- A Republican congressman from a purple district.

How's that going?

This week on "Firing Line."

- You don't get to do this!

- [Margaret] It's happening a lot.

- Boo!

- [Margaret] Angry constituents shouting at the Republican members of Congress.

- Do your job, senator!

- Yeah!

- [Margaret] In March, the National Republican Congressional Committee advised Republican members to stop holding town halls.

- They're doing this for the cameras.

We all know it.

And I think it's wise not to play into it right now, - [Margaret] But Republican Representative Mike Lawler of New York is still out there, going before often rowdy crowds.

(audience booing) - Folks, if you want me to answer the questions, let the questions be asked and then listen to the answer.

- [Margaret] Lawler, who represents a district that Kamala Harris won was rated one of the most bipartisan members of Congress in his first term, but this term he has consistently voted to support Trump's agenda.

- [Attendee] What are you doing to stand in opposition to this administration, and what specifically are you doing that warrants the label moderate?

(audience cheering) - What does Congressman Mike Lawler say now?

- [Narrator] "Firing Line" with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, The Tepper Foundation, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, and by The Pritzker Military Foundation.

- Congressman Mike Lawler.

Welcome to "Firing Line."

- Thanks for having me.

Appreciate it, Margaret.

- You are one of three members of the House of Representatives that are Republican who won in a district that Kamala Harris also won, which unfortunately for you makes you a top target for Democrats in the next election cycle.

What is your pitch to democratic-leaning voters in your district, of which there are many, to reelect you?

- Look, my district, as you said, is one of only three in the country, and I have 80,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in my district.

It's home to Bill and Hillary Clinton, and George Soros.

So by no means a Republican bastion.

But I've now won three times in two to one Democratic districts and in large measure because I focused on the issues that matter to the district that cut across party line.

And I think what you've seen in New York in particular, even when other, you know, areas of the country have shifted, maybe even to the left.

I think because Democrats control everything in New York, New York City and Albany, voters have looked for a little bit more balance.

And I've sought to provide that.

And even if folks don't agree with me, I'll always be direct about where I stand on an issue and why.

- Your critics will say this term so far, you have voted with Trump almost 100% of the time, except for one procedural vote.

So to those who would say you're a rubber stamp for Trump, your response.

- Not in the least.

I mean, first of all, I went toe to toe over the issue of SALT, the state and local tax deduction, which was not inconsequential.

On issues like Ukraine, I have stood up and pushed back against some of the president's rhetoric and positioning on it as he seeks to end that conflict.

- You've been very supportive of Ukraine.

Your wife is from Moldova.

- Yep.

- I presume you welcome President Trump's changed posture vis-a-vis Ukraine.

Would you support sanctions now?

- Fundamentally, I am a co-sponsor of legislation to do that.

The fact is if Putin is successful in Ukraine, it would be catastrophic for Eastern Europe.

It would be catastrophic for Western democracy.

- Has President Trump's shifted posture on this question neutralized or mitigated some of the opposition in the House Republican Conference?

- Oh, I think it certainly helps obviously as he proceeds forward.

You look no different than something like striking Iran's nuclear facilities, look, which I think the president was legally and morally justified in doing.

So that obviously was important.

Just a few other areas where I've been able to push back.

Number one, World Trade Center Health Fund.

There were decisions being made at, you know, Health and Human Services that would've jeopardized that program.

We pushed back on that and went directly to the White House and got them to change that.

- And stood up against HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy.

- No question.

And also on something they're doing with respect to the 988 hotline with respect to LGBTQ support.

So look-- - Which was they tried to cancel the funding.

- They tried to cancel the funding for this specific hotline.

And we are working through the appropriations process to make sure that that funding is there.

When LGBTQ youth are 45% more likely to commit suicide than their peers in high school, we have to take that seriously.

All of us as human beings, regardless of where you stand on issues like gender-affirming care, the fact is we should not want anyone to commit suicide, and we should do everything to prevent that.

When I look at these issues, the way that I approach it is to engage directly.

It's not enough to just stand on a street corner, hold a sign and scream.

You have to be able to engage the administration, even when you disagree, but do so in a constructive way to actually solve the problem.

And that's what I've been able to do.

- You've also done that with your constituents.

In March, shockingly to me, House Republican leadership advised you and your peers to refrain from holding town halls.

- Right.

- That was sort of the direction and the guidance.

And I will say to your great credit, you continued to hold them even though they were not easy.

They were feisty.

There was a lot of vitriol and angry questions that were hurled your way.

Some of those moments even went viral.

- Yep.

- Why have you chosen to be more out front than others in your party?

- Number one, it's what has served me well, especially in in a two-to-one Democratic district to engage.

And I am comfortable in the positions that I've taken and the votes I've cast.

And I think it's important to be able to explain it to people.

Oftentimes, they just don't have all the information.

And when you actually can articulate why you voted a certain way or what went into the decision making, it is informative and it's helpful.

- How do you understand the intensity of the town halls?

- Oh, look, I think this is part of democracy.

I mean, when you think back to, you know, politics of old, you would have these robust debates.

So I have done combined now.

I've done, you know, over 50 of those over my two and a half years in Congress.

And certainly the tone of these conversations has changed.

There's a lot of folks, especially on the left, that are very energized and very angry about the direction of the country.

I think what's unfortunate is for many of them, they're not there to actually hear the answer 'cause there are things where I've agreed with them and they're still booing and yelling.

And unfortunately that's the nature of our politics.

But I fundamentally believe if you can't handle standing up there and answering questions from your constituents, this is probably not the job for you.

- You serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee and you are the chair of the Subcommittee of Middle East and North Africa.

This week, President Trump said that there is, "Real starvation in Gaza" and that Israel bears, "A lot of responsibility for it."

Since then, Republicans have been a little bit more outspoken about the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding in Gaza.

What do you make of the president's words that Israel bears responsibility?

- Look, on a human level we all wanna make sure that innocent Palestinian civilians have the humanitarian and health assistance that they need.

But I think very clearly the perpetrator here and the organization that bears responsibility is Hamas, a terrorist organization that uses its own innocent people as human shields.

- One of the critiques David French has written about, a conservative opinion columnist for the New York Times, has critiqued actually whether Israel has been entirely careful, and whether a counterinsurgency strategy might have been preferable to the counter-terrorism strategy.

- I think if you look at the situation today in the Middle East, 23 months after October 7th, the Middle East is in a better place today in terms of the prospects of long-term peace and prosperity than before October 7th.

That wouldn't have happened but not for the way Israel has conducted this war.

Hamas and Hezbollah have been largely decimated.

Assad's regime in Syria has fallen.

Iran's air defenses are obliterated, and their nuclear program has been severely destroyed.

And so when I look at the long-term prospects here, I think we are in a better place to actually bring about stability, bring about peace, bring about normalization between Arab states and Israel, and ultimately rebuild Gaza, and Judea and Samaria in which the Palestinian people will be free from their oppressor.

And their oppressor has been Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

- Why do you say Judea and Samaria?

- Because historically that's what it is, number one.

Number two, I think there's a big misunderstanding, both in Congress and in our country, this idea that somehow Israel has occupied the West Bank.

They have not.

And in fact, under numerous peace settlements over decades, you have Israeli control in different areas of Judea and Samaria, and you have Palestinian control in different areas within Judea and Samaria.

This notion that somehow the West Bank, as they wanna refer to it, is somehow all Palestinian controlled and Israel keeps encroaching is wrong.

- Because the Palestinians don't call it Judea and Samaria.

- No, they call it the West Bank.

- Right.

- But again, I think part of this is actually understanding where in fact the Palestinians are, where in fact the Israelis are and understanding the entirety of the situation, which when, you know, the UK or France or somebody says they're going to acknowledge a Palestinian state, well, what state, where and who?

- Do you ever refer to it as the West Bank?

Or do you always call it Judea and Samaria?

- I refer to it as both, but I do think actually understanding the history is important here.

- American support for Israel is actually at an all-time low.

53% of Americans now have unfavorable views of Israel.

But that is nothing compared to when you break it down generationally.

and 30 and unders across this country have an overwhelmingly negative view of Israel.

How do you see the Israel-US relationship sustaining itself with such unpopularity, especially in younger generations?

- I think this is one of the most important questions from a foreign policy standpoint.

And frankly, it is disturbing.

And I do think a lot of that is rooted in antisemitism and Jew hatred.

But it goes beyond that.

I think a lot of it is-- - Do you think 80% of youth are antisemitic or do you think they're misinformed?

- I think they're extremely misinformed.

I think when you look at this, a lot of this stems from what is being taught in schools.

It is somehow viewed that Israel, the only Jewish state in the world, is the oppressor and that Palestine, Palestinian people are oppressed by the Jews when in fact their oppressor is Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and has been for generations.

- Let's move on to SALT.

- Yep.

- You and President Trump had a bit of a bumpy road in the negotiations of what he called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that he signed into law, specifically around what is called the SALT deductions, the state and local tax deductions.

Now, this is a provision that allows for families in high tax states, read blue states, mostly on the coasts, California, New Jersey, New York, to deduct state and local taxes from their overall federal tax bill.

Now, this provision had been in place for many, many years.

- For over 100 years.

- Ever since 1913.

- Yep.

- And was eliminated and a cap was put on it in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

In the end, after everything was settled with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Trump actually credited you with working to get the, "Maximum SALT deduction into the bill."

But reportedly, you know, was incredibly firm, rather hostile with you behind closed doors.

Did you really see the receiving end of Trump's ire through those negotiations?

- I didn't take it that way.

Look, he wanted to get a bill done, and obviously this was one of the big sticking points.

And I made very clear to the president, to the White House, to leadership, to my colleagues, I would never support a tax bill that did not lift the cap on SALT.

This was a hard-fought negotiation.

It was not an easy fight.

And many of our colleagues, especially from red states, just viewed this through the prism of, "Oh, this is a tax giveaway to the blue states."

As I pointed out though-- - Is it not?

- No.

And this is the misnomer.

29 states blew through the $10,000 cap over the last seven years under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Yes, New York, California, New Jersey, we have high property taxes and high state income taxes.

There's no question about that.

But you look at Florida, for instance, over the last four years, their property tax bill has increased by 37%.

So this is not just about red state, blue state.

And the way I looked at it, if we wanna talk about subsidies, New York, California, we're donor states.

We send more revenue to the federal government than we get back.

Other states like South Carolina, for instance, take more money from the federal government than they generate in tax revenue.

So you could get into all of that back and forth.

My fundamental view was this was an issue of double taxation, it was an issue of tax fairness.

- Why is it double taxation?

- Because you're taxing people on top of taxes they're already paying at the state and local level.

So we came to an agreement of $40,000 for SALT with a $500,000 income cap.

This is not for the billionaires and the millionaires.

This is for the middle class and the working class.

And the president and I had an exchange in conference.

- This was reported about.

- It was reported.

He said, "Look, just just take the deal.

Take the deal, okay?"

And, you know, he talked about knowing my district better than me, but I know my district, and I know how important this was to my district.

And that's why I fought as hard as I did.

I negotiated in good faith.

The president was very supportive of the final deal.

You know, he said to me just a day before the vote, "You cut a good deal."

And you gotta know how to negotiate, but you gotta know when to say yes and you gotta know when to work towards a solution.

- You did take the heat in the kitchen.

It did get hot in the kitchen.

- Oh, it did.

Oh, for sure.

And there were a lot of times that they wanted us to fold, and we didn't fold.

And, you know, I said to the president very early on, I saw him in March at the Speaker's St. Patrick's Day lunch, And we were talking, I went up, said hi to him and he said, "You know, have you heard the Senate?

They wanna eliminate SALT."

And I said, "No."

He says, "Yeah, wouldn't be good for New York."

And I said, "Wouldn't be good for New York, but it wouldn't be good for you 'cause I'll kill the bill."

And he looked right at Mike Johnson, he said, "Mike, don't let it happen.

Get Lawler all the SALT he wants."

(Mike chuckling) - Just out of curiosity, who has the best Trump impression of all of your conference members?

- I think it's between me and Mike Johnson but... - Oh really.

- I'm a New Yorker, so I, you know... - Listen, you have often said the national debt is unsustainable.

- Yeah.

- But, you know, the independent analysis of the bill projects that at least $3 trillion will be added over the next decade.

And by the way, SALT does add to that portion of it.

I mean, the SALT deductions could cost upwards of, you know, several hundred million dollars all together.

Doesn't all of this make it harder to face what you've called the daunting fiscal crisis ahead of us?

- So I think we have to look at this in totality.

Over the last two decades, we've added $30 trillion in debt as a country, to wars, a financial crisis, COVID.

There's a lot of reasons why.

And both parties bear responsibility.

There are no clean hands when looking at this.

- And yet this time was the Republican's chance.

- Well, I think you have to look at what we're doing.

Number one, when CBO scored the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, they undercut revenue by a trillion dollars.

Revenue today is at an all-time high, okay?

- But part of that is because of inflation though.

- No, when you look at... We had repatriation of overseas businesses.

It really was a tax bill designed to put more money back in the pockets of Americans and to bring businesses back in.

You see already the tariff revenue has actually increased significantly, and it is actually helping the coffers, number one.

Number two, businesses and countries are cutting trade agreements and businesses are reinvesting in the US to the tune of trillions of dollars of new revenue, new investment that will help our economy grow, and will help the treasury.

Number three, when you look at what we did, we're saving 1.6 trillion in spending over 10 years.

It's about $160 billion per year in deficit reduction, and spending reduction here.

So to say somehow, as the CBO is arguing, that this is going to actually cause a greater increase in our debt, I just fundamentally reject the way they have tried to calculate this.

And revenue again I believe will be at a significantly higher level than what the CBO is estimating.

So you're actually going to see the deficit shrink.

Now, long term, we all have to recognize, one, you can't do this in a partisan manner.

Reconciliation, by virtue of what it is, is a partisan vehicle.

Democrats and Republicans have both used it when they've had complete control.

We have to focus long term on our mandatory spending to make sure that programs like Social Security and Medicare are sustainable, that they are right sized in terms of revenue coming in.

I'm on the Problem Solvers Caucus.

I'm in a working group focused on debt and how we deal with this long term.

That's gonna require both parties being willing to work together, put down the political bludgeon, if you will, of using this as a political weapon and actually come to a realization that if we don't deal with this, we are really on the precipice of a disaster.

- I agree with you.

I just have to say, you know, I recognize that members of Congress have varying views, depending on who's in power, about the CBO's estimates.

I will say we have- - I think there's bipartisan dislike for the CBO.

- Particularly depending on who's in power.

What I will say also though is that we had a conservative economist from the Manhattan Institute, Jessica Riedl, on this program last week who broke down the CBO numbers and laid out the case that is fundamentally opposed to yours.

And so viewers can see that to get the other side of the story.

Democrats in New York this week introduced a bill that would allow for mid-decade redistricting.

They are responding, of course, to President Trump's attempts to encourage Texas Republicans to redraw the lines in Texas in order to pick up five seats there.

This is a bit of an arms race.

If Texas pursues this strategy, it is likely that New York will pursue this strategy and California will pursue this strategy.

You have said that gerrymandering, "Does not serve the purpose of good government or good policy.

It serves the purpose of holding on to power."

- Yep.

- Should Republicans rethink this strategy?

- Okay, I think gerrymandering should be banned nationwide.

- But should Trump rethink the strategy?

- I don't think Texas should do it.

It is creating a real challenge within Congress.

- Why?

- Last year, only 35 seats were decided by less than five points.

And you can look-- - Why is that bad?

Explain why that's bad.

- Well, out of 435 seats, for only 35 seats to be competitive, that means that 400 members are only worried about a primary.

And I think that's part of the reason why we have so much strifes, why it makes it so difficult to find bipartisan compromise and actually pass major things into law with broad support.

- Yeah.

- My district that I've won now twice, there's 80,000 more Democrats than Republicans.

If you can't beat me in that, then obviously your message is not working.

- Right.

- And so to me, this is fundamental.

New York's constitution prohibits mid-decade redistricting.

The voters certified this at the ballot box.

They wanted an independent redistricting commission.

They do not want partisan gerrymandering and they do not want it done in a mid-decade redistricting.

The Democrats, who oftentimes lecture everybody about upholding democracy, should abide by the state constitution.

- You often quote former New York mayor Ed Koch (Mike chuckling) and his line that if you agree with him 9 out of 12 times, vote for him.

If you agree with him 12 out of 12 times, see a psychiatrist.

Ed Koch appeared on the original "Firing Line" with William F. Buckley Jr. many times.

And I want you to take a look at something he observed from 1984.

Take a look.

- Well, I wanna make the point that while the Democratic Party has people in it who take positions that I've disagreed with for many years, there are fewer in our party than you would find of the opposite radical right point of view dominating the Republican Party.

The Jesse Jacksons, the Gary Harts, the George McGoverns do not dominate the Democratic Party.

The people on the right in the Republican party, I believe, do dominate it.

- So I mean, you have called out conspiracy theorists on the right, on the left.

Do you think that this asymmetric polarization from 1984 is still somewhat true of today's GOP?

- I think the sad reality is in large measure, as I said, because of the partisan gerrymandering, fewer and fewer districts are competitive, which means you have fewer and fewer people like me who are actually seeking bipartisan solutions.

And so the extremes in both parties have really taken hold it.

It makes it difficult to govern.

And I think, you know, from my vantage point, it's why I am so fully committed to working across the aisle.

We're not gonna agree on everything.

And I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

I think people have to recognize democracy requires disagreement, it requires robust debate, it requires a free exchange of ideas.

We have engaged in groupthink on both sides.

From my vantage point, you wanna primary me, go ahead.

You can't win my general election.

- Right.

- And so my view has always been I'm gonna do what's right by my district.

I wish more seats were truly competitive because I think it would force everybody to have to build the coalitions you need and force everybody to engage with people they disagree with, but do so in a way that is constructive and not destructive.

And unfortunately, that's what we're seeing today.

- Is it getting harder to be a moderate in Congress?

- I think, look, my best friend in Congress is Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat from a neighboring district.

I think if your intention is to actually govern, if your intention is to disagree without being disagreeable, find area of commonality where you can work towards solutions, then you can do that.

But I think that the bigger challenge is that there are fewer and fewer people interested in doing that given the partisan breakdown in Congress and given the nature of primaries today.

- Representative Mike Lawler, thank you for joining me.

- Thanks for having me.

(lively music) - [Narrator] "Firing Line" with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, The Tepper Foundation, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, and by The Pritzker Military Foundation.

(lively music continues) (lively music continues) (lively music continues) (happy music) (tranquil music) - [Announcer] You're watching PBS.