Adam Schiff

When Democrat Adam Schiff was elected to the House of Representatives from his Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena state Senate district last fall, he said, “Among those of us in the freshman class, there is a great deal of optimism that we are going to be able to work together in a bipartisan way.”

It would be premature to declare that spirit of optimism dead. But after six months in the House, Schiff describes the atmosphere as “bipartisan lite.”

And as a member of the House minority party, he finds the experience far different from his Senate days in Sacramento, where he served as a member of the majority in a state presided over by a Democratic governor.

The Times recently talked to Schiff about his first six months in Congress.

*

Question: What are your initial impressions of political life in Washington, D. C.?

Answer: It’s an incredible challenge, but I think we’re getting some good things done. I recently introduced a bill to reform and expand Head Start. If we’re really going to leave no child behind, I think we can start by making sure that people aren’t waiting to get into Head Start.

Q: Did you find it a big adjustment, after being a member of the majority in the state Senate, to enter a Congress where you are a member of the minority party?

A: It is a big adjustment. When I was in the Senate and chairing the Judiciary Committee, I felt legislation that had a bipartisan character to it tended to be a better product.

I’m not sure that is a majority view in either party here. Sometimes members of both parties tend to think that whatever comes from their party is gospel. But when you railroad through what your side wants, you often find in retrospect that it would have been better if you had adopted some of the opposition’s suggestions.

And, unfortunately in the House thus far, there hasn’t been a great deal of bipartisan work.

Q: Given that, what is the prevailing mood in the House right now?

A: I would call the prevailing model bipartisanship lite. Instead of sitting down at the table and working together, it’s putting your product forward and seeing how many people you can pick off on the other side.

There’s much more true bipartisanship going on in the Senate. They’re 50-50, and there really is a necessity of working together.

In the House, though, it’s built on a very strong majoritarian principle. If you have 51% of the vote, you control 100% of the agenda. And you can pretty well do as you please.

Q: Is there any movement to cease hostilities? Or is this going to last for the next four years?

A: Certainly, there are many of us trying. It remains to be seen whether the administration is willing to really work with the minority party in the House.

Because it can basically get what it wants from the majority, it thus far hasn’t seen a need to do that. But, ironically, the leadership in the House has not only made the minority party somewhat irrelevant, it’s also made itself somewhat irrelevant because the work product is invariably changed and amended and really crafted in the Senate.

If we worked more in a bipartisan way in the House, we could have a much more significant impact on the final legislation. If we simply ship it over to the Senate in its pristine majority form, then the House becomes a secondary player.

Q: How do you view the president’s proposed budget?

A: My sense is that the president’s education budget is anemic for something that was such a high priority during his campaign. We’re going to try to augment that part of the budget.

When you consider what it would cost, for example, to fully fund Head Start--it’s such a very small number compared to the overall budget--it seems a shame not to do it. I think he would enjoy a great measure of bipartisan goodwill if he were to strengthen things like Head Start.

Q: Given the circumstances we just discussed, do you think your Head Start legislation has a chance?

A: I do. Clearly, the top priority of the administration is the president’s tax cut proposal, and anything that gets in the way of that is going to run into trouble. I think there’s plenty of room, given the surplus that we have, to have a very significant tax cut, and I support that.

I think it’s also an opportunity to invest in the future and in education, and as long as we’re responsible in both areas, we can have a great budget this year.

Q: In addition to the Head Start legislation, what else do you hope to accomplish?

A: I’m hoping that we make progress on water quality issues. There’s a great concern in the San Fernando Valley with high levels of chromium 6 in the water. We’ve already gotten the National Toxicology Program to commit to a $2-million to $4-million study of the cancer-causing impact of chromium 6 in water. That is a huge step forward to give us some really good, definitive answers about what risks are posed with chromium 6. We’re also pursuing a pilot project to develop a treatment technology that will take chromium 6 out of the water.

And we’re pursuing legislation to possibly designate the rim of the Valley as a national heritage area, to help bring back resources for open space preservation, for trail maintenance, for historic preservation.

Q: And you are trying to get official recognition of the Armenian holocaust?

A: I intend to be an original co-sponsor of the genocide resolution, and have been working with the Armenian National Committee and other organizations to try to move the administration forward in terms of recognizing the genocide.

Q: Will this be a difficult task?

A: I think it will be very difficult. The leadership in the House successfully pulled it from consideration last year. The prior administrations have been opposed to recognizing the genocide. We’re getting hints from the current administration that they’re going to be a tough sell as well. So I think it’s going to be a hard road, but it’s one worth traveling and we’re going to keep up the pressure.

Q: Why the resistance? Is this because we have bases in Turkey?

A: The only basis of opposition is our relationship with Turkey. And but for that relationship, recognition of the genocide would have passed each and every year without any opposition whatsoever. The facts of the genocide are irrefutable. But we’re placing political considerations above a humanitarian one.

Q: Do you expect to be affected by redistricting?

A: I would hope that my district would be kept pretty much as it is and simply added on to at one of the boundaries. We have several communities that have an affinity of interests--Glendale, Burbank, Pasadena, South Pasadena, San Marino, La Canada Flintridge, Sunland-Tujunga--that have joint school district committees and joint chamber of commerce committees. There’s a real identity to the district, and I hope that it’s preserved.

But I don’t think anyone can say with great certainty what the legislative plan will look like or what the outcome of the inevitable litigation will be.

Q: You were involved in the most expensive House race in history. What are the prospects of meaningful campaign finance reform this year?

A: I’m really thrilled about the progress of the McCain-Feingold bill. It’s quite a tribute to Sen. John McCain [R-Ariz.] that it passed in the Senate. It was a Herculean task, and I don’t think anyone else could have accomplished it.

Now it’s in the House and I’m actively working to organize the freshmen to get behind it. We’ve formed a group called Freshmen for Reform, and we have, I think, 12 of the 14 Democratic freshmen on board now. We have three of the Republican freshmen on board. And I intend to be very actively involved in the debate on the House floor, particularly on the constitutional arguments in support of McCain-Feingold.

Q: Is it a fight you can win?

A: It’s going to be tough. I think we’re going to see one heck of an interesting fight in the House that we will ultimately win. But it will be late in the day when we do.

Q: What is the opposition position?

A: Their position is that they want to do the budget and the tax cuts and everything else first. I’m sure they would like to do everything else first, but there’s too much interest and pressure and momentum behind campaign finance reform for it to be not taken up at all. So it will be taken up and I think we will succeed.

Q: Will the president sign it?

A: I do think he will. He has signaled a change in his position. Some speculate that it may be because he wants members to know they don’t have a free ride to vote for it. I think his intent may have been to tell the members, “Don’t count on me to veto it. If you don’t want it passed, vote against it.”

On the other hand, I think he’s committing himself. And I think it would be a terrible mistake for him to veto it.

*

Bob Rector is opinion editor for the San Fernando Valley and Ventura County editions of The Times.