Brian Schatz headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Hawaii
Born
October 20, 1972
Age 53
Phone
(202) 224-3934
Office
722 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Hawaii

Brian Schatz

Brian Emanuel Schatz is an American politician serving as the senior United States senator from Hawaii, a seat he has held since 2012. A progressive Democrat, Schatz served in the Hawaii House of Representatives from 1998 to 2006, representing the 25th legislative district; as the chairman of the Democratic Party of Hawaii from 2008 to 2010; and as the 12th lieutenant governor of Hawaii from 2010 to 2012.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 772
Yes26%
No73%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align96%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Brian Schatz headshot
Brian Schatz
U.S. SenatorDemocratHawaii
SoupScore
Brian's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 44 sponsored · 168 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

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
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
It’s the second one but I’m very pro people get to eat whatever they want. I get the scientific argument but people want to be in control of what they put on their own dinner table and I support that.
Nothing we can pass in the next four years but I think if we protect IRA gains and make some bipartisan progress under the radar that would be a W
if we address climate change too slowly is that there will be lots of unneeded suffering around the planet prices will go up and disasters will get more dangerous And higher impact, but it’s not like people won’t walk the earth so I very much worry about the “how much time do we have left “framing.
We need to speak plainly and not about high principles or institutions but impacts. The weather is getting worse and more dangerous. The summers are more scorching, and the floods are higher -stop talking about science and stop talking about how dumb other people are for not agreeing with us
a lot of utility regulation is done at a state level through either public utility commissions or public service commissions and it would take a massive change in law to do it differently and I don’t think that’s realistic. Making transmission for regional lines Easier is a really good idea.
I’m not an actuary so I obviously don’t know the number and I’m not sure anybody can predict the number but I think it is fair to say that with what is happening in Florida in particular but also elsewhere we are facing the potential for massive negative economic impacts related to insurance
I don’t speak for him that’s for sure, but I don’t think he’s so much walked away from those policies as noted that although they are important in peoples lives somehow the people most positively impacted were not compelled to vote for the people who delivered the benefit.
This is such a tough and important issue. It points generally to the idea that climate in action is way more expensive than climate action. But in terms of adaptation to the impacts of severe storms, we have to do this efficiently and fairly, and I don’t think we’ve landed on the right policy yet
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
772 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
2025-11-19S.J. Res. 76 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (46-51)
2025-11-19S.J. Res. 89 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47)
2025-11-19Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (66-32)
2025-11-18End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (65-32)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (60-40)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-40, 3/5 majority required)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (60-40)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-40, 3/5 majority required)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)Kill the motionNOYESMotion to Table Agreed to (76-24)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Failed (47-53)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Failed (47-53)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (60-40)
2025-11-09H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (60-40, 3/5 majority required)
2025-11-07S. 3012 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-43, 3/5 majority required)
2025-11-06S.J. Res. 90 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 90YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (49-51)
2025-11-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (57-43)
2025-11-05End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (57-41)
2025-11-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-11-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-11-04H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-44, 3/5 majority required)
2025-11-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-10-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-10-30S.J. Res. 88 (119th)Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 88YESYESJoint Resolution Passed (51-47)
2025-10-30S.J. Res. 80 (119th)Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 80NONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-45)
2025-10-29S.J. Res. 77 (119th)Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 77YESYESJoint Resolution Passed (50-46)
2025-10-29S.J. Res. 69 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Rejected (25-72)
2025-10-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-10-29S.J. Res. 80 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46)
2025-10-28S.J. Res. 81 (119th)Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 81YESYESJoint Resolution Passed (52-48)
2025-10-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-10-28Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-47)
2025-10-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-10-28H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-27Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (58-40)
2025-10-27Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-10-23End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-10-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (48-45)
2025-10-23S. 3012 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-10-22End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-10-22End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-39)
2025-10-22H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-21Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-46)
2025-10-21End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-10-21End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-10-21Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (66-32)
2025-10-20H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-43, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-16H.R. 4016 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-44, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-16End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (62-34)
2025-10-16H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required)

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 4 / 16Next →