Adam B. Schiff headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from California
Born
June 22, 1960
Age 65
Phone
(202) 224-3841
Office
112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|California

Adam B. Schiff

Adam Bennett Schiff is an American lawyer and politician serving as the junior United States senator from California, a seat he has held since 2024. A member of the Democratic Party, Schiff served 12 terms in the United States House of Representatives from 2001 to 2024 and was a member of the California State Senate from 1996 to 2000.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 783
Yes30%
No68%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align93%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Adam B. Schiff headshot
Adam B. Schiff
U.S. SenatorDemocratCalifornia
SoupScore
Adam B.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 52 sponsored · 301 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Kimmel. Colbert. Suits against the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and 60 Minutes. Extorting settlements from CBS, ABC, and others. Blocking the AP's access to the White House. 🧵
The Trump Administration on Epstein: A Timeline 1) Release the list 2) The list is on our desk 3) There is no list 4) The list was fabricated by Democrats 5) Only Jeffrey Epstein is on the list
Mr. Patel is now saying there is "no credible information" that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked young women to anyone other than… himself. And that the Epstein client list has only one name, Epstein. No one is buying that.
Kash Patel testified he did not discipline or terminate FBI employees because of their assignment to specific cases involving the President, alone. When I asked him if that meant they were terminated in part for work on those cases, he refused to give a straight answer. Watch:
Kash Patel came to the Senate today not to do his job, but to save his job. The hard-working men and women of the FBI deserve a Director who isn’t just performing for an audience of one.
Donald Trump just blew up another boat in the middle of the ocean with no legal justification. I'm drafting a resolution and forcing a vote to reclaim Congress’s power to declare war. Before Trump’s actions provoke one.
Democracy doesn’t disappear overnight – it is vanishes day by day, one lawless act after another. Oversized portraits on government buildings may look like vanity. But they are also a warning. We must take it seriously.
Let’s be clear: this is not normal. It’s not lawful. And it’s not democratic. It’s propaganda – paid for with your money. We are demanding answers, accountability, and a full halt to this abuse of taxpayer funds.
This is not only a waste of taxpayer dollars. It’s also an authoritarian tactic. Dictators from Stalin to Saddam plastered their images on government buildings to demonstrate power. Now, the Trump Administration is doing the same in Washington.
And my office uncovered a never-before-reported contract for a banner at HHS that goes even further – specifying that the propaganda banners should “last for 4 years.” In other words: until the end of Trump’s term.
Since 1951, federal law has explicitly prohibited using taxpayer funds for propaganda and self-aggrandizement. This isn’t a gray area. It’s illegal. And it violates the Constitution’s command that no funds leave the Treasury except as appropriated by Congress.
These aren’t informational signs. They don’t explain programs, benefits, or public services. They are giant portraits of the President. They look like they're straight out of North Korea. And they are the textbook definition of propaganda.
In just four months, three federal agencies have paid for massive political banners with your tax dollars: - USDA: ~$16,400 - Dept. of Labor: ~$6,000 - HHS: ~$34,000 That’s at least $50,000 in taxpayer money for Trump propaganda.
By now, you’ve probably seen these propaganda banners sprouting up on federal buildings. We’ve uncovered how much these banners cost through never-before-seen documents. And why they’re illegal: (Thread 🧵)
Big night for The Pitt and The Studio at The Emmys. Love to see California-based productions taking home wins – more proof that the Golden State remains the gold standard for film production.
Read every word of this. Millions of Californians can now be profiled by the color of their skin and the language they speak, thanks to the Supreme Court. This is not the slippery slope. We are already on the slide towards dictatorship.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
783 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
2026-05-14S. Res. 690 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2026-05-13S.J. Res. 130 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-53)
2026-05-13S.J. Res. 141 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (50-50)
2026-05-13S.J. Res. 132 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (48-52)
2026-05-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2026-05-13S. Res. 526 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (99-0, 3/5 majority required)
2026-05-13S.J. Res. 163 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 163YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (49-50)
2026-05-12End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2026-05-12Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2026-05-11End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-44)
2026-05-11S. Res. 690 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOResolution Agreed to (46-45)
2026-04-30S.J. Res. 184 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (47-50)
2026-04-30S. Res. 690 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2026-04-29S.J. Res. 99 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-50)
2026-04-29S.J. Res. 139 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (46-52)
2026-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-39)
2026-04-28S.J. Res. 124 (119th)Point of Order S.J.Res. 124NONOPoint of Order Well Taken (51-47)
2026-04-28S. Res. 690 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2026-04-27End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-37)
2026-04-23S. Con. Res. 33 (119th)Accept House changesNONOConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48)
2026-04-23S. Con. Res. 33 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-49)
2026-04-23S. Con. Res. 33 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-50)
2026-04-23Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-23Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-23S. Con. Res. 33 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-52)
2026-04-23S. Con. Res. 33 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (25-73)
2026-04-23Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-23Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794)NONOMotion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-23Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414)NONOMotion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-22Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-22Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-22Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-22S. Con. Res. 33 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Agreed to (98-0)
2026-04-22Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-22Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-22Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-22S.J. Res. 114 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (46-51)
2026-04-21S. Con. Res. 33 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2026-04-20Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (47-46)
2026-04-16End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-48)
2026-04-16H.J. Res. 140 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (50-49)
2026-04-15H.J. Res. 140 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49)
2026-04-15H.J. Res. 140 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (51-48)
2026-04-15S.J. Res. 138 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (36-63)
2026-04-15S.J. Res. 32 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (40-59)
2026-04-15S.J. Res. 123 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (47-52)
2026-04-14Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-47)
2026-04-14End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2026-04-14Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-46)
2026-04-13End debateNONOCloture 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 →