Adam B. Schiff headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from California
Born
June 22, 1960
Age 66
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 — 846
Yes31%
No66%
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 · 71 sponsored · 322 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Every child deserves a great start in life and I'm proud to have worked with @padilla.senate.gov to secure over $1.9 million in federal funding for Guadalupe Union School District’s Early Learning Center. I was delighted to visit and see firsthand the impact of these investments.
My thoughts are with the family and loved ones of Chief Warrant Officer Robert Marzan, and all of Sacramento, who are mourning the loss of one of their own. And I pray for every servicemember in harm's way. May God protect our troops.
If the Senate continues to forsake Congress's war powers and its responsibility, there will be soon no constraint left on this president or any other to make war whenever they choose, wherever they choose. And the American people and our sons and daughters will pay the price in blood and treasure.
The Trump Administration is trying to strip veterans of their reproductive freedoms by banning the VA from providing abortion counseling and care. I'm pushing the administration to respect their service and reverse course on this draconian attack on our veterans' health and freedom.
Los Angeles has seen giant corporate landlords buying up droves of lots in the wake of devastating fires — lowballing offers and taking advantage of vulnerable families. My new bill cracks down on this practice on behalf of every Californian and American recovering from a natural disaster.
Kristi Noem is taking no responsibility for how DHS is operating under her “leadership.” The American people deserve accountability for ICE and CBP's violence in our streets. This has to stop.
Taxpayers are funding a $220 million propaganda campaign promoting... Kristi Noem. I asked Secretary Noem how these lucrative government contracts ended up with the PR firm which formerly ran her campaign ads, and which is run by the husband of her staff. Here's what she had to say:
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem testified that detainees receive medical attention within 12 hours. That’s just plain false. Listen to the U.S. Citizens who were wrongfully detained and denied critical care.
The Trump administration knew from the start of this war of that Iran would retaliate. But they didn't anticipate needing to evacuate Americans in the region? The lack of planning for this war of choice is putting even more American lives at risk.
Within hours of the killing of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, Kristi Noem said they were engaged in domestic terrorism. That was an unfounded and pathetic slur. Today, she again made it clear she sees nothing wrong with misleading the public.
Americans don’t want another forever war. They want affordable health care. They want to feel safe in their communities. They want lower prices. Like you promised.
@raskin.house.gov, @blumenthal.senate.gov, and I are continuing to demand answers — including the role Trump fixer Boris Epshteyn played in brokering these corrupt bargains.
Top law firms are still providing free legal services at Trump's bidding, even though doing so may be a clear violation of the law.  Just one day after the administration said it would abandon its defense of its attacks on law firms, they unsurprisingly reversed course. 🧵
The same administration that removed historical testaments to Jackie Robinson and the Navajo Code Talkers has no problem with this new banner. We have entered a dangerous new period of censorship and propaganda.
Gambling on war and death doesn’t just present national security risks, it also raises serious concerns about potential insider trading — presenting unscrupulous government officials with a chance to profit off the new war in Iran. These contracts are immoral. The CFTC can and must ban them.
Community colleges are sacred spaces where students come to learn and begin to build their futures. It was such a privilege to visit Allan Hancock Community College to speak with students and answer their questions.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
846 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
2026-06-24End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2026-06-24Confirm nomineeNOT_VOTINGNONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2026-06-24End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2026-06-23H. Con. Res. 86 (119th)Accept House changesYESYESConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48)
2026-06-23Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (67-30)
2026-06-22H.R. 6644 (119th)Accept House changesYESYESMotion Agreed to (85-5)
2026-06-18Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (48-39)
2026-06-18H.R. 6644 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (84-8, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-17S. Res. 616 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.Res. 616YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (44-50)
2026-06-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-41)
2026-06-17Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (55-39)
2026-06-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-41)
2026-06-16H.R. 6644 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (87-8)
2026-06-16S.J. Res. 172 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 172YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (47-48)
2026-06-16S.J. Res. 190 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (46-48)
2026-06-15Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (48-43)
2026-06-11End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (47-43)
2026-06-11Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-44)
2026-06-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-44)
2026-06-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-44)
2026-06-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (48-45)
2026-06-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2026-06-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-42)
2026-06-05Motion (Motion to Waive All Budgetary Discipline Re: Lee Amdt. No. 5804)NONOMotion Rejected (50-49, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-05S. 2 (119th)Motion (Wyden Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-51)
2026-06-05S. 1318 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-52)
2026-06-05S. 2 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (52-47)
2026-06-05Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schiff Amdt. No. 5740)YESYESMotion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-05Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 5632)YESYESMotion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-05S. 2 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (45-53)
2026-06-05Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cassidy Amdt. No. 5812)YESYESMotion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-05Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Coons Amdt. No. 5457)YESYESMotion Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-05S. 2 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2026-06-05S. 2 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2026-06-05S. 2 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2026-06-05S. 2 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2026-06-05Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Durbin Amdt. No. 5806)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-51, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Booker Amdt. No. 5803)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 5485)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5451)YESYESMotion Rejected (45-53, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04S. 2 (119th)Motion (Warnock Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-52)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kim Amdt. No. 5545)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 5501)YESYESMotion Rejected (51-47, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Graham Amdt. No. 5779)NONOMotion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 5556)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hassan Amdt. No. 5535)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04S. 2 (119th)Motion (Ossoff Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-50)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 5514)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 5512)YESYESMotion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Tillis Amdt. No. 5452)NONOMotion Rejected (15-84)

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 / 17Next →