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.

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.
Bove, Trump’s former personal defense attorney, has been nominated for a position on the court of appeals. While at DOJ, he worked to reshape the department to carry out the president’s dirty work. To dismiss cases against his allies and take aim at his enemies list.
BREAKING: New documents and testimony make it clear that Emil Bove urged DOJ officials to defy court orders – then misled the Judiciary Committee about it. The facts are disqualifying. And the timeline is damning. Let's break it down. 🧵
Donald Trump is trying to distract in every way he can. Republicans in Congress are paralyzed by the demands of their base. And Americans are seeing right through his Epstein Files coverup.
Fox News took Jeanine Pirro off air because "she's crazy" and "nuts." Their words, not mine.   Now we're going to trust her with the lives and liberty of the people of DC?   This is just absurd.
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
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-43)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-44)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNOYESAmendment Agreed to (81-15)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Final passageNOYESBill Passed (87-9, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNOYESAmendment Agreed to (87-9, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (21-75)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (15-81)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (14-81)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (45-50)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (42-53)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (44-51)
2025-08-01Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Points of Order Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 3114)YESYESMotion Rejected (44-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-43)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-08-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (55-41)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-44)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-39)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-41)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-38)
2025-07-30S.J. Res. 34 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 34NOYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (24-73)
2025-07-30S.J. Res. 41 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 41NOYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (27-70)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-49)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-44)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-07-28Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-39)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-48)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (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 7 / 16Next →