In the News

Freshman congressman discusses the issues—and being bipartisan in a fractured Washington

Congressman Mike Lawler sat down with Halston Media last week for a far-ranging interview about national issues and policies affecting our towns.

Encompassing Rockland, Northern Westchester, all of Putnam, and parts of Dutchess counties, Lawler’s NY-17 congressional district isn’t just purple: the color palette shifts widely across the entire area: In some places, it is deep blue; in others, it’s crimson red.

Our 45-minute interview covered a lot of ground: From bipartisanship to immigration to energy, government spending, taxes, foreign policy, jobs, the opioid crisis and the politics of impeachment and prosecution (in both parties). We even found time to talk about adjusting to life in Washington.

The freshman congressman and former member of the New York State Assembly was not provided any of the questions beforehand. He spoke without notes, answering extemporaneously. For brevity, we’ve condensed the questions and sections of the discussion.

How is life in Washington, D.C.?

It’s definitely been a change of pace. As a member of the State Assembly, I was very active, even though it was technically a part-time job, [I] very much made that a full-time job. But this is about tenfold in terms of the schedule, the pace, the number of meetings, and interviews and so on. So that has really been somewhat of a change; you really don’t have a personal life, if you will. Any time I do have, I obviously try to spend it at home with my wife and daughter; my wife stays up here year ’round. She’ll come down for events and stuff.

I have an apartment down in D.C. to try and improve the quality of life slightly, rather than living out of a suitcase.

I’m loving the job, but it’s 24/7. When I’m not in D.C., and back in district, I try to cover as much ground as possible and hit as many events and be as present as I can be.

What’s it like to work with fellow members of Congress?

My general nature is to try and talk to as many people as possible and build relationships. I think that’s important in anything you do in life, but certainly in politics and government. All of our freshman members communicate with each other. We talk, we get together from time to time — whether it be officially or unofficially. I’ve tried to, certainly within the New York delegation, on both sides, build relationships [and] try to talk with my colleagues about issues and ways to work together in a bipartisan way on issues that matter to New York. And as a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, Republican Main Street and the Republican Governance Group, I’ve been able to build stronger relationships with like-minded members and those in districts like mine.

The Problem Solvers caucus is bipartisan: 32 Republicans and 32 Democrats. So I have built strong relationships with people like Josh Gottheimer (D - N.J.), who is my neighbor across the New Jersey border, trying to find avenues and areas to work together on legislation.

Are you interested in the “No Labels” party?

I’ve been in touch with them, certainly. And again, I think the objective is to build consensus and find areas of commonality. But I certainly am and have been a Republican and remain one. I think the objective is to find commonality where you can, and to work together towards addressing big issues and small issues: like fentanyl. On the Foreign Affairs Committee, I’m dealing with China and Israel and issues in the Caribbean with Haiti. There are a lot of areas where we can find bipartisan agreement, and we should.

Within my own conference, Vote View identifies me as pretty much squarely in the middle. You know, I’ve voted with Marjorie Taylor Greene 80 percent of the time — which is among the lowest in my conference.

What are the challenges of representing a “purple” district?

To me, obviously, both the right and the left have gotten more strident in their viewpoints. There’s less competitive districts across the country. You know, a decade ago, you’re talking about 80 districts that were competitive. Today, you’re talking about 30. So gerrymandering has certainly impacted a lot of these districts and the parties have gotten much more hardened in their views.

I think a lot of people are concerned about primaries, and so they play to the left or the right.

I’m focused on my district, the issues that matter to the state, and the country. Being in a swing district, you’re much more focused on a general election audience and talking to voters of all parties and persuasions and trying to build a coalition and a consensus on issues. There’s more of a drive on the left and the right to kind of diverge from each other. But when I talk to colleagues, I think people are generally frustrated by that and would like to see more commonality and more common purpose in dealing with these major issues.

How has gerrymandering affected politics?

I think gerrymandering is bad. You know, New York Democrats tried to do it last year, they got summarily thrown out in court by a Democrat appointed Court of Appeals. That said, they gerrymandered the maps; they violated the state constitution, and they ordered a special master to draw the maps. You got a fair set of maps. My district is a district Joe Biden won by 10 points. It’s by no means a Republican district. It’s competitive.

The 2022 maps are the current maps, though the Democrats are back in court trying to gerrymander them again because they didn’t like the outcome. Well, run better candidates; have a better message; have better policies that appeal to voters.

I had a message and a viewpoint that a majority of voters agreed with. And, you know, it was obviously one of the biggest upsets in the country. But I knew the district, I knew what the issues were, I knew what people cared about. I think gerrymandering in both parties and states across the country is bad, it does not serve the purpose of good government or good policy. It serves the purpose of holding on to power. And that’s what you’re seeing, you know, here in New York, again, with the effort to try and throw out these maps.

There’s talk of impeachment, whether it’s against President Biden or [Homeland Security] Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas or Attorney General [Merrick] Garland—how do you plan to navigate those issues in a purple district?

Well, to me, whatever we’re doing needs to be based on facts and evidence. And when you’re talking about impeachment, it is inherently a political tool. But it really should not be political. It should be based on facts, it should be based on evidence. And it should be based on what is in the best interest of the country. And I think across the country, right now, you have people very frustrated in both parties, very frustrated in what they see as kind of two tiers of justice, and how one party or one person is being treated one way and another party and another person is being treated differently, for similar things that they’re accused of doing.

And that creates a lack of trust in the system. And I think we’re seeing it across the board, because politics has consumed everything we do, whether it’s education, whether it’s corporate America, whether it’s government, it has consumed everything. And so people are very frustrated. They don’t have faith and confidence in what is going on.

So to me, if you’re going to go down the road of impeachment, the facts and the evidence need to warrant it. And I don’t currently think that it’s there. I think there are multiple investigations, Congress has the responsibility of oversight, Congress has the right to inquire. That is what Jim Jordan [and] James Comer are doing with their committees. I think they’re doing it in a very straightforward manner. They’re collecting information, what comes of that will have to be determined. But it should always be rooted in facts and evidence and not conjecture or speculation or misstatement of what is there.

I think people want reason—a rational, balanced approach to government, and they want to know that you’re being an adult in handling these things.

And [impeachment] is not something that should be just used because it was used in the prior Congress and administration. It should be used if the facts and the evidence warrant it.

Certainly, a lot of the information that has come out as a result of these investigations is deeply disturbing. And I think, you know, many of my colleagues who spent four or five years going after Donald Trump about everything under the sun now don’t want to investigate anything.

And the reality is if Hunter Biden used his father’s position as vice president to get paid from companies or foreign governments …that is something that should be investigated and the American people should understand what is going on there, and how decisions are being made when somebody is appointed to an administration position after purchasing artwork of the first son—that raises ethical questions. And people should certainly be aware of that.

And frankly, as I’ve said to folks in the press, they seem to show no interest in looking into much of what has come out through these hearings, certainly not anywhere near the level of interest they showed in the prior administration.

To me the question is, are we holding all of our elected officials accountable? Are we holding all those who are in a position of power accountable, without fear or favor?

And it goes back to the frustration that I hear from people all the time that they feel there are two sets of justice in this country that some people depending on their position and party are treated one way, and others are treated in another way.

To me, the investigations certainly have produced enough evidence and information that warrant them to be continued. Does that mean criminal charges? Does that mean impeachment? That is yet to be determined. But it should always be based on evidence and facts. And if the evidence warrants it, then obviously, the investigation should continue. You’re seeing multiple people have come forward; whistleblowers from the IRS, Department of Justice officials…Hunter Biden’s former business partner, who was deeply involved in what was going on, while Joe Biden was vice president. So are there legitimate questions that have been raised that warrant investigation? Absolutely.

Looking at it from Washington, what are some of the challenges and opportunities facing Northern Westchester and Putnam County?

I think the biggest issue for most people in our area is affordability. The first bill I introduced was to lift the cap on the SALT deduction, doubling it for married couples from $10,000 to $20,000... We are working through it with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee [Jason Smith, R-Mo.] and leadership.

To get a fix on SALT (state and local tax deductions) as part of any tax package, I’ve made it very clear to leadership that I will not support a tax bill that does not have a fix on SALT. The cap is set to expire in 2025. We in the New York delegation, in New Jersey and California will have some leverage going forward with that. In the immediate [time frame] there needs to be a fix, otherwise, I will not support any tax bill.

The affordability factor is key—and a big part of what has created this crisis is government spending. We just saw, you know, a downgrade today by Fitch on United States bonds from AAA to AA+.

That is deeply concerning. And I think it obviously creates challenges ahead within our bond markets, and with the ability of the United States government to continue borrowing and [to] not have a real pathway to pay down our debt.

We have a $32 trillion debt. This is totally unsustainable. The Biden Administration over the last two years increased spending by $5 trillion in new spending—on top of all the spending that we were already doing, which was high.

You look at states like New York, they have a $229 billion budget, they’re now projecting a $9 billion budget deficit next year, a $13 billion budget deficit in 2025. They have a $36 billion tax revenue shortfall. This is unsustainable.

And so I think when we talk about affordability, we need to start by getting government spending under control. We need to focus on pro-growth economic policies, reining in the regulatory structure. I sit on the Financial Services Committee, and we have been looking at what this administration has been doing through the Fed, through the SEC, through the Treasury Department to really make it very difficult for businesses to operate in the United States.

We need to be looking at energy policy: how do we increase domestic production of energy to help reduce the cost of business, reduce the cost of living, reduce the cost of goods? That is all critical. And that has been my No. 1 focus.

What are some of the other key issues?

People are concerned about education, they’re concerned about immigration, they’re concerned about energy. These are real challenges. And of course, public safety. And those are the issues I ran on. Those are the issues that I won on.

I would [also] like to bring back as much manufacturing as possible to the United States. I think that was a big mistake over the long haul, to allow so much manufacturing to leave the U.S. But we need to be looking at it from the perspective of how do we bring back good paying jobs here? And how do we strengthen our relationships with other countries that are key to containing the threat from China?

Things like pharmaceuticals or microchips—where we’re having supply chain issues, I think a lot of Americans are looking at it going “Wait a minute, this is a problem. We need to address this.”

Especially from a safety standpoint, long term, I think we should be manufacturing drugs, the precursors, chips, and semiconductors here because there’s a national security element to it, there’s a public safety element to it. It’s not just always about cost; it is about safety. It is about ensuring that we have good paying jobs here in the United States, that we have an educated workforce,

Should fossil fuels be considered a national security issue?

Absolutely, I mean, you look at the fact that we are illogically putting constraints on ourselves, while China and India and other countries around the world are not. And it is putting us at a competitive disadvantage. It is also not reducing carbon emissions in the way people think worldwide.

I think the objective has to address climate change, yes; reduce carbon emissions, but do so based on technology and science and reality.

Natural gas, for instance, has reduced carbon emissions 60 percent more than renewables over the last two decades. Why? Because natural gas helped us shift off of coal.

Nuclear power is clean, it’s reliable. And it’s cheap. We need to be focused on how we create an energy policy that is consistent with trying to address climate change, protect our environment, but also ensure that we have reliable and affordable energy.

I think New York has been disastrous on this. I think there’s a reason manufacturing has left the state in droves; there’s a reason people are leaving our state in droves, and it has to do with affordability. We do not have a sound energy policy. It’s based on hopes and goals and aspirations and not science and technology and reality.

So to me, it’s how do we strike that balance? How do we make sure that yes, we are ensuring there’s clean air, clean water and open space preservation while also ensuring that we have reliable energy that can help attract manufacturing, can help reduce the cost of living for our residents. When New York State is banning gas stoves and requiring all new hookups to be electric, and they’re requiring people to convert their homes to electric—the average homeowner would pay about $30,000 to $35,000 to convert their home from gas to electric. Does that help anybody?

These are real challenges ahead that I think we need to have a real honest dialogue about. Yes, we want to address climate change, but we need to do it based on the reality of where we are, where the technology is, what our adversaries are doing. We shouldn’t be relying on OPEC [for oil]. You know, Europe shouldn’t be relying on Russia. We in America should be a net exporter of energy. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be.

You recently met with President Biden about our migrant and debt crises. Was it productive?

Look, it was a great opportunity. Obviously, when the president came to my district, the focus was on the debt ceiling negotiations at the time. And certainly, they were trying to put pressure on me to support a clean debt ceiling. But as I said to the president, [Senate Majority Leader] Chuck Schumer did not have the votes for that, and it was never going to pass the Congress. So we needed to have a good faith negotiation between the president and the speaker [Kevin McCarthy, Calif.] to cut spending and to lift our debt ceiling. And that’s ultimately what occurred...

We found some common ground there. Also, ultimately, you know, in my discussions with the president, I said “I will support whatever deal you and the speaker negotiate, but you need to negotiate.”

The migrant crisis has gotten closer to home for our area.

This is a real humanitarian crisis at the border, but also here in New York, [Mayor] Eric Adams has taken in over 85,000 migrants since last year, they have nowhere else to house them. It has been a debacle between him and the governor, in terms of trying to deal with this, and work with other municipalities to accommodate those who are coming here on lawful asylum claims. But when you create a situation where you are a sanctuary city, or a sanctuary state, you have to expect that people are going to come here, when you’re providing health and housing benefits to those that are here illegally, and undocumented, people are going to come here. So this has been a significant challenge.

I think it has been very poorly handled by the administration, they’ve allowed over 6 million migrants to cross our border since Joe Biden took office. And you know, they’ve slowed it down slightly, but nowhere near what we need to do to deal with the crisis.

You have a backlog of asylum-seekers: It’s taking at minimum two to three years for these cases to be heard. Two thirds of the cases are being rejected when they’re finally heard, because poverty, in and of itself, while tragic…is not the basis for asylum.

I have great empathy for [people coming to the U.S. to escape poverty]. But that is not the rationale behind asylum.

My wife is an immigrant. She came here over a decade ago from Moldova. I’ve been through this process; it is a fundamentally broken process, it needs to be reformed. It’s why I’ve signed on to the Dignity Act as an original co-sponsor, the first bipartisan piece of legislation in over a decade to deal with immigration. It would deal with securing our border, it would deal with DACA, and it would deal with reforming the legal immigration system. We want people who want to come here to be able to do through a process. And from top to bottom, this whole system is broken.

We need to secure the border; we need to stop the massive influx of not only undocumented migrants but fentanyl pouring across our border. The precursors are coming from China. It’s being manufactured in Mexico, the drug cartels are trafficking it across the border. And it’s killing tens of thousands of Americans a year.

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/somers/sections/government/articles/a-conversation-with-mike-lawler-4?wallit_nosession=1&fbclid=IwAR0KsVcn7_wx5ftJ6UU9LI--SontsdvRxnS7IBdA0_2yrrymBcS79qAo9DE