rochester High School, unveiled a new Veterans “Wall of Honor” today to recognize RHS alumni and faculty who have served in our Armed Forces. It is an honor for me to be recognized alongside my father and the courageous men and women who have served in our community.
On Veterans Day, we honor those who have served in our Armed Forces and defended the American ideals we all hold dear. God bless all of those who served and are currently serving. 🇺🇸
50 years ago, the Edmund Fitzgerald and all 29 of her crew were lost to Lake Superior. @klobuchar.senate.gov and I are introducing a resolution to help honor their memory and ensure their legend lives on.
Reposted byU.S. Senator Gary Peters
At least five Michigan House Democrats said they're against the package that would reopen the government and pass three full-year funding bills.
My statement on opposing the funding proposal:
Trump's Administration could release the full SNAP funding currently available right now. Yet, he has fought it every step of the way. Hungry children should not be penalized as we keep working to reopen the government.
It's a very simple compromise: Protect existing health care credits, end the shutdown.
We must take action on rising costs for families who are shopping for their health care right now, and we can end this shutdown.
Compromise is a two-way street. If Republicans want the votes, they need to work with us to address this health care crisis.
www.peters.senate.gov/newsroom/pre...
I am proposing a very simple deal to reopen the government:
- Include a one-year clean extension of the current health care tax credits to immediately address Americans’ rising costs.
- Create a bipartisan committee that will continue negotiations on reforms ahead of next year’s enrollment period
Wishing Speaker Emerita Pelosi all the best in her retirement. Americans may never know what your leadership has meant to our democracy. I am grateful to have seen it firsthand as we got things done, from protecting consumers after the ‘08 crash to expanding access to health care. Thank you.
Trump’s overhaul of the East Wing raises questions about a “pay-to-play” scheme that involves government contracts and preferential treatment for private donors.
We need answers.
Access to health care is an issue that impacts all of us. We need both parties coming together in good faith if we want to address the growing health care crisis in our country.
Here’s the reality people are facing with health care plans.
Thanks to Republican’s inaction, monthly bills are going through the roof. That’s why it is critical that we do not cut critical health care credits and exacerbate the rising health care costs caused by Republican’s Big Ugly Bill.
Reposted byU.S. Senator Gary Peters
If your neighbor’s home was burglarized, you’d want to know - information sharing keeps everyone safer.
Ranking Member @peters.senate.gov spoke with the McCrary Institute about his bipartisan bill that requires critical infrastructure entities to report ransomware payments and cyberattacks.
I was at Lighthouse in Pontiac today seeing the local impact of the current lapse in SNAP benefits.
Especially when higher prices are already making it harder for folks to put food on the table, the Trump Administration must release all of the available funding for SNAP.
The Pentagon is failing to keep servicemembers and their families safe from toxic PFAS exposure by delaying clean up at 6 military sites in Michigan.
@slotkin.senate.gov and I are demanding that Secretary Hegseth take accountability for this negligence.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History846 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
846 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-04-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (66-32) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-32) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2025-04-07 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-39) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the CBA re: Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 1690) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (5-94) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 26 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-83) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 33 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-82) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (53-42) |
| 2025-04-02 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-04-02 | S.J. Res. 37 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-48) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-04-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-03-31 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-03-27 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-48) |
| 2025-03-26 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
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.