‘A champion of Democracy.’ Rep. Adam Schiff discusses Trump, housing, water, climate | Opinion

The following interview was conducted by members of McClatchy California Editorial Boards and Rep. Adam Schiff, a candidate to represent California in the U.S. Senate. It has been edited for length and clarity.

McClatchy California: Can you give us your opening statement?

Rep. Adam Schiff: I am running for the Senate to bring leadership that gets things done and to bring a track record of being willing to take on the biggest fights to defend our democracy.

There are three existential challenges facing our state and our country. First is the need to make the economy work for everyone. The challenge today is not that people aren’t working. Unemployment is very low. The problem today is that people are working but they just can’t make enough to get by. Building an economy that works for everyone is my top priority.

We also need to protect our democracy which is under a continual threat in ways we would have never imagined possible just a few years ago. We have learned the hard way just how fragile our democracy is, and we need a strong champion in the Senate who will defend it and our institutions against any threat.

Finally, the biggest existential challenge of them all is climate and the planet. If we don’t get that right, none of the rest is going to matter very much at the end of the day. We have to fight to build on what we’ve done in the Inflation Reduction Act and wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. We must move our economy to a green economy — that is essential to save the planet.

It’s not enough not to just have the right positions, you have to have the ability to work with others and deliver, and that’s what I’ve done. Whether it’s up-to-date textbooks for California schools and early earthquake warning systems for the West Coast of the country, bringing millions back to fund shelters for those who are unhoused or passing legislation to protect press freedom, I have a long history of getting things done.

Opinion

MC: Reps. Barbara Lee and now Katie Porter have called for a ceasefire in Gaza. What is your position?

Schiff: We should have humanitarian pauses to get aid to people in Gaza, and to hopefully secure the release of hostages, but not a permanent ceasefire at a time when Hamas continues to govern Gaza — threatening Israel with more attacks like on October 7, where 1,200 people were murdered and many were raped and tortured. No state could allow that kind of terrorist threat to exist on its border. I don’t think a permanent ceasefire that freezes the governing of Gaza makes sense. And while hostages are still being held by Hamas, I can’t support a permanent ceasefire. But I do think that the Biden Administration is taking the right approach, which is to defend Israel’s right to defend itself, and, at the same time, urge pauses in the conflict to deliver much needed aid.

I grieve the loss of Palestinian lives. It’s horribly tragic. And I think we can simultaneously, as human beings, grieve the loss of innocent civilians in Gaza as I do, but also grieve the loss of Israeli lives and deplore and call out Hamas for what it is: a terrorist organization that raped scores of women and murdered people in cold blood. The Biden Administration is also doing something very important in the conflict which is taking every action possible to keep the conflict from broadening and to keep Iran more fully out of the war in Gaza.

MC: The Israel-Hamas war has become quite a divisive issue within the Democratic ranks. How do you feel about your more progressive Democratic colleagues whose words have upset many in the Jewish community?

Schiff: As a member of the Jewish community, I can tell you just how painful it’s been both to watch the magnitude and the horror on October 7 — the scale of the butchery, something we haven’t seen since the Holocaust — and the wave of anti-Semitism unleashed around the country. The anti-Semitic actions on college campuses and the harassment of students has been terrifying and very isolating for the Jewish community. At the same time, it unleashed a wave of Islamophobia and horrible attacks on Muslims, like the killing of that six-year-old child in Illinois and the shooting of three college students in Vermont. We have to call out these acts of hate and be unequivocal about it.

We need to not mince words when it comes to Hamas and its terrorist acts. And to do so doesn’t mean that you have to agree with every policy of the government of Israel or the prime minister. But it does mean that you can’t rationalize, justify or in any manner endorse the murderous acts of Hamas.

MC: Reps. Lee and Porter have voted against an annual defense authorization bill — which includes new Defense Department policies and details how its budget will be spent — several times, a bill you have regularly supported. Shouldn’t a senator from California be more skeptical of militarization?

Schiff: Senators from across the country should be skeptical of militarization. We should view our defense budgets very carefully and excise abusive funding and spending on systems that we don’t need, which is what I’ve done. I voted to reduce the defense budget many, many times, and I voted for across the board cuts to defense systems that we don’t need, which the Pentagon and the Biden Administration haven’t asked for. But I’ve also supported bipartisan defense bills that protect the country and bipartisan defense bills that raise the salaries of our service members who put their lives on the line, defense bills that have provided paid parental leave for families, both inside the Department of Defense and outside of it. These bipartisan bills have been very important to our national defense, as well as to a number of really important domestic priorities. So I’ve evaluated each on their merits.

When I chaired the Intelligence Committee, I shared every aspect of the intelligence agencies’ budgets, and supported cutting those budgets where I thought it was appropriate and eliminating investments where I thought they weren’t warranted. One other measure that distinguishes me from my colleagues is that I’m the only one who voted for the budget deal that the president negotiated that avoided a default on our debt. Like the defense bill, I could have said, “I’m just gonna vote against the whole thing because there are pieces that I don’t like.” But I don’t think that’s a responsible thing. In the case of the debt ceiling, it would have thrown our country into an economic crisis or would have cost us hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of jobs. At the end of the day, the country needs a senator who’s willing to get things done. That’s what we have in Alex Padilla, and that’s what I’m offering to California as well.

MC: You have gathered more endorsements by labor unions than any other candidate. Does that make you beholden to labor to the detriment of businesses, which also have legitimate points of view?

Schiff: I have a long record of getting things done for working people. That doesn’t make me hostile to business. The innovative entrepreneurial economy, agricultural economy and green economy are very important to California and to the nation. I believe that when businesses are successful and prosperous, that prosperity should be shared with people who are making it possible. When I look at the changes in our economy since the 1970s, we have about half as many households that are labor households than we had in the ’70s. As a result, the middle class is under greater pressure than ever. Wages have stagnated. And this is why people are feeling such intense economic pressure — because of the unaffordability of housing, because we’ve made it so hard for people to collectively bargain and form a union and get a contract and, once they have a contract, to enforce that contract.

Yes, I am a strong, devoted supporter of working people. That’s why I’ve earned the support of so many in labor. But you can be supportive of labor and also realize we need to support small businesses and make sure they have access to capital. We need to make sure we have an environment in which new companies can succeed and thrive and get the financing they need. We need to be able to do both, and I have been able to do both, which is why I have support in this race.

MC: Climate change is requiring California to adapt its water management and develop new supplies. What is your position on Governor Newsom’s Delta Conveyance Project and how do you plan as senator to address California’s water challenges?

Schiff: This is one of the most defining issues for our state and for our country: climate change. This is a pivotal challenge, which is why I prioritize it as one of three existential challenges we have to meet. I’m still evaluating the governor’s proposal. I’ll be the first to admit I’m not an expert on the proposal, and I’m meeting with stakeholders to evaluate the benefits and the liability of it. I want to make sure I understand it before I give a definitive opinion on it.

One thing that’s become abundantly clear over the past several years is that the nature of precipitation is changing. We’re not having the snow-pack that we used to. When it rains it floods. We need to be able to capture those millions and millions of gallons that are falling into the ocean. We need to be able to recharge our aquifers and have the infrastructure to convey that water from where it is collected to where it can be used to recharge aquifers. We need to invest in infrastructure, whether it looks exactly like the governor’s proposal or not. We’re going to need to invest in infrastructure, much of which hasn’t been invested in for decades.

We’re also going to have to use less water. We’re going to have to conserve. We’re going to have to develop and incentivize new technologies, and we’re seeing some of those deployed in the Central Valley in water saving technologies that deliver water right to a particular tree instead of broader irrigation that is not as water efficient. We’re all going to have to adopt a comprehensive approach to this scarce resource. My approach is going to be to continue to meet with stakeholders throughout the state, making sure I understand the issues really well and that I help the parties get to “yes” on the kind of infrastructure we need to meet our water challenges in our cities and the agricultural areas and all over California.

MC: California has been a leader in transitioning to clean energy, yet even here we’re failing to meet our greenhouse gas reduction goals. What should Washington do to turn things around?

Schiff: We had a very strong start with the Inflation Reduction Act — that was the most vigorous investment in attacking climate change in our history or any other nation’s history. But that has to be just the beginning. Years ago, I was one of the leaders in the effort to fund and expand the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy. This is an agency that invests in not-yet-ready-for-market, new, renewable technologies that are key to our economy and to saving the planet. We have to vigorously invest in these new technologies and new methods of storage and transmission. We have to stop incentivizing an oil industry that is killing us and killing the planet.

We have to devote attention to modes of transporting goods. A lot of the diesel emissions from our trucks and ocean-going vessels contribute enormously to climate change. I’m in a declining school of thought which is one of optimism that we can still get ahead of this tipping point. That’s less so because I’m optimistic about human nature, and more because I’m optimistic about science and technology. We have seen over the years the price points for developing renewable energy and producing it. We need greater urgency and incentives to transition us to this green economy. I believe we can get ahead of this tipping point.

I’ve been making numerous visits to the Central Valley and one of the things I found most striking was a water issue that was different from the global water issues we have. It’s not that we don’t have enough water, it’s the fact that hundreds of thousands of people don’t have clean water. They can’t drink the water out of their taps or from their wells because it’s filled with arsenic. Because we’re depleting aquifers, it has manganese, or because dairy farms are being flooded, nitrates. I think water is a universal human right, and we need to bring a lot more attention to the lack of drinking water. That’s going to be a very high priority for me as well as other unmet needs in the Central Valley, like healthcare.

Rural hospitals are in free fall. We need to make sure we can reopen the hospital in Madera. People have already died because they can’t get to the hospitals on time. We need to change reimbursement rates so they’re not one day away from bankruptcy, and we need to expand broadband access. In my district, in Los Angeles, during the pandemic, kids could just zoom into school. But too many people in the Central Valley don’t have access to broadband and lost out on their education. Like so much else in the Senate, to really make meaningful progress, at the end of the day, is going to require us to do away with the filibuster. We’re not going to bring the kind of non-incremental but transformative change we need as long as there’s a filibuster. I would trade the wide swings of policy that accompany a majority going from one party to the other for the institution defeating the planet-denying gridlock and status quo we have today.

MC: Do you support the expansion of nuclear power?

Schiff: I think nuclear power is part of the energy portfolio we need to consider. We need to answer some tough questions before we have an expansion of nuclear power. The toughest is: Where do we put the waste? What do we do with the waste? I don’t rule out nuclear energy as being a piece of an overall effort to attack climate change. If we’re serious about stopping the planet from getting to the tipping point, we’re going to need to produce energy in other ways than fossil fuels. And we’re also going to need to be mindful of the transition times and how long it will take to transition from certain forms of renewable energy.

MC: It’s been reported that you and the other two leading Democratic candidates vote the same 94% of the time. What distinguishes you from the other two?

Schiff: I’ve got two great colleagues who are running. You’re right, our votes are very similar on many issues. There are differences — like on the debt ceiling. But the principal difference is one of leadership and of the ability to work with others to get things accomplished. We face the gravest threat to our democracy in generations. I think only one of us really stepped up in the middle of that fight and was willing to put themselves on the line to defend our democracy. I did that. And I will continue to do that. Sadly, I think we’re going to need that in the Senate for some time to come. I’m optimistic Joe Biden is going to win the election, but I don’t think his election alone is going to mean that the threat to our democracy from MAGA World comes to an end. We’re going to need a champion of democracy in the Senate to protect our institutions. And only one of us has shown the leadership to do that.

We can have the same views on policy issues but be very different in our ability to get things accomplished. I have a very long record — which sets me apart in this race — of actually delivering for Californians. From authoring California’s Patient Bill of Rights to bringing back millions to provide housing for the unhoused, to building mass transit in Los Angeles. The mass transit systems now known as the Blue Line and the Gold Line were being killed by the bureaucracy. I introduced legislation to establish a joint powers agency and used contracting to bring the cost down, build it on time and under budget — which may be a mass transit first.

I have the ability to work with our mayors to address the epidemic of homelessness; to work with our cities to address our homelessness crisis; I have a history of working with law enforcement on public safety issues; and have delivered on healthcare. And my colleagues feel the same way: About two thirds of the California House Democrats have endorsed my campaign. That’s very unusual. Usually when you have more than one candidate running for office in the state delegation, the other members of the delegation just stay out. But from Leader Pelosi on down, two thirds of House Democrats have endorsed my campaign. They know the serious problems California is facing. They’re looking for who is going to be the best partner in the Senate to work with them to get things done. They’ve worked with all three of us, and they’ve made a judgment that my ability to get things done is what sets me apart.

MC: Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis believes former President Trump should be removed from the ballot in California. Do you agree with her?

Schiff: I do agree with her because I’ve taken an oath to defend the Constitution and the Constitution is very explicit here. In the 14th Amendment, Section 3, it says that if you’ve taken an oath of office and essentially betrayed that oath — by engaging in an insurrection against the Constitution — then you’re disqualified from holding office in the future. That language is a perfect description for what Donald Trump did. This is a disqualification. It’s not something that takes away his liberty and therefore doesn’t require proof of unreasonable doubt.

This causes a disqualification — much like if you’re not old enough to run, you’re disqualified for appearing on the ballot. You have some very conservative constitutional scholars, like J. Michael Luttig, who believe this is what the Constitution requires. I don’t say this lightly. Normally, I would say voters have to make these decisions. But where the Constitution is explicit, the Constitution governs.

MC: Would you say that we have a crisis at the border? And if you are elected to the Senate, what would you propose to deal with the spike in border crossings?

Schiff: I think there’s a broader crisis in our immigration system. We need to recognize that people coming to this country as immigrants and migrants have enriched this country beyond measure. Many have come in search of a better life, like my grandparents and great grandparents. Many have come to flee violence, and their contributions to the country have been enormous and they deserve our respect and dignity. They don’t deserve to be demonized or used as political pawns by Republican governors putting them on buses or planes to destinations they don’t even know and into communities that aren’t even made aware that they’re coming.

To address this, we can surge resources to the court system to evaluate these claims of asylum much more expeditiously and provide translators and other services so that those claims can be handled and so we don’t have people who are here for years in a kind of limbo, unable to work and unaware what their future holds. We need to surge resources to the communities that are most impacted, into organizations that are serving migrants. But we don’t close the door. That’s inimical to our values and our history.

We also need to make sure that communities far from the border that are receiving migrants get the help and assistance they need. More broadly, we need to address what is driving so many people to migrate now: high levels of violence in other countries, and a lack of economic opportunity in other countries. Addressing some of those root causes in other countries will help stem this tide of people coming here to flee violence back home. Finally, and going beyond the current challenge at the border, we need comprehensive immigration reform. We need a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers” and for Temporary Protected Status holders.

I don’t think Republicans are going to help. I think Republicans, in most respects, view the border and immigration as a political gift that won’t stop giving. They have not been willing to work with us to address this problem in good faith. As long as that’s the case, we’re going to have to address it ourselves. That means that when Democrats control the House and the Senate and the White House — as we did for a time during Obama and as we did for a time during the Biden administration — we need to use the political capital to actually get a comprehensive reform passed. That’s on us. I think the responsibility is predominantly on the party that won’t work together to actually solve this problem and wishes to demonize all migrants and immigrants as murderers, rapists, drug dealers and all the rest of that nonsense. But I also think Democrats need to take responsibility for our inability or unwillingness to use the political capital needed when we have the opportunity to do it.

MC: It seems like one of the difficulties Democrats have had is to be able to agree that some controls of the border are necessary and that all countries have to control their borders. It seems like Democrats are afraid to have that discussion for fear of being called racist. Can you speak to that?

Schiff: I think we do — like every other country — have to control our border. We have to have a lawful, orderly process of immigration and ports of entry that are functional that can keep illicit substances out, like fentanyl. We need to recognize and attack these terrible untruths that seek to portray all migrants as drug smugglers or criminals or violent people. That is simply not true. Immigrants and migrants are less likely to commit offenses than people born in the United States. That’s what the numbers show us. Most of the trafficking of fentanyl, for example, come through the ports of entry by U.S. citizens.

We have to puncture these negative stereotypes and false arguments. But that doesn’t equate with the idea that we can’t have an orderly process at our border and we can’t provide resources to our border. I think that is the right and need of every nation. And I do think, candidly, that there are times when the Democratic Party and Democrats from the top of the ticket to the bottom of the ticket don’t want to discuss these issues. But not talking about it isn’t going to make it go away. We have to confront what we have to do to solve these challenges that the nation faces at the border and elsewhere and lean into the solutions. In the absence of democratic willingness to confront these challenges, all of the oxygen is left for those who are demagoguing, like our former president.

I share Senator Padilla’s concern about the Ukraine funding bill. We’ve never attached a completely unrelated policy — let alone a poison pill — to emergency funding during a war, like the Republicans are proposing to do here. How we deal with the large inflow of migrants has nothing to do with whether we provide aid for Ukraine. But Republican Speaker Johnson, among others, are trying to resort to, essentially, extorting Congress by saying we’re not going to provide aid to a democratic ally at war with our adversary, Russia, unless you give us draconian immigration policies that aren’t going to solve the problem, and that don’t have the support of the Congress. What they’re proposing is completely unrelated to the war in Ukraine. I have the same concern that the president and Democrats not be leveraged in this way. Because if we are, it will mean this is exactly what we’re going to see in the future with every bill that is a must-pass bill — whether it’s the debt ceiling or the government shutdown — to leverage policy changes that are not supported by the American people or by Congress.

MC: How can Congress get funding through to get aid to Ukraine?

Schiff: I think there’s a very simple way to get that done and it’s to take up a clean funding bill for Ukraine, which I think would enjoy the support of a majority of Democrats and Republicans. I think they’re keeping us from having a vote on it because they want to use it as leverage. But I also think that we need to hold the line and we need to push back on that effort to shoehorn in policies that are not supported by the country and that won’t solve the problem at the border.

There are other ways to fund Ukraine as well, one of which I’ve been one of the leaders on with leaders in and out of Congress, like Professor Larry Tribe. There are hundreds of billions of dollars in seized Russian assets that can be used to help Ukraine defend itself. Constitutional scholars have analyzed this and found that there is a basis both constitutionally as well as in terms of international law to use those seized Russian assets to help Ukraine defend itself. So I’ve been repeatedly urging the administration to make use of those seized assets. And I think this is a way we can help support Ukraine and do so in a way where we mitigate the burden on taxpayers as well.

MC: How many death threats have you gotten over the last several years?

Schiff: I honestly lost count a long time ago. I think there have been at least four or five people who’ve been prosecuted for threatening to kill me. There are a number of those cases that have reached the level where they needed to be prosecuted. The attacker of Paul Pelosi had me and my home address among their belongings. Someone sent two bullets to my office with the names of my kids on them.

MC: Homelessness is a crisis in all California cities. What would you do from Washington that hasn’t already been done to help Californians address that crisis?

Schiff: Addressing these twin challenges of the lack of affordable housing and homelessness is a top priority for me within the category of making the economy work for people, making sure that every California — and, indeed, every American — can have a roof over their head is an urgent priority. At the root, I’m a firm believer that a big big part of the problem is simply the lack of supply of affordable housing. We don’t have enough housing, and we don’t have enough affordable housing. We need to build millions of units of affordable housing across the country. The federal government can provide tax incentives to build housing. The low-income housing tax credits are super important, but they’re dramatically underfunded.

We need to restructure how those tax credits work to make them much more accessible. We also need to end the federal disinvestment in housing which began in the 1970s. We need to make a strong, direct, federal investment in affordable housing, and we can do that through grants through the state, like development block grants that go to local communities to build affordable housing.

We can also address the challenge by providing a tax credit for renters so that they get help. In order to build a lot more housing, we’re also going to deal with the fact that there are enormous hurdles in the way of getting it done. In some cities, it can take four years to build affordable housing. We’re never going to solve this problem if it takes us four years to build affordable housing, which means that the federal government as well as state and particularly local governments are going to have to respond to this dramatic need to build housing and to build it more quickly. The federal government can find ways to incentivize local governments to act quicker by reducing the regulatory burdens that make it so difficult to build affordable housing.

We’re also going to need to raise wages. Finally, we have to recognize that even when there is housing available for those with serious substance abuse problems or mental health problems, those issues need to be addressed with wraparound services. Otherwise, you can move people into housing from the streets, but they won’t stay housed. I would surge resources to support those wraparound services and invest in temporary shelters to get people off the streets. First, get people to shelter. I support the efforts by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg. At the root, this is a supply problem, but we also need to invest in wraparound services and make sure that those who are truly low income have access to Section 8 or other vouchers they need. And we should make sure that landlords can’t discriminate against those who are using vouchers to pay their rent.

MC: What are your opinions on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s CARE Court?

Schiff: I think that CARE Courts are an important state experiment to try to deal with the challenge of mental illness and the intersection of homelessness. I’m not ready to say that’s not an issue we should replicate around the country because we haven’t seen the evidence yet. But I’m ready to say we should try and we should see. And we should allow states to experiment and be those laboratories that produce good solutions that can be modeled elsewhere.

One of the things I think the federal government can do is not dictate and say, “You have to do it the same way everywhere,” because the problem is not the same everywhere. It’s not even the same in Los Angeles, let alone everywhere in the state or everywhere in the country. That means giving governors and mayors the latitude to try and see what will work. We don’t want to penalize people or incarcerate people because they can’t afford a home. That’s not the answer. I am open to creative ideas and solutions by governors like Gavin Newsom and mayors like Darrell Steinberg and Karen Bass and others that are working in good faith — working to find resources and reasonable answers.

There has to be a balance between making sure we’re not criminalizing people because of their illness or their income, but also making sure people can walk down their streets and use their local park safely. There’s a balance to be struck here. I think the CARE Courts are an attempt to deal with a very real challenge in a responsible way, and I think we should see how that proceeds.

MC: Do you support a nationwide reparations program for Black Americans whose ancestors were enslaved? If so,what form should it take? Should it include cash reparations?

Schiff: I’m co-sponsoring a bill that would establish a commission much like California did to study reparations on a national level and make recommendations as to what form those reparations should take. I think there should be reparations, but I think the question is: What form should they take? I know California, as a result of the commission, is producing a report, and I look forward eagerly to that report and those recommendations and to what the California Legislature chooses to do. Attacking the systemic inequities that have persisted since the days of slavery — that have been perpetuated in the criminal code and other discriminatory actions. At the national level, we are not as far along as California is. We’re trying to get the Jackson Lee bill passed that I’m a co-sponsor of.

MC: What do you fear most about a second Trump presidency?

Schiff: That it would begin where the last one left off, and the last one left off with an insurrection. One thing we saw over four years of Donald Trump is that things went from bad to worse to worse. In the beginning, there were at least a couple of people of status or stature, like Defense Secretary James Mattis. But they were quickly driven out and replaced by people of no stature and no status, who, in turn, were driven out by people who were utter sycophants, who were willing to do anything the president wanted. That would be the starting point for any second Trump term: He would start with the sycophants.

He’s also already made it plain that he intends to be a dictator on day one. And what happens on day two is left very unclear. He wants to erode civil service protections, and basically make the federal workforce into an arm of his campaign or something worse. He wants to use the military to police our streets. When somebody who wants to be a dictator tells you what they want to do and plan to do, we have to believe them. History has given us too many examples of when we didn’t believe what a despot was telling us. When he says he wants to utilize the Justice Department to go after his enemies, we have to believe him. I do. I’m on the enemy’s list, and I think it’s exactly what he would do because it’s what he tried to do in his first term.

We can’t underestimate the danger that he presents to the country and our democracy.

We have already seen too many things we never believed would be possible in this country. My gravest fear for a second Donald Trump term is that our country becomes something less than a democracy where people don’t rely on elections to decide who should govern but instead turn to relying on violence as we saw on January 6.

MC: How do we defeat Donald Trump?

Schiff: We defeat him by sending out a powerful agenda for our country that addresses the very profound economic challenges Americans face. I’ve talked to President Biden about this, and I think he understands this implicitly. The challenges to our economy are part and parcel the challenges to our democracy. When people feel that their quality of life has somehow slipped below that of their parents, and they have more profound worries over their future for their children, all too many start to entertain the demagogue who promises that they alone can fix this.

Addressing these real, profound economic challenges is really key to making our economy fair for the American people and work for the American people but also to protecting our democracy. We also defeat Donald Trump by pointing out just how little he did as president to improve the economic lot of the American people. He says they were forgotten people that he’d never forget, but he forgot them. And, even worse, he ushered in tax credits that did nothing but strip the country of the resources that might have been used to help them. If we can say anything at all about Donald Trump, it’s that he doesn’t care about anybody but himself.

In addition to the dire threat he poses to our democracy, we defeat him by making the case — as I tried to make during the first Senate impeachment trial — that this is a person who does not know right from wrong. This is a person who is incapable of telling the truth. This is somebody who is fundamentally indecent. He is not who we are. We’re going to get through this — I have every confidence. We’re going to look back on this time, and we’re going to wonder, as to his first term, how in the hell did that guy ever become president? We’re going to get through this because there are millions and millions of patriotic, big-hearted, generous people in every state that are not going to want a bigot and a despot and somebody who relishes dividing people against each other to occupy the highest office in the land.

MC: Many people would say that Donald Trump got elected president because they did not like Hillary Clinton. Polls have shown that many groups are dissatisfied with Biden at this time. Do you feel that President Biden is truly the best Democrat to run for president?

Schiff: I think Joe Biden is the best candidate for president and I fully support him for two fundamental reasons. First, as to these economic challenges facing the country, no president has done more to meet them — whether it was the actions he took during the pandemic that helped us get through the recovery; the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act; addressing climate change; or his effort to bring back good paying manufacturing jobs to America. His record of accomplishment is extraordinary. He’s the most pro-labor president in our history, and I think that’s a big part of the solution.

He’s not only great on policy, he’s been incredibly effective at a time of a very narrowly divided government. His record will speak for itself. But we need to make sure people are familiar with that record. Also, I think he’s the right person for this hour because we face enormous challenges at home and abroad. We face a dangerous Russia that’s invading its neighbor. We have a destabilizing war going on in the Middle East. We have an aggressive China, and a vulnerable Taiwan. I want a president who’s experienced and that has good judgment. I certainly don’t want some sycophant to back Vladimir Putin, and neither do the American people. The sharpest contrast between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is that Biden is a good, decent human being. And the same cannot be said of Donald Trump.

I don’t think you can find somebody with greater decency, humility and goodness than Joe Biden. Now, I realize that his age will be an issue, and the president will have to confront that. I think he confronts it with his record and with humor. I still remember Ronald Reagan using humor to deflect attacks over his age, saying in one of his debates that he would not use his opponent’s relative youth and inexperience against him. I think the president will need to lean into this issue, but I think he has the record to back it up. He has judgment and decency that is right for this time. That’s why he beat Trump the first time and why he will beat him the second time.

MC: Can you recommend a book?

Schiff: Near the top of my list would be Ron Chernow’s biography of Grant. I’ve always found the Civil War to be very inaccessible and hard to read about, but both because of his skill as an author and because the story is told through the perspective of a single person, it was actually very readable. More than that, I would recommend it for the insights it sheds on what’s going on in our country right now. The period of Reconstruction and Post-Reconstruction and the recoiling against Reconstruction, which set the nation back for a century, is not unlike what we see today with the MAGA movements. There are a lot of echoes of today that are very powerful and worth studying in that book.

In the field of fiction, I would recommend any book by Cormac McCarthy. I used to say until he passed that he was the greatest living American author — certainly one of them. I love his writing and would recommend him as well.

Barbara Lee was interviewed by opinion journalists at The Sacramento Bee, The Fresno Bee, The Modesto Bee, The Tribune in San Luis Obispo and Merced Sun-Star.