Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News. We're really glad to
Speaker 1: be joined by Congressman Mike Lawler, the Republican from New
Speaker 1: York is with us now live from Capitol Hill. There
Speaker 1: is news of a deal on salt, a forty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars cap. If that's real, Congressman, you managed to quadruple
Speaker 1: the current cap. Is that the kind of bacon that
Speaker 1: you can bring home?
Speaker 2: But this was a critically important negotiation. I was very
Speaker 2: clear for over two years that I would never support
Speaker 2: a tax bill that did not adequately lift the cap
Speaker 2: on salt. We put pen to paper yesterday, met with leadership,
Speaker 2: worked throughout the course of the day to come to
Speaker 2: an agreement that would lift the cap on salt and
Speaker 2: provide real and immediate and lasting tax relief for hardworking
Speaker 2: middle class families. The agreement would lift the cap to
Speaker 2: forty thousand, with an income cap of five hundred thousand
Speaker 2: that would be phased out, and anyone making above that
Speaker 2: would go back down to ten thousand, which is the
Speaker 2: current cap. And it provides for the entirety of the
Speaker 2: ten years of the bill, which is critically important to
Speaker 2: make sure that folks are getting real relief. You look
Speaker 2: at a district like mine, three of the top four
Speaker 2: of the four counties I represent are in the top
Speaker 2: sixteen highest property tax counties in America. So when we
Speaker 2: talk about these issues, this isn't about the rich. This
Speaker 2: is about providing tax relief to middle class families who
Speaker 2: are besieged by high property taxes and high income taxes.
Speaker 2: And many of my colleagues will say that a lot
Speaker 2: of people don't itemize and they don't take the salt deduction. Well,
Speaker 2: that's true, because we doubled the standard deduction, and part
Speaker 2: of the pay for for doubling that was salt. And
Speaker 2: so we're seeking, after seven years of having this ten
Speaker 2: thousand dollars cap, to provide real relief to the middle class.
Speaker 2: And that's what this is about.
Speaker 3: Congressman, should we take that to assume, with the terms
Speaker 3: of this deal, that you are now a yes on
Speaker 3: this legislation, And assuming you are, are you aware of
Speaker 3: any member of the Salt Caucus who was not yet
Speaker 3: too yes with you?
Speaker 2: I think the members of the Salt Caucus negotiated yesterday
Speaker 2: in good faith with leadership with the administration, and we
Speaker 2: settled on something that we believe in that we support.
Speaker 2: Obviously we're waiting for the final details to emerge out
Speaker 2: of the Rules Committee, but obviously we made great progress
Speaker 2: yesterday and I feel much better about where the bill is.
Speaker 2: As a result.
Speaker 1: There does seem to be some growing optimism over a
Speaker 1: possible floor vote as soon as today, Congressman, maybe tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I know the Speaker wanted to see it happen by
Speaker 1: the Memorial Day break. Will that be the case.
Speaker 2: I know the administration and leadership are working to get
Speaker 2: that done. Meeting with members today, Obviously, you know that
Speaker 2: time frame is something the Speaker set out to achieve.
Speaker 2: The objective here is to get the bill passed ultimately
Speaker 2: to take effect, to make sure that we are providing
Speaker 2: real tax relief, that we are securing our border, that
Speaker 2: we are strengthening our military, increasing domestic production of energy,
Speaker 2: and protecting vital programs like Medicaid long term and cutting
Speaker 2: out the waste, fraud, abuse, and making sure that illegal immigrants,
Speaker 2: for instance, are not receiving benefits and taking away from
Speaker 2: the very people who rely on these programs, like the
Speaker 2: idd community or our seniors or children. We want to
Speaker 2: protect this for the long term, get our fiscal house
Speaker 2: in order while providing real tax relief. That's what this
Speaker 2: bill is about. We've been working on it for months. Obviously,
Speaker 2: anytime you're negotiating, there's going to be a give and take,
Speaker 2: there's going to be a back and forth. You know,
Speaker 2: you work through these issues and come to an agree
Speaker 2: and you know, as I've said many times, anybody who's
Speaker 2: ever been married knows you're going to have to find
Speaker 2: compromises along the way. You're not going to get everything
Speaker 2: you want in life. So you've got to work through this.
Speaker 2: And that's what we've done in good faith.
Speaker 3: Well, and it's not just compromises within the House Republican Conference,
Speaker 3: but there also may need to be compromises made between
Speaker 3: the House and Senate, which will take up this measure next,
Speaker 3: assuming it can get off the House floor. Congressman, has
Speaker 3: the Speaker shared with you any assurances that the Senate
Speaker 3: will not make changes to the salt deal that he
Speaker 3: just negotiated with you and your colleagues.
Speaker 2: This obviously has been a big topic of conversation, and
Speaker 2: I'll keep those conversations private, but I certainly know that
Speaker 2: the Speaker understands how important it is that this agreement
Speaker 2: remain intact, I.
Speaker 1: Want to go back to the case that you made
Speaker 1: for raising the salt cap. In the outset Congressman, we
Speaker 1: heard from Chip Roy of course, allowed member of the
Speaker 1: Freedom Caucus, who I understand is going to be meeting
Speaker 1: with the President later on today. He suggested that leadership
Speaker 1: is buying quote, a handful of seats with three hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty billion dollars in parochial tax subsidies in the
Speaker 1: form of salts. Is it possible to have a conversation
Speaker 1: with someone who holds that point of view or are
Speaker 1: you counting them out?
Speaker 3: Listen.
Speaker 2: I respect all my colleagues and their perspectives. The fact
Speaker 2: is New York is a donor state. We send more
Speaker 2: money down to Washington than we get back. So we
Speaker 2: can get into the subsidy debate about which states are
Speaker 2: taking money from the federal government and which ones are
Speaker 2: actually helping fund the federal government. But the fact is
Speaker 2: that New Yorkers should not be double tax They should
Speaker 2: not be penalized for living in a high tax state.
Speaker 2: Salt was in effect for over one hundred years, and
Speaker 2: it was used as a pay for, and frankly, part
Speaker 2: of that pay for was to double the standard deduction
Speaker 2: and provide tax relief to Americans all across this country.
Speaker 2: We're just simply saying, after seven years of the ten
Speaker 2: thousand dollars cap, which was arbitrary and caprice, that we
Speaker 2: need to have a much fairer approach. And that's what
Speaker 2: we have negotiated. Everybody has understood this for well over
Speaker 2: two years. I ran on this, I fought for it.
Speaker 2: I said it very clearly from the moment I came
Speaker 2: here that I would never support a bill that doesn't
Speaker 2: adequately lift the cap on salt. We have been working
Speaker 2: to negotiate to an agreement, and so that's what we've done,
Speaker 2: and I stand by it well.
Speaker 3: And of course you and your fellow New Yorkers who
Speaker 3: have helped make the Republican majority, have made the case
Speaker 3: that if that majority is to be retained, there needs
Speaker 3: to be changes to salt. But as we look ahead
Speaker 3: to twenty twenty six, if the other side of this
Speaker 3: getting what you want on salt is conservatives also getting
Speaker 3: a pulling forward of stricter work requirements around Medicaid to
Speaker 3: begin in December of twenty twenty six, as we understand,
Speaker 3: does that not put the majority at risk for a
Speaker 3: whole other reason. How do you navigate around that issue
Speaker 3: in the midterms.
Speaker 2: Well, look, at the end of the day, I think
Speaker 2: there's broad consensus within the conference on a few key areas.
Speaker 2: Number one, eligibility verification making sure that somebody who is
Speaker 2: not eligible doesn't remain on the program for up to
Speaker 2: a year, which is what the Biden administration allowed. Citizenship verification,
Speaker 2: making sure that illegal immigrants are not receiving benefits that
Speaker 2: they're not entitled to. And work requirements. Able bodied adults
Speaker 2: without dependence should be trying to work. I mean you're
Speaker 2: talking about eighty hours a month of work requirements, or
Speaker 2: educational requirements or volunteering. Anybody who is able bodied should
Speaker 2: be trying to improve their life by working. The fact
Speaker 2: is Medicaid is a means tested program, and so as
Speaker 2: part of that, you are trying to help lift people up,
Speaker 2: lift them out of poverty, lift them out of their situation.
Speaker 2: Work requirements are something Democrats fought for for years. Bill
Speaker 2: Clinton was the biggest champion of work requirements. So I
Speaker 2: don't think the issue of work requirements speeding up from
Speaker 2: twenty nine to twenty seven is frankly an impediment. I
Speaker 2: think there's broad consensus that we should be trying to
Speaker 2: help people lift themselves up. Work requirements is a way
Speaker 2: to help facilitate that as we are providing them with
Speaker 2: support through Medicaid.
Speaker 3: All right, Congressman, we appreciate you joining us here on
Speaker 3: Bloomberg TV and radio. Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New
Speaker 3: York with us live from Capitol Hill.