Adam Schiff

For Adam Schiff, it may very well be a case of good news and bad news.

The good news: The Democratic state senator from the 21st District, which includes parts of Glendale, Burbank and Sunland-Tujunga, defeated incumbent Republican Congressman James E. Rogan. He prevailed in a race that drew national attention because of Rogan’s role in the impeachment of President Clinton and subsequently became the most expensive House contest in history, with up to $10 million spent.

The bad news: After winning a tough race, Schiff travels to Washington to find himself in a Congress that will undoubtedly be torn asunder by a combative and close presidential race. The atmosphere will be anything but friendly, especially for a House freshman.

The Times recently talked with Schiff about the campaign and how he will navigate his first term in Washington.

*

Question: When all was said and done, did impeachment really have any role in the outcome of this race?

Answer: I think impeachment was a much less significant factor than a lot of people from outside of the area thought. We didn’t campaign on impeachment. Ironically, my opponent spent more time talking about it than we did. I think there are a lot of issues that were much more pressing in people’s minds. The impeachment raised the cost of the race, but if you took all that money out of the race, I think we would have had the same result. In fact, I think we would probably have had a stronger result. In the end, I think the most important effect of the impeachment issue was that it caused people to look at my opponent’s record on a number of other issues where he was not in step with this community.

Q: If not impeachment, what do you think the issues of the campaign were?

A: On the broadest level, there is a strong desire in the district to have representation that works in a bipartisan way, that keeps its focus on the issues that affect the quality of our schools, the quality of our neighborhoods, and a desire to have a philosophy in Congress that gets away from the strident partisanship that has stagnated any progress on patient rights, on gun safety legislation, on education reform, prescription drug benefits. There’s a perception that there are a great many people in the leadership in Congress who enjoy fighting with each other more than they do trying to do their job.

Q: This was the most expensive House race in history. Would you support legislation to assure that it wouldn’t happen again?

A: I certainly think that the cost of the race was way out of proportion. But a lot of the money raised was in small pieces, and I don’t think legally you can do much about it. The most disturbing part about the financing of this election was the multimillion-dollar soft money expenditures, largely from the the pharmaceutical industry. And the reason why I thought that was the most insidious part of the financing of the campaigns is that they were never required to disclose who they were. They did hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ads on TV, masquerading as “Citizens for Better Medicare.” People didn’t know this was the pharmaceutical industry, and of course it didn’t want them to know. There were hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of radio ads using money funneled through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Again, people did not know who they were. And that kind of anonymous mass expenditure, I think, is very corrupting to the process. When I send out a piece of mail, people know it’s coming from me and they can evaluate it that way, and the same is true for my opponent. But when we allow these enormous soft money expenditures, that’s the most troubling thing. And I think it’s the most easily attacked, legislatively. I’m going to strongly support the McCain-Feingold bill [which would prohibit political parties from accepting soft money contributions]. I think we need to go beyond McCain-Feingold. And I think we can do so fully consistent with the Constitution.

Q: Did your campaign accept soft money?

A: There were certainly soft money expenditures by the Democratic party on my behalf. But in terms of the massive expenditures like the pharmaceutical industry, there was no counter to that. I don’t like the fact that you have people by proxy speaking for you or against you because they may be emphasizing issues that you don’t think are relevant. They may be attacking your opponent in ways that weren’t fair, and you just lose control of your own campaign.

Q: A lot of these ads on behalf of your opponent urged voters to “call Adam Schiff” to complain. Did they?

A: The pharmaceutical industry radio campaign was so intensive, every station, every half hour, had these attack ads on. The first time I heard it, I was driving down the road and listening to this woman talk about her father losing his health coverage under this plan that no one knew about, and then all of a sudden it says, “Call Adam Schiff.” I almost drove off the road. But no, nobody ever called on those things. And you know, it was a terrible skirting of the law and also terrible in its anonymity. It would be one thing if they said, “Call Adam Schiff and tell him whatever. This ad paid for by your friends in the pharmaceutical industry.” Then people could say, “OK, well, I know where they’re coming from.” But I was afraid to turn on the TV or radio.

Q: You said you would favor going beyond McCain-Feingold. Can you explain?

A: I don’t think McCain-Feingold, as currently written, goes after these soft money expenditures. I think it goes after the soft money political party activities, and that only goes so far. But what I thought was most troubling [was] these enormous independent expenditures.

Q: You’re off to Washington now. You may be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. You’re going to move into an atmosphere that is suspicious at best, hostile at worst. Are you prepared for that?

A: I had very good success in the state Legislature my first two years working with a Republican governor. He signed, I think, 40 of my bills into law. I gave a fair reading to the bills of my Republican colleagues in the Legislature, and they gave mine a fair reading. I supported many of theirs, they supported many of mine. I want to bring that ethic to Congress. One of the first calls of congratulations I received was from Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas). We spoke about our shared desire to work together. We both represent a part of Pasadena, and I think we will have a very good relationship. I hope to cultivate that with other Republican members as well.

Q: Do you think think men and women of goodwill can rise above the kind of politics the presidential election is sure to generate?

A: I’m optimistic. Neither party has a mandate, except that people want moderation, or want to keep the economy prospering, and neither ideological extreme has been given any license to seize the day. There are a lot of issues that this present Congress failed on that are eminently resolvable: The patient bill of rights is eminently resolvable . . . the gun show loopholes. [On] a lot of these issues, we ought to be able to reach a quick consensus. There are others that are going to be much more difficult: Social Security, Medicare, probably the most difficult because the presidential campaigns were run on very opposite platforms. And those, I think, are going to be the greatest challenge and probably [of] the greatest significance. But I think there is going to be a mutual recognition that both sides ought to be interested in making progress. If anything, the campaign was a repudiation of the ideological extremes.

Q: If you have a wish list of committees you could serve on when you get to Congress, what would that list contain?

A: I’d love to serve on Judiciary. I chaired that in the [state] Senate. And I’m also interested in International Relations.

Q: What are the chances?

A: I would think and hope that the chances of Judiciary would be very good. I’ve been pretty heavily focused on making sure that this would not be an academic question.

Q: Do you think you’ll be a little bit under a microscope back there because you’re the guy that beat Jim Rogan?

A: I think so. You know, it was a fascinating, hard-fought campaign, and there was a lot of national attention focused on it. At times, it was a little on the surreal side. I was walking precincts in Burbank about three weeks ago, which I have probably done about a thousand times, only this time I had ABC, CBS and Time magazine walking behind me. People were very disappointed to learn they had not won a Publishers Clearing House prize when I showed up [at] their door. Or they were relieved that they hadn’t been indicted and weren’t about to be on “60 Minutes.”

Q: What are your priorities when you get to Congress?

A: Education, first and foremost. I’d like to see the federal government begin by stepping up to the mandates it’s already given so that districts are freed up to invest their budgets in class-size reduction, recruitment, retention of new teachers, their own higher priorities. I’d like to see us help invest in some of the construction problems we have. Our district has a lot of very old schoolhouses that need to be rebuilt. These are things the federal government can do without interfering with locals over education. I want to make sure there are accountability mechanisms to make sure that we’re not wasting millions of dollars on things like Belmont. One of the first things I want to do is sit down with each school district that I represent in the congressional district and find out what their particular needs are and how the federal government can be a better partner in meeting those needs. I also want to continue the efforts to focus on our children, our young people, in keeping them out of trouble, keeping them engaged in productive things.

Q: As a member of Congress, is it possible for you to stay involved in the local issues that you’ve been a part of as a member of the state Legislature?

A: Absolutely. And in some respects, there is a greater opportunity. We were successful at the state level in getting some funds for noise mitigation at the [Burbank] Airport. But the airport is predominantly a federal issue. The curfew that seems to be the lynch pin in resolving this long-standing dispute is one that will be either granted or denied by the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]. And I think that if we have a concerted effort in Washington, we can make greater progress on that. Another critical local issue is the level of chromium in the water. That’s going to be a very early pressing problem because Glendale is under requirement by the EPA [federal Environmental Protection Agency] to blend its treated water with its drinking water, which would raise the level of chromium. The city has been given a 90-day reprieve from the EPA. But 90 days will be here and gone before we know it. So we’re going to have a tough decision to make about whether that water goes in the drinking water, whether it goes in the Los Angeles River, whether it stays in contaminated ground water. There are opportunities to obtain livable cities grant funding to beautify some of the stations around the Blue Line, help meet some of the commitments MTA [the Metropolitan Transportation Authority] made. So there are ample opportunities to continue to weigh in on these local priorities.