Great afternoon at KC Farms talking Red Angus beef, tariffs, and dairy production…. And got some delicious Homestead Creamery ice cream too. Always glad to hear how I can better support Virginia’s incredible farmers & producers.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Virginia
Mark R. Warner
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 783
Yes35%
No60%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align90%
Cross-party10%
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 · 38 sponsored · 169 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Trump’s attempted firing of Lisa Cook should be a wake up call for everyone — this administration is attacking the independence of the Fed. Will the business community finally find their voice to say this can’t stand?
My statement on President Trump’s attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook.
Donald Trump ran on lowering costs.
Instead, inflation is up and slated to get way worse. Companies from Walmart to P&G are announcing price increases directly as a result of these disastrous taxes.
DC statehood now.
Companies that have said they’re going to raise prices directly as a result of Trump’s tariffs:
Walmart
AutoZone
P&G
Adidas
Sony
… and a whole lot more. Don’t say they didn’t warn you!
D.C. has more residents than two U.S. states. They pay more per capita in federal taxes than any other state.
But they don’t get a serious seat at the table to decide how they’re governed.
D.C. statehood now.
Bad news: businesses are jacking up YOUR prices because of Trump’s tariffs.
The reports of famine in Gaza are unconscionable.
It’s long past time for President Trump to use his leverage to push for the release of significantly more humanitarian aid.
When Trump took office, the effective tariff rate was below 3%. Now it’s over 18%.
Unless he backs down again, your prices are going to skyrocket… and this administration will be directly to blame.
If Donald Trump really cared about the safety of the residents of DC, he probably would have started by placing a little more pressure on the Republican House to fix a tiny logistical hiccup that cost DC $1 billion – hurting local police. Instead, DC still isn’t able to access its own tax dollars.
Pillar by pillar, this administration is trying to undermine the independence of all our systems and concentrate power in this imperial presidency.
ICE’s budget is now larger than the militaries of most countries across the globe. How does that make sense?
When Trump took office, the effective tariff rate was 2.3%. Now it’s 18.6%.
Let’s call this what it is – a huge tax scam that will make your life more expensive.
Deeply frightening that our national security lies in the hands of the incompetent and hapless Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.
For the good of this country, they should both resign.
Washington DC’s 700,000+ residents deserve federal representation.
DC statehood now.
Hey it’s a day ending in ‘Y’ so Tulsi Gabbard has launched yet another weird gambit to distract from the administration’s failure to release the Epstein files
It's pretty clear at this point that Donald Trump doesn't understand what's at stake in Ukraine.
We should all hope for peace, but not at the expense of Ukraine’s freedom or America’s principles.
Cash bonuses to deport anyone on their way to work or on their way to pick up their kids from school. Does any of this actually seem like a good use of government dollars?
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 141 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-50) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 132 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-52) |
| 2026-05-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-05-13 | S. Res. 526 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (99-0, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 163 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 163 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 123 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2026-04-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
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.
Page 1 / 16Next →