I think as a society we should be weighing in on stuff less frequently.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Hawaii
Brian Schatz
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes28%
No70%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align96%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Brian Schatz
U.S. SenatorDemocratHawaii
SoupScore
Brian's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 57 sponsored · 199 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Sure but my message guidance storms are getting more frequent and more severe and it is going to impact everybody one way or the other, even if it’s just that you are part of a national insurance Risk pool
I guess you were trying to be funny, but a lot of people live and work in Waikiki and I love it there so although the history of it is problematic like the history of most places that were taken over, there are now people who depend it.
It’s feasible, but it’s very expensive at this moment, but lots of things were very expensive and with a combination of federal research and private sector investment, they figure out the economics so I’m rather bullish on all of it carbon capture natural systems geothermal all of it
I have a bachelors degree in philosophy, so not only can I not answer this question I’m not even sure I fully understand it
We should give them electricity
There are lots of exciting technologies that allow electrification of extremely rural areas and we don’t have to make a sacrifice between our environmental priorities and the human need for people to have access to heating and cooling systems.
My goodness YES. I mean if they want.
It’s real it’s probably necessary and it’s very expensive. At one point the pro climate, action community viewed this as essentially a moral hazard and that may still remain true, but it’s also true that we don’t really have a pathway to climate safety without it.
EPA is governed by federal law and I don’t see any pathway for them to repeal those laws. EPA has a ton of authority to make a rules and that is where this admin could be quite damaging, but we don’t want to Concede the idea that they can repeal the clean air act or the clean water act
I’m not recalling how often these maps are updated but your point is right which is that some of them are Damned old and have huge implications for insurance rates and planning and what’s permitted where so they need to be as updated as possible so that the market reflects the actual risk
This sounds right
Yes. I think it’s an existential threat in the sense that it will fundamentally change tens of millions of lives in deeply negative ways and increase cost for average people. But I also agree that the world will not literally cease to exist because I’m not a child.
I think we have to be humane about this and understand that people need electrons whatever the source. There are incredible opportunities for clean distributed generation that will electrify the homes for millions of people, so some of the framing of cheap energy versus clean energy is from the 70s
You can say un ambiguously whatever you feel because this remains a free country but I totally disagree with you. 🤙🏽
I don’t know that it’s totally antagonistic first of all, but to the extent that we have a bipartisan consensus to remain competitive with China I think energy dominance in the clean energy space is very much consistent with that and not in competition with it
I don’t know
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-39) |
| 2026-06-18 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-8, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-17 | S. Res. 616 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.Res. 616 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (44-50) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-41) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-39) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-41) |
| 2026-06-16 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (87-8) |
| 2026-06-16 | S.J. Res. 172 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 172 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-48) |
| 2026-06-16 | S.J. Res. 190 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-48) |
| 2026-06-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-43) |
| 2026-06-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-43) |
| 2026-06-11 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2026-06-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2026-06-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Budgetary Discipline Re: Lee Amdt. No. 5804) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Wyden Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-51) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 1318 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (52-47) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schiff Amdt. No. 5740) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 5632) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (45-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cassidy Amdt. No. 5812) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Coons Amdt. No. 5457) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Durbin Amdt. No. 5806) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Booker Amdt. No. 5803) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 5485) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5451) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (45-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Warnock Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kim Amdt. No. 5545) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 5501) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (51-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Graham Amdt. No. 5779) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 5556) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hassan Amdt. No. 5535) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Ossoff Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 5514) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 5512) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Tillis Amdt. No. 5452) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (15-84) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Schumer motion to commit S.2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-06-03 | S. 2 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2026-06-03 | S.J. Res. 188 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | 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.