An interview with Frank Pallone

This is the twelfth in a series of in-person, in-depth New Jersey Globe interviews with New Jersey’s members of Congress. The interviews will be published as-is, with editing for length and clarity.

This week, the Globe spoke with Rep. Frank Pallone (D-Long Branch), an 18-term Democrat from Monmouth County who serves as the ranking Democratic member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The Globe sat down with Pallone to talk about his thoughts on the soon-to-end 118th Congress, his goals for the soon-to-begin 119th Congress, and more.

Previous interviews: Rep. Andy Kim, Rep. Chris Smith, the late Rep. Bill Pascrell, Rep. Rob Menendez, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, Rep. Jeff Van Drew, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, Sue Altman (in place of Rep. Tom Kean Jr.), Rep. Donald Norcross, Senator George Helmy

New Jersey Globe: Now that we’re at the end of the 118th Congress, looking back on these past two years, what’s your review of this Congress? Has it done what it’s needed to do? Was there more that could have been done?

Frank Pallone: I think the Republican majority in the House has made it difficult to accomplish a lot of what I would have wanted to do. When you have a Republican majority in the House – or you have, as we’re going to have in the new Congress, everything being Republican – on the one hand you’re trying to get things done and actually pass legislation that’s meaningful, but on the other hand you’re also thwarting some extreme policies that they try to put in place. The Republican leadership in the House was constantly trying to repeal many things we had done on health, safety, pro-environment, pro-climate action. For the most part, we prevented those efforts, and then we did accomplish some significant things too.

It’s become a bit of a given that people don’t like what Congress is doing. You look at approval polls, and the approval ratings of Congress are almost always low. How does Congress recover from that? How does Congress pull itself back out and do things that people actually approve of?

I think the problem is that people don’t really have much faith in government at all. A lot of them just think that the government doesn’t work for them. I worry about that in a larger sense, because if people have no faith in government, then do they lose faith in democracy? Do they lose faith in the rule of law? Of course, I see Trump’s election – because I don’t think he’s a big advocate for democracy or the rule of law, or even a meritocracy – as very dangerous. But the only way you’re going to turn that around is if people see the government actually working for them.

And I do think that when we were in the majority, and even in this Congress, we did a lot that actually did help lower prices and help the average guy’s quality of life. But oftentimes they’re not aware of it, because we’re not communicating it sufficiently. And that gets back to you – not you personally, but about the loss of local media. I mean, you’re it [for New Jersey reporters in Washington], right?

Me and Ben Hulac.

Yeah, and that’s part of the problem: even if you do something that actually does improve people’s lives or lowers prices for them, they may not know it because it’s hard to communicate.

How do you think that the media can get out of that spiral? The trend in media has been almost exclusively downward.

The problem is there’s less media! And particularly less local media. Every Sunday I pick up the Star-Ledger, and they have this jacket they put on it saying, “In February, we won’t be publishing anymore.” When I started out – we can go back to when I was a city councilman – there were three dailies in Monmouth County; there was the [Long Branch] Daily Record, there was the [Red Bank] Daily Register, and there was the Asbury Park Press. In Middlesex County, there was the [East Brunswick] Home News, there was the [Woodbridge] News Tribune. And then there were also so many more weeklies. Of course, you now have social media and other things that theoretically have made up for it, but not so much, because they don’t really carry much local news, or not enough.

And if you talk to mayors and councilpeople, fewer people go to the meetings. I remember when I was on the Long Branch City Council, you’d have sometimes 200 to 300 people coming to a council meeting. I haven’t been to one lately, so I don’t know, but from what I understand, you have very few people show up at council meetings, county government meetings, whatever. It’s sad.

Shifting back to Congress, you were talking about how a lot of your goal this session has been to balance getting things done with thwarting what Republicans are trying to do. Next session, you’re presumably going to have to tilt more towards the latter. What’s your strategy for how to deal with this incoming Republican trifecta?

I don’t think it changes much. Maybe you’ll come back here in a month or two and I’ll say something very different, but I don’t think it changes much. In terms of thwarting bad things, or what I consider things that are not helpful to the American people or their quality of life, there’s going to be more of that, because if you listen to what Trump says, he’s so extreme – he’s so aligned with corporate interests and trying to help billionaires. He says that he wants to lower prices, but everything he talks about, in my opinion, would only raise prices. So there’s going to be a lot more of trying to thwart initiatives that Trump and Republicans have that I think are not in the interests of the average person.

But on the other hand, in terms of actually building a consensus to actually get things done, I don’t think that changes. Whether they’re Democrat or Republican or left or right, unless you’re really extreme, most members of Congress want to get things done; they want to get legislation passed that’s beneficial to their constituents. And so I think that continues. Our committee, Energy & Commerce, kind of prides itself on that, because there’s so many things in the health area, the safety area, the consumer area, and the environmental area where you can come to an agreement and get a consensus.

Do you think Republicans are going to play ball on that, from what you can tell?

Yeah, I think so. People just want to get things done. If you look at the end-of-year package, most of what’s in it is bipartisan – it has to be, otherwise it won’t pass. [Editor’s note: in the day since this interview was conducted, the bipartisan funding deal House Republicans had struck with Democrats fell apart due to opposition from Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and it’s unclear what Congress will do instead.] Remember, the Republican majority is so narrow, and there’s 20 to 30 Freedom Caucus people who don’t really want to vote for any spending at all, so I think that it’s going to be hard to do anything in Congress unless it’s consensus-oriented. So there will be a lot of positive things that I think will happen.

It seems like Republicans are interested in doing something pretty partisan via reconciliation – on tax policy, on border policy, maybe on both.

That’s where you have to worry. One of the things that I think is so important is the Inflation Reduction Act. Things that encourage renewables, electric vehicle tax credits, tax credits to encourage renewables whether it be wind or solar, the Greenhouse Gas Fund that gives money back to states or nonprofits to encourage renewables – they’ll try to gut all of that. And we have to try to oppose it and prevent that from happening. And the same thing is true with anything that’s money-related on health care. They may not try to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but they’ll probably try to eliminate most if not all of the subsidies, probably try to eliminate negotiated prices for Medicare – these could all be done through reconciliation.

But I think there’s going to be not only pushback from us, but pushback from some Republicans too. You talk about tax policy and SALT [the State and Local Tax deduction cap]. Trump has reversed himself and said that he’s in favor of getting rid of the cap on SALT, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t follow through on that. So we’re going to have to work on a bipartisan basis with states like New Jersey, New York, California – others that care about it on a bipartisan basis to try to get the cap removed.

You won another term as ranking member of the Energy & Commerce Committee unanimously, but there was more drama on other committees. What do you make of this push by a lot of Democrats to turn over some of the caucus’s leadership?

Well I’ve been advocating that for years, you know. I always wondered why people don’t run. And I think that it finally came to fruition – people said, “Okay, I’m going to run.” So we had a lot of races, which I think was healthy for democracy. And some of the incumbents who had been there for years were beaten or decided not to run because they thought they couldn’t win.

I’ll take your own thesis and put it against you – you’re going into your eleventh year at the top of Energy & Commerce. Should you be subject to these same arguments about passing the torch?

It’s not that anybody was looking to pass the torch. It’s just that people thought they could run and do a better job. And I’ve actually said, look, if you want to run because you think you could do a better job, go ahead. But I’m not an advocate for leaving just because you’ve been there a while. I would have made the argument, if somebody ran against me, that my experience and what I’ve accomplished means I should stay. To me, it’s all a question of whether you’re doing a good job, and I think I am.

One of your big issues on Energy & Commerce has been consumer protection. Republicans have, at least in their rhetoric, struck something of a more populist tone on issues like consumer protection, like taxes. Do you take them at their word on that? Do you think there will be common ground on those issues?

I’ll say this. The last time we had an all-Republican Washington was in Trump’s first term, and in that term, there was almost no activity in our committee on consumer protection. It was really bad. I noticed it a great deal, because as the ranking member I’m on all the subcommittees – the subcommittee on consumer protection would almost never meet. They passed practically nothing. And I would criticize them at the meetings: “So, we don’t care about consumer protection?” The answer seemed to be, no, we don’t, although they wouldn’t say that.

I think that has changed, at least among the Republican members of the House. That committee did have more activity, and we have actually passed bills – you have the TICKET Act, you have the junk fees on hotels, you have the PBMs, those were all consumer protection issues. And they were bipartisan. 

The problem, though, is Trump. That’s what worries me. Because he’s just so much in with the big corporations and the billionaires. I just worry that he – and the people he’s appointed to the cabinet and to these independent agencies that are consumer-oriented, whether it’s the FCC, the FTC, the FDA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission – I just worry that he is really going to tear down a lot of those consumer protections. So we’re going to have to fight. And the idea that these independent agencies shouldn’t be independent, which he espouses, is very dangerous – that they should just do whatever he tells them. That’s not the way they’re set up. I do think you’re right that Republicans in the House have more interest than they used to, and so I think we can come to a consensus on some of it. But then, what is he going to do? Is he going to veto them, or is he just going to ignore them and use the agencies and executive orders and rules to tear everything down?

Another issue that you’ve focused on a lot, that might be more under threat in a Republican Washington, is offshore wind. What’s the future for that? Do you think it’s worthwhile for Democrats to continue pushing it, given the opposition it faces from Republicans and from a lot of your own constituents?

I think I have an obligation to continue to push it and to continue to push most renewables, because even though they may right now not be the majority of our energy sources, they need to be. If we just continue to ignore them, then we’re never going to have effective climate action. Obviously, I’m a very big proponent of climate action, and if we don’t prioritize renewables, then they’re not going to become a larger and larger portion of the energy portfolio, and that’s the only way to ultimately prevent the continued warming of the planet.

Right now, my biggest concern is that Trump is going to try to start drilling for oil and natural gas offshore. What we’re pushing is to try to get Biden to permanently ban offshore drilling in the Atlantic in federal waters. We operate under a five-year plan, so when the five-year plan is in effect, there’s no offshore oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic, and other areas too. In his first term, Trump tried to change that, and then ultimately dropped it because he got opposition from Florida – [then-Florida Gov. Rick] Scott ultimately opposed it, and so did some of the other Republican governors, so we kept the five-year ban in place. That expires in the next couple of years, so that’s a battle. If we could get a permanent ban by Biden before he leaves, that would be the best. But Trump has been an advocate for offshore oil and gas drilling, which is very dangerous, because then you could have another spill. Which is sort of ironic – on the one hand, he says he doesn’t want the windmills, but on the other hand, he says he wants offshore gas and oil drilling.

In this period since Trump won the election, Democrats want certain protections to be put in place. Has Biden been doing that to the extent he should?

I think he’s been trying to. The problem is that, if it’s done by executive order, it could be overturned as soon as Trump takes office. So, more important is what we’ve been trying to do legislatively.

On climate change, it didn’t feel like renewable energy and global warming were huge, often-talked-about issues in the presidential election. Do you think Democrats are focusing on it as much as they should be?

The problem is, whenever you do opinion polls, environmental protection does not score well. People don’t see it as a bread-and-butter issue. I know that, where I am, that’s not true. Not based on a poll, but just based on talking to people. If we have an oil spill, our tourism industry is dead. I witnessed that in 1988. We had all the trash and everything, and the beaches were closed, and the summer tourism industry was destroyed. In 1988, the year I first ran for Congress, that was the year that everything was shut down because of all the trash and garbage off the coast. So my campaign was all about getting rid of all the ocean dumping sites.

So even if national opinion polls, and I don’t necessarily agree with them, show that people don’t prioritize the environment, they clearly do in my district, and I think in the state as a whole. The legacy of industrial pollution – we were the first industrial state, we have a lot of Superfund sites, a lot of brownfield sites, the tourism industry. So I think that New Jersey is maybe out of sync. I’m not sure. But I have no doubt that people in New Jersey care about the environment. New Jersey has more Superfund sites than any other state, and Middlesex County has more Superfund sites than any other county. A lot of them have been cleaned up, but still.

This has been a year of unusual upheaval in New Jersey politics; we had two members who tragically died, we had the dramatic Senate election with Andy Kim, we have this continuing drama over the ballot design and the county line. Looking back on this year in retrospect, what do you make of the changes? Do you think they’re changes for the positive?

I think it’s important to have a strong party system. I’m not a person who has money; I ran for city council in a town that has about 30,000 people, then I became a state senator, then I became congressman. To me, having a strong party structure is still important, because otherwise it’s harder for someone who is an average person to run. It drives me nuts when I see that [Ohio Senator] Sherrod Brown’s election cost like $500 million; Matt Cartwright, I think it was $30 million for Congress. This stuff really bothers me.

The reality is we’re not going to have a line anymore; that’s obvious. But I still think it’s important for the parties to be strong, even without the line.

Did the judge get it wrong in the line case? Would you have rather seen the line remain in place?

I would have kept the line, sure. But what’s the use of talking about it?

Looking ahead to 2025 – every year is an election year in New Jersey, it never really stops – what are you looking for in the governor’s race and state legislative races? Do you think you’ll get involved in any of those races?

Sure I will. It’s no different from the national races. The big issue is, whether it’s Congress or state legislature or the president or the governor, we have to address the fact that people feel that the cost of living is too high – whatever it is that they buy, whether it’s housing, groceries, property taxes. That has to be addressed. That’s the only way that a Democrat wins. But the irony of it is that I think the governor and the state legislature have really tried hard to keep costs down, and Republican policies do not. The key is for our gubernatorial candidates and our legislative candidates to explain why our policies really are more likely to keep costs down and improve the quality of life. But the problem is that people are hurting, and they say, “If you’re the incumbents, why should we vote for you? I’m still hurting!” And you just have to explain that what we have in mind and what we’re doing is actually better than the Republican alternative. Republicans don’t care – they’re just still with the corporate interests, they don’t care about the little guy, in my opinion.

Is there anybody in the governor’s race right now who you think would do a better or worse job of getting that message across?

Well, I’m not endorsing anybody. Obviously, I have two colleagues running. But eventually I’ll decide – but not yet.

You’ve been in politics for around four decades now. A lot has changed, but what are the emblematic things that have changed during your time in politics? Have things gotten better in Washington? Have they gotten worse?

I do worry that they’ve gotten worse. People have less faith in the government, and therefore they don’t want to participate. They don’t want to vote, they don’t want to run, they don’t want to campaign. I’d like to see that change; I’d like to see people more involved and really express their opinion. But I still think you can get things done, and that’s why I stay. So yes, they’ve changed in that the public perception of what we do is a lot worse, and the participation is less. But on the other hand, I think the best way to accomplish things is to get involved in government at any level, and I encourage people, particularly young people, to do that.

I still believe in the three things I mentioned before: democracy – the United States is still the best place where democracy rules – rule of law is still important, and we’re a meritocracy. When I was your age, I think that the value of merit – it was important, in every facet of American life, that people really believed that if you worked hard and you tried hard, you would succeed. What I hate to see is that change, where people think, “Well, the guy with the most money gets ahead, the person whose father has the ability to influence things is going to pass it onto his kids.” That’s what I don’t like. Those three things are really important. As long as we have a strong democracy, a strong rule of law, and we still believe that merit is the basis of advancing, I’ll be an optimist.