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 — 774
Yes29%
No65%
Present0%
Not Voting7%
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 · 389 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” would force over more than 300 rural hospitals to immediately shut down and put hundreds more at risk of closing. Even some of my Republican colleagues are sounding the alarm about this because they know it would be a total betrayal of rural communities.
One of the best investments our country can make is to build renewable energy projects that lower energy bills. Not only does Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill cut funding for green projects, it literally adds a tax on them. It helps no one but billionaires.
Too many families will go to bed tonight wondering what they will do if the nursing home their elderly loved ones live in is forced to close. Parents are wondering what they’ll do if their child with a disability loses the care they need. That’s the cruel reality of the “Big Beautiful Bill.”
I thought that Republicans were supposed to be the party of states’ rights? Yet the Big Beautiful Bill bans states from passing any laws that regulate AI and social media. Working families can suffer, but let's make sure Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are above the law, right?
Rural hospitals rely on Medicaid payments from patients. When you cut Medicaid, those payments go away and rural hospitals close. That means if you’re in a rural community, that 30-minute drive to the hospital might turn into an hour or more. If you’re in an emergency, that’s a terrifying reality.
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.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
774 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
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNOT_VOTINGYESAmendment Rejected (42-53)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNOT_VOTINGYESAmendment Rejected (44-51)
2025-08-01Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Points of Order Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 3114)NOT_VOTINGYESMotion Rejected (44-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNOT_VOTINGNONomination Confirmed (54-43)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNOT_VOTINGNONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-08-01End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (55-41)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-44)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-39)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-41)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-38)
2025-07-30S.J. Res. 34 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 34YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (24-73)
2025-07-30S.J. Res. 41 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 41YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (27-70)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-49)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-44)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-28End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-07-28Confirm nomineeNOT_VOTINGNONomination Confirmed (50-39)
2025-07-28End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-48)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-47)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-47)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (48-47)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-47)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-47)
2025-07-23H.R. 3944 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-41)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (61-35)

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 7 / 16Next →