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 — 784
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 · 54 sponsored · 302 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Donald Trump and Republicans cut funding for PBS to help pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. In doing so, they cut an essential public service that millions of Americans rely on — including many in rural communities. Another casualty of the Trump budget.
Cutting funding for life-saving research has nothing to do with attacking antisemitism. It has everything to do with attacking science, universities, and California. And sadly, it is our health, our knowledge and our economy that will pay the price.
Donald Trump placed major tariffs on Brazil. Now he's sanctioning a judge. But … why? Answer: It has nothing to do with trade, unless you consider insurrection to be a new American export.
As families recover and rebuild from natural disasters - mortgage payment deadlines can make matters so much worse. That's why I am introducing a bill with @bennet.senate.gov to give homeowners the financial support they need in times of crisis.
Donald Trump is trying to skip Senate confirmation altogether for some of his most dangerous nominees. In his appointment of bitterly partisan U.S. Attorneys around the country, he's upending the justice system, eroding the rule of law, and making us all less safe. youtu.be/ZWZSgR9QFrs?...
Some of the President's appointees are so extreme, even he doesn’t think they can get confirmed. So Trump is doing an end run around the Senate & finding legally dubious ways to keep them in power. These bad actors may carry out the president’s partisan agenda, but they will not make us more safe.
Attacking the science does not change the science. But it does make us less prepared to confront the crisis. Just step outside and feel the heat. Their denial is dangerous and absurd.
Republicans just voted to confirm Emil Bove. Despite whistleblowers confirming he urged them to ignore court orders. Despite it being clear he lied to the Judiciary Committee. And despite the danger he poses to the rule of law. The corruption of the bench continues.
Two more tragic mass shootings this week. On Monday, several Californians were the victims of a shooting in Reno. And then, the additional tragedy in New York City. My heart goes out to the family and friends of the victims during this unimaginably difficult time.
Children are starving. Civilian deaths continue to mount. Hostages are still held. Today I led 43 of my Senate colleagues in demanding the State Department work urgently to end the humanitarian disaster in Gaza. This cannot continue.
What will come out next about Bove? That's precisely the problem with this disaster of a nominee. And why Senate Republicans are rushing through his nomination. Before more disqualifying information can come out.
“I think it would be incredibly dangerous for someone like that to have a lifetime appointment as a federal appellate judge." The latest whistleblower's words, not mine. I agree.
Republicans discounted Reuveni's detailed complaint. They tried to cast doubt on it. Then Reuveni provided extensive emails, documents, and text messages to the committee that backed up what he said.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
784 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
2025-06-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-37)
2025-06-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-06-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-05-22H.J. Res. 89 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (49-46)
2025-05-22H.J. Res. 89 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-05-22H.J. Res. 87 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (51-45)
2025-05-22H.J. Res. 87 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-05-22H.J. Res. 88 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (51-44)
2025-05-21H.J. Res. 88 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-05-21S.J. Res. 55 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (51-46)
2025-05-21S.J. Res. 55 (119th)Point of Order S.J.Res. 55NONOPoint of Order Sustained (51-46)
2025-05-21S.J. Res. 55 (119th)Point of Order S.J.Res. 55NONOPoint of Order Sustained (51-46)
2025-05-21S.J. Res. 55 (119th)Motion to Adjourn S.J.Res. 55YESYESMotion to Adjourn Rejected (46-51)
2025-05-21Motion (Motion to Recess for Ten Minutes)YESYESMotion Rejected (45-52)
2025-05-21Motion (Motion to Recess for Fifteen Minutes)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-51)
2025-05-21Motion (Motion to Recess for Thirty Minutes)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-51)
2025-05-21Motion (Motion to Recess for 60 Minutes)YESYESMotion Rejected (45-51)
2025-05-21Motion (Motion to Recess for Ninety Minutes)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-51)
2025-05-21S.J. Res. 55 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (51-46)
2025-05-21S.J. Res. 55 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Failed (46-52)
2025-05-21S.J. Res. 55 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46)
2025-05-21S. 1582 (119th)Begin considerationYESNOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (69-31)
2025-05-19S. 1582 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESNOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (66-32, 3/5 majority required)
2025-05-19Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-05-19End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-05-15S. Res. 195 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.Res. 195YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (45-50)
2025-05-15Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-05-14End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-05-14Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-05-14End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-05-14Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-43)
2025-05-14End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-43)
2025-05-14Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-05-14End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-05-14Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-40)
2025-05-13End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (57-41)
2025-05-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-05-13End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-05-13Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (74-25)
2025-05-13End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (72-26)
2025-05-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-05-12End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-05-12Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-05-12End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-05-08S. 1582 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-49, 3/5 majority required)
2025-05-08H.J. Res. 60 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (50-43)
2025-05-08S.J. Res. 7 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (50-38)
2025-05-07S.J. Res. 13 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-47)
2025-05-06H.J. Res. 60 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-47)
2025-05-06S.J. Res. 7 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-47)

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.

← PrevPage 11 / 16Next →