Our In-Depth Sit-Down Interview with Congressman Mike Lawler

By Adam Stone

Over the course of the next year, many of the country’s fervent political observers will direct their eyes on the 17^th Congressional District, knowing we have one of the nation’s few purple swing districts drawn right here in the lower Hudson Valley.

While loyal Republicans are already parked in freshman Congressman Mike Lawler’s camp, and most partisan Democrats will be tethered to likely nominee Mondaire Jones, the political middle appears relatively up for grabs.

Lawler has been walking a careful GOP tightrope, having to fortify his conservative bonafides while remaining appealing to moderates.

Several times throughout 2023, when working on Stone’s Throw columns, I would contact Lawler’s spokesperson, seeking comment on a variety of subjects. In most cases, the congressman was unavailable to provide even a prepared statement.

ZERO personal offense taken, of course.

But because I’ve been writing about a host of meaty issues – topics of significant interest to local constituents – I’d been frustrated by the inability to share Lawler’s perspective with readers, a concern I’ve mentioned to the congressman’s media contact.

Lawler’s spokesperson ultimately helped arrange a long-form interview last week, at the former Rockland assemblyman’s district office in Pearl River. Examiner Editor-in-Chief Martin Wilbur and I spent an hour with the Republican representative, peppering him with questions on a host of topics.

‘Clear Conflicts There’

Meeting the congressman in person for the first time, Lawler struck me as intelligent, confident, politically savvy, personable and an artful speaker, careful to avoid boxing himself in.

My personal view is that he’s clearly not the fire-breathing MAGA extremist caricature his fiercest critics portray but he’s also been far less willing to muscularly challenge his party’s worst instincts than his messaging wants you to believe. (You can’t take the politics out of politics.)

That said, Lawler did deliver some promising answers in our conversation last week. (ProPublica lists Lawler as voting against his party 23.2 percent of the time, the fourth highest percentage of any member of the 435-member House.)

As devotees of this column space know, I’ve spent a ton of time this year investigating corporate healthcare, specifically scrutinizing the brutal fallout from Optum Health’s 2020 acquisition of the local CareMount Medical enterprise.

Optum is owned by UnitedHealth Group, the world’s largest insurance company. That inherent conflict of interest has been one area I’ve highlighted in the coverage.

“So I think from my own experience, and I don’t use Optum, but from my own experience, getting appointments post-COVID is very difficult,” Lawler told us. “In general, I think obviously the healthcare system has undergone a lot of changes in the last few years, and I think really what you’ve seen is a consolidation into these bigger conglomerates. And while I think there’s certainly some economy-of-scale positives, I think there is some drawbacks on that.”

In my view, United owns just way too much of the market, and the crony capitalism and monopoly concerns cited by critics are well-earned.

The $500 billion multinational conglomerate’s expanding grip on the industry is not reserved to health insurance and healthcare. The company also holds growing power in data analytics and prescription services while also expanding its role in hospice, palliative care and home health, among other categories within the sector.

“I certainly have concern about insurance companies owning healthcare providers,” said Lawler, who sits on the House Financial Services Committee, which maintains jurisdiction over insurance. “I have real concern about how that functions and the impact that has on competition from a healthcare provider space. So that is something that I’ve raised down in Washington that I have concern about, just kind of the overall structure, not necessarily just United and Optum, but broadly speaking, I think there’s some clear conflicts there.”

Hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place

I was heartened to learn that the series had prompted Lawler to seek answers from UnitedHealth.

“So we’ve reached out, based on some of your coverage, we’ve reached out to United to make them aware,” Lawler said of his contacting company lobbyists. “Like, ‘Are you even aware?’ So we’ve made them aware of the reporting that you had, and they said they’re looking into it and they’ll get back to us with feedback.”

Stay tuned on that.

Alleged double billing by CareMount is just one of the many disturbing issues my series has uncovered. Documents show how the state Attorney General’s Health Care Bureau has been inspecting that chronic patient complaint.

“Generally speaking, that would be first primarily dealt with in the state and should be dealt with in the state because a lot of the regulations and oversight is coming from the state,” Lawler said. “But broadly speaking, obviously that type of conduct, if true, should not be happening.”

I asked Lawler whether United’s dominance of the sector creates antitrust concerns.

“I don’t specifically want to drill down on United insofar as I think there’s a macro issue that needs to be evaluated here,” Lawler replied. “If the laws allow this currently, obviously, any of these companies are going to try and grow as big and as best they can. I think the question to me ultimately is, is this structure serving our constituents and citizens well? Is it allowing for the best level of care? Is it allowing for the most access? Is it allowing for the lowest level of cost? And are we fulfilling the needs of our community?”

Bigger Picture

In late July, Lawler introduced the bipartisan Doctors in our Borders Act, expanding a program named Conrad 30 as part of an effort to address physician shortages by allowing states to issue 100 J-1 visa waivers. Asked about the bill’s legislative prospects, the congressman said “we have bipartisan support.”

“So there’s definitely a shortage of doctors,” he also told us. “There’s a shortage of nurses. Dig deeper. [There is also a] shortage of home health aides.”

Lawler said he’s spending time researching the issue with stakeholders, including providers, consumers and small businesses, to ultimately help suggest solutions. He sent a letter to United earlier this year about business-related concerns, referencing reimbursement rates.

“There is growing concern and compelling evidence that supports this perception, that healthcare insurers are providing inequitable and unfair compensation and reimbursements to small- and medium-sized practitioners in favor of the large-box practices,” Lawler wrote in an Aug. 3 letter to UnitedHealth Group Chairman of the Board Stephen Hemsley.

Sometimes, solutions can be achieved by working through the bureaucracy, and dealing directly with agencies, the congressman also stressed in our interview.

In certain scenarios, when trying to solve policy problems, the governmental departments just need “to do something a little differently that doesn’t require legislation,” Lawler observed.

“As elected officials, you’re generally not the subject matter expert,” he noted.

Lawler also emphasized how the concerns extend well beyond CareMount/Optum/United.

“We have had, certainly some constituents reach out about challenges, billing issues … and also accessibility to getting an appointment,” he said. “But I will say that in my experience in my district, that’s kind of across the board.”

Although Lawler’s name can be found on almost 60 pieces of proposed healthcare-related legislation, many measures passed by the House are so-called “messaging bills,” with little to no realistic chance of becoming law amidst Congress’s shameful dysfunction.

People Are Saying

Martin and I also wanted to spend some time asking Lawler about politics.

Donald Trump, on Dec. 16, said immigrants coming to the United States are “poisoning the blood of our country.” The former White House occupant was rebuked for echoing Hitlerian rhetoric from “Mein Kampf.”

“All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning,” Hitler wrote.

Lawler said Trump’s comments were a distraction from the real issue of border control.

“So we are a nation of immigrants,” Lawler said. “My wife is an immigrant. And the reality is that immigrants enrich our communities, our culture, our economy. They do not poison our blood. And I think the former president was wrong to say that. And I think it actually undermines the issue that we’re dealing with right now, which is a serious one.”

Given his discomfort with Trump’s rhetoric, I asked Lawler who he might be supporting in the Republican presidential primary.

“I’m not supporting anybody in the primary,” he replied.

‘Binary Choices’

I then asked Lawler if he would support the winner of the GOP contest, whether it’s Trump or otherwise.

“I will likely support the nominee, but ultimately, it really doesn’t matter,” replied Lawler, a former campaign consultant at Checkmate Strategies, a firm he co-founded in 2018.

I told him I thought it did matter.

“No,” Lawler replied, “it doesn’t, and I’ll tell you why. I’ve been around this a long time, and ultimately, the voters are going to be the ones that make the decision.”

I pointed to the moral leadership we need from elected leaders.

“Obviously there is a lot going on with both of them, the former president and dealing with legal challenges,” Lawler said. “The current president, honestly, at 81, and it’s clear he has slowed down, if I’m being kind.”

Given his distaste for Trump and Biden, I asked Lawler if he’d consider a protest vote, like a third-party candidate or a write-in, given the fact that he believes “the country would be better off if neither one of them were on the ballot.”

“No, look, elections are binary choices, and you make choices based on who’s on the ballot,” he said of his implicit reference to supporting Trump if he’s the nominee.

Lawler might have a path to re-election with or without voters who believe Trump’s explicitly fascist language is about much more than mean tweets. But I find it astonishing that Republicans deeply uncomfortable with Trump’s behavior – including those knowledgeable about history, like Lawler – can’t seem to acknowledge or grasp the larger threat.

‘Antisemitism is Taught’

Martin and I also wanted to get to foreign affairs in our limited time.

I congratulated Lawler on his first legislative achievement, a partnership with Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-Bronx), with the bipartisan pair shepherding a bill through the House on Dec. 14. via the National Defense Authorization Act of 2024.

It creates a Special Presidential Envoy for the Abraham Accords, a step designed to solidify and expand Middle East normalization agreements. (​Lawler’s office also believes the congressman’s bills imposing sanctions on Iranian oil and legislative measures designed to address antisemitism, also have strong chances of becoming law.)

Lawler has been a strong voice for Israel, both before and after the gruesome Oct. 7 terrorist slaughter exacted by Hamas.

I asked the congressman what he believes resides underneath the growth in antisemitism. The unsettling upward trend of hate over the past eight years has become far worse over the past two-plus months.

“Antisemitism is taught,” he replied. “And I think what we’re seeing in not just our college campuses, but even K through 12 is just a surge in antisemitism. Part of it is what is being actually taught in the schools…I know in the Chappaqua School District, for instance, a lot of parents have reached out to us with concern about the curriculum that’s being used from Brown University.” (Martin published a separate piece on that issue this week.)

Lawler also elaborated on burgeoning anti-Israel sentiment.

Lawler is right to condemn the co-opting of social justice rhetoric on the left to legitimize a belief that Israel is an “oppressor,” and “an apartheid state.” That rhetorical wordplay has contributed significantly to a warped view about one of the only generally tolerant countries in the entire region, despite its warts.

Hamas, by contrast, endorses the execution of people who engage in gay sex while several neighboring countries also support punishments such as the stoning of women for adultery.

Those types of horrifying transgressions are all conveniently ignored by too many progressives who seem to exclusively focus on Israel’s flaws while remaining blind to the human rights violations and imperfections of every other nation on the planet.

Lawler said how people who say Israel “colonized the land from the Palestinians,” do not possess “a full understanding of the actual history of the region.” He’s paid two recent trips to Israel, before and after the attacks.

But Martin correctly pointed out how congressional Republicans are often guilty of ignoring right-wing hate, only spotlighting antisemitism when it comes from the likes of academics from elite universities lost in abstractions over “context.”

“Look, extremism of any kind does not serve our country,” Lawler replied. “And antisemitism, I don’t care whether it’s coming from the left or the right or whether it’s coming from progressives or white nationalists. It’s wrong, and it should be called out when it occurs and where it occurs.”

Impeachment

Coincidentally enough, Jones, looking to defeat Lawler next November and punch his ticket back to Washington, slammed the congressman on Wednesday at an early afternoon press conference near the congressman’s Pearl River office, just before our visit. Martin was there covering the event.

Jones excoriated Lawler at the presser for supporting an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. (Bedford Town Supervisor MaryAnn Carr is Jones’ current competition in a Democratic primary to challenge Lawler.)

With the impeachment story in mind, Martin asked the congressman at our sit-down to elaborate on his decision to support the presidential probe.

Lawler cited some of his concerns about Biden family business dealings. He said the allegations are worthy of examination but are not likely worthy of impeachment.

Here’s how he framed it: “Is it grounds for impeachment? No. Is it grounds for investigation? Absolutely.”

I then asked Lawler what he thought of the two Trump impeachment inquiries.

“I didn’t support them because, number one, again, when you’re doing things through a political lens, it is problematic to the country,” he replied. (Lawler points out how while he did not support the Trump impeachments, that is not the same as objecting to investigations.)

Slippery Slope

Martin and I also wanted to know Lawler’s thoughts about the criticism he’s recently received for prohibiting the press from his local Town Hall meetings. LoHud columnist David McKay Wilson published a piece on Dec. 13 about the misguided policy.

I asked Lawler if he’s sought any counsel on whether his policy violates the First Amendment.

“No, and I’m not concerned about it violating the First Amendment,” Lawler replied. “But here’s what the intention is. My constituents are there to ask me questions and to engage me on any topic that they want to, and for me to answer those questions directly. Nothing I’ve said in these town halls is anything that I haven’t said in public, anything I haven’t said to reporters.”

I actually do not believe Lawler was motivated by dangerous Trumpian-style press-bashing instincts. He seemed to genuinely feel like meetings without media foster a more comfortable environment for constituents.

While I understand that perspective, it also misses the far more important point.

We need our elected representatives to stand behind the spirit of our most cherished freedoms, and banning non-constituent press from the forums unambiguously fails that test, even if it didn’t seem like a big deal one way or another to Lawler at the time.

The congressman seemed to understand that point of view, and I’m cautiously optimistic the policy will change in 2024.

We Have Company

I also arrived with some more idiosyncratic questions for Lawler.

Earlier this year, I prepared a three-part series about the Pentagon’s heightened and serious interest in UFOs, which the government now calls UAP, or unidentified anomalous phenomena.

“I think it’s an issue,” Lawler remarked. “Obviously, my bigger concern is, frankly, more from a national defense perspective, visa vis other countries, but I just have not looked into it as much to be [well-versed].”

The congressman said he does not “snicker about it,” when I asked about the lingering (albeit lessening) stigma around UFOs. But he pointed out how the topic is just not something he has been especially interested in.

Newly passed federal legislation, enacted last week, mandates the disclosure of UFO-related records, but it has left transparency advocates dissatisfied.

Despite the directive for public disclosure, concerns arose over a 25-year time frame and presidential authority to classify information, raising doubts about the extent of forthcoming revelation.

A more robust version was originally introduced by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), with support from Republican and Democratic senators.

“Questions about UAPs are best addressed by the U.S. government,” a Lockheed Martin spokesperson told me in an e-mail this summer, when I asked the aerospace giant if documentary filmmaker James Fox was correct when he told me that the company is one of the firms that possesses extraterrestrial assets.

While it might seem superfluous to some, what could be a bigger story than serious people at the highest levels of government indicating we are not alone?

“I know some of my colleagues have been very focused on it,” Lawler said.

Back on July 26, former U.S. Air Force and intelligence officer David Grusch testified before Congress, citing knowledge of a longtime UAP recovery program and possession of “non-human” spacecraft and dead alien bodies by the government, in the hands of private contractors.

“I didn’t watch the hearing,” the congressman told us.

As for me, I’ll be watching all year, along with all of you, to see who in this race appears best suited to represent common sense, tolerance, problem-solving and smart public investments mixed with fiscal prudence.

As goes the 17^th, so goes the nation.

Adam Stone is publisher of Examiner Media.