We must demand that these facilities comply with the law, and this ruling is a step in the right direction to do so, but the work to make this facility safe is just beginning.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|California
Adam B. Schiff
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 782
Yes30%
No68%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align93%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Adam B. Schiff
U.S. SenatorDemocratCalifornia
SoupScore
Adam B.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 52 sponsored · 296 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
When @padilla.senate.gov and I visited the California City Detention Center, we met with people who were held without basic medical treatment or, in many cases, no medical attention at all. 🧵
www.latimes.com/california/s...
For months, the administration falsely claimed that its military operations in the Caribbean were about stopping drugs. Now, they are hiding the proceeds of Venezuela’s oil in an offshore bank.
Where is the money going? Who benefits? We need answers. www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/u...
Glenn Medical Center, the only hospital in Glenn County, closed last year due to bureaucratic red tape — forcing families to travel miles to get care.
Now, a new bipartisan law that I wrote with the late-Rep. LaMalfa is fixing Glenn's federal status and creating a pathway to reopening its doors.
When the administration comes after members of the House and Senate, our response should be: screw you, we’re not backing down.
In the face of a weaponized government trying to intimidate public servants for simply stating the law, we must fight back.
And give no quarter.
The administration is trying to indict members of Congress for speaking truth to power.
This is a grave threat to the First Amendment and the right of citizens to choose their own representatives.
The time to speak out is now.
The grand jury upheld the rule of law. Against an administration that won’t.
Trump’s DOJ lackeys just tried to indict Members of Congress for stating the obvious:
You don’t have to follow illegal orders.
That the DOJ would even contemplate such an action demonstrates what a repressive regime is now running this country. 🧵
There is still a lot we need to know about the remaining Epstein Files.
But one thing we know for sure: this administration has been lying, consistently, about the Epstein Files and their attempts to cover up his connections to them and Trump himself. youtu.be/Z7rF-6TP9h0?...
The Vice President’s deletion of this post only deepens the pain of the Armenian community which saw this White House retreat on Armenian Genocide recognition.
Another capitulation to Turkey, in such a sloppy manner as to invite further scrutiny of this admin's retreat on human rights & the truth.
$600,000,000 slashed from public health funding in four blue states, the vast majority targeting California.
These cuts will hurt vital efforts to prevent the spread of disease.
It's dangerous, and it's deliberate. The Trump administration's targeting of blue states is illegal and must end.
It was great to welcome high school students from AJC to the Capitol. Across the nation and the world, we're seeing an alarming rise in antisemitism, and I'm proud of these young leaders who are focused on combatting hate.
Trump’s rambling speech at the National Prayer Breakfast was far from unifying or spiritually inspired.
Instead, he pedaled the same tired lies. But he did make one confession that grabbed my attention.
youtu.be/iSNzRjrKyYc?...
Donald Trump hasn't kept his promises, and he knows the American people are ready to hold him accountable.
So now he's promising to cheat in the next election, if given the chance.
We can't give him that chance.
Secretary Howard Lutnick lied to the country about his ties to Epstein.
Now we learned that they were in business together.
He has no business being our Commerce Secretary.
He should resign.
www.politico.com/live-updates...
It was a delight to host some of California’s great local leaders here at the Capitol with @padilla.senate.gov.
Mayors from up and down our great state gathered to discuss issues their communities are facing and how we can partner together to deliver for Californians.
The Bay Area Ridge Trail gives visitors the opportunity to enjoy more than 500 miles of some of California’s most incredible outdoor beauty.
Proud to partner with @rephuffman.bsky.social in providing federal recognition to this ridgeline trail — helping preserve it for future generations.
6 years ago this week, I warned the Senate how dangerous Trump would be if they did not convict him.
I said he would not change, and that he would continue trying to cheat in our elections.
I didn’t imagine then how right that would be. youtu.be/9FxNBDUGMmE?...
Proud to have worked with my colleagues to ensure LA Metro receives the funding needed to expand public transit options and improve safety ahead of the 2028 Olympics.
thesource.metro.net/congress-app...
I served with the U.S. Attorneys Office in LA for almost 6 years.
It was a great office, professional and apolitical.
My heart breaks for the many hundreds of dedicated prosecutors who have been forced to leave rather than engage in unethical conduct.
But they have made the right decision.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History782 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
782 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | YES | ✕ | Amendment Agreed to (81-15) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Final passage | NO | YES | ✕ | Bill Passed (87-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | YES | ✕ | Amendment Agreed to (87-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (21-75) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (15-81) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (14-81) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (45-50) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (42-53) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (44-51) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Points of Order Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 3114) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (44-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-43) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-44) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-41) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-44) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-41) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (59-38) |
| 2025-07-30 | S.J. Res. 34 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 34 | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (24-73) |
| 2025-07-30 | S.J. Res. 41 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 41 | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (27-70) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-49) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-44) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-39) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-47) |
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.