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 — 789
Yes29%
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 · 56 sponsored · 309 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

We shouldn't be surprised the American people have lost confidence in the Department of Justice and FBI. Donald Trump and his loyalists have been trashing them – without cause – for years. And confirming Kash Patel will only add fuel to the fire.
Positive news for CA. Sen. Tim Scott and my bipartisan SBA Disaster Transparency Act passed the Small Business Committee this week. It's the next step in ensuring disaster survivors – in California and beyond – have access to the SBA funding they need to recover and rebuild.
RFK Jr. will not make America healthy again. But his ignorance may make people sick again. Deprive them of the treatment they need again. Cause hospitals to close again. We have to vote like our lives depend on it. Because for many Americans – it will.
I asked Trump’s nominee for Deputy AG whether he would commit to releasing volume 2 of Special Counsel Smith’s investigation. A criminal defense lawyer still representing Trump would say “no.” A Deputy AG representing the American people would say “yes.” Here was his answer:
Donald Trump illegally fired 19 inspectors general. The law requires notice to Congress and a case-by-case justification. It is not optional. Congress must convene a bipartisan hearing to examine these unlawful acts and how they can be remedied. Immediately.
I asked Todd Blanche – Donald Trump's personal defense lawyer and nominee for Deputy Attorney General – whether he'd commit to preserving evidence in the January 6 and Mar-a-Lago investigations. He could not say yes.
Let’s not mince words about what this represents: a surrender of Ukraine’s interests and our own, even before negotiations begin. Trump’s a great dealmaker all right — for the Kremlin.
Today, President Trump called our enemy, Russia, before calling our ally, Ukraine. Meanwhile, his Secretary of Defense, ruled out a future for Ukraine in NATO and a restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty over its own lands.
Do we possess the basic common sense — for the sake of our country, our most classified materials, and our intelligence professionals — to vote down Tulsi Gabbard? We will soon find out.
Under oath, Kash Patel said he was unaware of plans to dismiss FBI agents before he was confirmed. Today, whistleblowers revealed Patel was reportedly directing those dismissals. Covertly. Yet another reason he must be rejected.
At a time when our allies and adversaries are questioning America's leadership on the global stage, we cannot afford to confirm a Director of National Intelligence who lacks the judgment, qualifications, and credibility to lead.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
789 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
2025-02-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-43)
2025-02-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (66-28)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Accept House changesNONOConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-51)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (53-47)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-51)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-21Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (24-76)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53)
2025-02-21Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-51)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (51-49)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-49)
2025-02-20End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-02-19Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-02-18S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47)
2025-02-18Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-02-18Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45)
2025-02-13End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-43)
2025-02-13End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-02-13Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (72-28)
2025-02-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-48)
2025-02-12End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-02-12Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-48)
2025-02-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (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.

← PrevPage 15 / 16Next →