Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Legal Q&A: Can Employers, Government Mandate Vaccines?; McCarthy: "It'll Be Hard Not To Hit" Pelosi With Gavel If GOP Wins; Bipartisan Group Finalizes Text On 2,000+ Page Infrastructure Bill. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired August 02, 2021 - 07:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[07:30:00]

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: What can be spent. But it certainly makes him enormously formidable, it makes him hard to ignore, and it's going to give pause to a number of Republicans who are looking at running for 2024.

Trump is going to try to make it very hard for people to move forward. There -- you know, he is not as big a fundraiser -- he's not donating to other candidates, number one. His name for fundraising lists -- for fundraising appeals for other candidates is not as helpful to them as it is to him.

But he remains this singular driver of donations to himself. He has raised that money, in part, by continuing to talk about -- even in a fresh appeal last night -- help me fight this quote-unquote "fraud." There is not actual money that he is spending on these efforts to try to undo the election results.

So at the end of the day, he is taking money from people who believe that something is not -- and maybe not all of them, but some of them who believe something is going to happen that just isn't going to.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Maggie Haberman, great to see you. Thank you so much.

HABERMAN: Morning.

BERMAN: So one of the many questions being asked around the country right now, can employers and local governments mandate vaccinations? The answer is next.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: And an outspoken pastor digging in on his conspiracy theories, urging hundreds of thousands of worshippers not to get vaccinated.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:36:15]

BERMAN: As coronavirus cases rise across the country, the Biden administration is now requiring federal employees to get vaccinated or face strict protocols like regular testing, mask-wearing, and restrictions on travel.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE BUTTIGIEG, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: We have so many obligations in so many dimensions of employee safety to make sure that this is a safe workplace. This is part of that. But it's also important, I think, for our federal workforce to lead by example because we're asking the whole country to do what it takes to make sure that we get beyond this pandemic. And this is a very important part of how to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right. Joining me now, CNN "EARLY START" co-anchor and attorney at law, Laura Jarrett. Laura, the reason I bring up the attorney thing is one of the key questions here is have these requirements been challenged? What does the case law say about various types of vaccine requirements?

LAURA JARRETT, CNN ANCHOR, "EARLY START": So, there have actually been a bunch of lawsuits and they've all been losers so far.

Mostly, it's been students saying hey, I don't want to have a mandatory vaccine at my school. A judge looked at his last month in Indiana for Indiana University -- a public university. A bunch of students sued. And the court said no, it's constitutional to mandate a vaccine.

And the basic idea here is that states have an obligation to protect their citizens. It's called police power but it's really that basic. It goes back to 1905. The Supreme Court said they could do this in the context of Massachusetts doing it for smallpox.

So this has happened a lot. The courts have repeatedly upheld it.

Typically, employers make two exceptions -- two carve-outs -- and they're narrow, right? For religious grounds, even though very few religions say that you can't get a vaccine. That hardly ever comes up.

And then also, certain medical conditions. What if you have an allergy to a vaccine, then your school can't make you get one.

But besides those two very narrow exceptions, you have to get it.

BERMAN: Right. So again, Supreme Court precedent case law that does allow for vaccine requirements.

A lot of people have now tried to reduce the amount of mask mandates, right?

JARRETT: Yes.

BERMAN: Some Republican-led local governments, legislatures, governors, and whatnot don't want mask requirements. Could vaccination requirements be an end-run around some of this masking?

JARRETT: That's an interesting idea. I think obviously, you've seen this in the context of last week when the CDC sort of reversed their guidance on masking. And a lot of people pushed back and said hey, why are the vaccinated now being punished for something that the unvaccinated decided? They made a choice not to get vaccinated now.

So we're seeing where this goes. But in the context of actually making mask mandates, like states rolling those out, the same -- the same rules should apply here. Because this is all founded on public health and it's all about protecting employers or just regular citizens from other people who choose not to protect themselves.

BERMAN: One of the most important questions here is that -- is that the vaccines, in general, are still authorized under emergency --

JARRETT: Right.

BERMAN: -- use authorization, not the full FDA approval. How does that play in?

JARRETT: So I don't know where this came from -- this idea that somehow the EUA changes the legal landscape. It doesn't. There's nothing in the law that says an EUA is different. It might be more unusual, it might be rare, but there's nothing in the law that says just because it's an EUA means that somehow it can't be a requirement -- it can't be mandated.

And, in fact, the Justice Department looked at this -- over 18 pages -- and said no, it's actually just fine.

So I think a lot of people are hoping that the FDA actually approves --

BERMAN: Yes.

JARRETT: -- these vaccines so that more people will feel confident. But right now, there's nothing in the law saying that the EUA makes any difference at all.

BERMAN: Laura Jarrett, attorney at law, great to see you.

JARRETT: I still pay dues.

BERMAN: Thank you so much for that.

Coming up, Republican House leader Kevin McCarthy under fire for a joke about hitting Nancy Pelosi.

KEILAR: And the Senate puts the finishing touches on a long-awaited trillion-dollar infrastructure deal. But will more spending help or hurt Democrats in the midterms?

[07:40:10]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BERMAN: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy under fire this morning for remarks he made about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): I'll make this one promise here. When we win the majority, which I know we're going to, you're all invited. (INAUDIBLE). I want you to watch Nancy Pelosi hand me that gavel. It'll be hard not to hit her with it but I will bang it down for the American --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: It will be hard not to hit her with it.

[07:45:00]

Joining us now, Vivian Jones, government reporter at "Main Street Nashville." She was at the fundraising event there in Tennessee and recorded that audio of McCarthy that you just heard. Vivian, thank you so much for being with us.

What was the context there of that threat of violence?

VIVIAN JONES, GOVERNMENT REPORTER, MAIN STREET NASHVILLE (via Webex by CISCO): Sure. So this happened at the Tennessee Republican Party Statesmen's Dinner. It's an annual fundraiser event that's held each year. About 1,400 people were in the room that night and the attendees are kind of the who's who of the Tennessee Republican Party -- the governor's office, the congressional delegation, and Tennessee Republicans from the Legislature.

So, really, the context around that particular statement -- it was about halfway through the night -- about an hour in, right after Leader McCarthy's keynote speech. And kind of after the applause died down, the Tennessee delegation came out and kind of -- the pace changed a little bit. It was a little bit more lighthearted for those two or three minutes.

And the theme of the evening, really, was teeing up for a potential Republican victory next year and trying to take back a majority in the Congress in the 2022 midterms. And so, in anticipation of that, they presented Leader McCarthy with this comically large three-foot gavel -- speaker's gavel. Everybody kind of said a couple of words and then -- and then that's when his comments came.

BERMAN: And that comment about hitting Nancy Pelosi, how was it received?

JONES: Well, I mean, I think everybody in the room kind of understood that it was a joke. The previous two or three minutes was obviously a more lighthearted tone in the evening. And so everyone in the room kind of -- you know, the reaction was that it was a joke and that was how it was understood.

BERMAN: Yes. You know, so it's being received among some Democrats differently than that in Washington, especially in light of what happened on January sixth.

Drew Hammill, who is deputy chief of staff for Nancy Pelosi, says, "A threat of violence to someone who was a target of a January sixth assassination attempt from your fellow Trump supporters is irresponsible and disgusting."

Eric Swalwell says, "America has suffered enough violence around politics. Leader McCarthy is now a would-be assailant of Speaker Pelosi. He needs to resign."

Again, that's just some of the Democratic response there.

But you say in the room, it was greeted with laughter and tears?

JONES: I mean, I think everybody in the room understood that it was a joke. Whether or not it's an appropriate joke to make at that point is -- I'm just here to tell what happened.

BERMAN: Sure.

JONES: I'm not here to opine on that.

But I think it is a shame that we too often hear that words constitute violence, especially when words are made in a joking manner. So, really -- I mean, their reaction was that it was a joke and that's how it was received.

BERMAN: Vivian Jones, we're lucky you were there to record it. Thank you so much for coming on and talking about what you witnessed -- appreciate it.

JONES: Thanks for having me.

KEILAR: I don't know. I just think that was dumb that he said that.

BERMAN: Right, OK.

KEILAR: That is my expert analysis. That was dumb.

BERMAN: Yes. Again, when you say things that are about acts of violence, hitting -- even in jest -- it does raise questions. There's no question about that.

KEILAR: Yes. And look, we know that Kevin McCarthy and Nancy Pelosi's relationship is terrible right now, right? But you would hope that at some point they might actually have to talk about something. I mean, we actually see Congress, on occasion, doing something. How does that help?

BERMAN: Right. I mean --

KEILAR: How does that help?

BERMAN: She called him a moron last week. I'm not creating any kind of moral --

KEILAR: Yes, he --

BERMAN: -- equivalence here, but --

KEILAR: He upped the ante.

BERMAN: -- I'm going to take the under on that relationship -- you know, on the bets of whether that relationship will mend anytime soon.

KEILAR: Can we both take the under? Oh, it doesn't work that way, does it?

BERMAN: Yes, we could -- we could. We win less money that way --

KEILAR: Let's do it.

BERMAN: -- but we could.

KEILAR: All right.

Well, the Senate will resume debate at noon today on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. After weeks of intense negotiations, the 2,700- page bill was finalized last night, calling for hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending.

But one of our next guests says all this spending is going to cost Democrats politically.

Let's bring in Charlie Dent, a CNN political commentator and former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania. And, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, who is a CNN contributor who was an adviser to the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Look, I want to be clear because we are talking about the politics here. We have talked at length about the merits and details of this bill and what it means for America's infrastructure.

But when it comes to the politics, Charlie Dent, which are going to be so important as we're looking to the midterms next year, you write on op-ed saying that this isn't a good look. Explain that.

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, (R) FORMER PENNSYLVANIA CONGRESSMAN (via Webex by CISCO): Yes, sure. Let me first be clear. I think the Senate bipartisan infrastructure package is very appropriate and a very good agreement, and I hope they pass it out of the Senate and I believe they will.

The question is will the House pass that bill? The House wants to pass this massive $3.5 trillion package through reconciliation on a partisan basis that the Committee for Responsible Budget says it's going to cost over $5 trillion over 10 years.

And it was President Obama's former pollster Joel Benenson who said these big deals do not sell well with a lot of swing and moderate voters.

[07:50:02] And in my view, Joe Biden won the election. I think he's -- I think they're misreading his mandate. His mandate wasn't to go big. His mandate was to stabilize the government -- to bring some normalcy back to it and deal with the COVID crisis.

And I just don't see how this bill is going to help them win those seats back. I mean, if you're a moderate Democrat in the House or in the Senate, this is not something you want to be voting on. I can assure you that this is just too darn big. They know it and it will have real electoral consequences.

KEILAR: Doctor, I want you to respond to that.

First of all, I just want to be clear. We're talking about two bills here, Charlie. I know it just gets confusing because you say infrastructure but there's two bills, right? You've got the $1 trillion-plus bill that is that bipartisan bill that you talked about. And then you've got that $3.5 trillion bill, which will be Democrat- only is the expectation there.

OK, Doctor, respond to that. Why shouldn't Democrats err on the side of being conservative about this big bill?

DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, EPIDEMIOLOGIST (via Webex by CISCO): Well look, I want to -- I want to clarify something here. My colleague, Charlie, is a former Republican congressman. And so long as the other side is trying to end democracy as we know it, I don't think it's worth lecturing the Democrats what we ought to do with a majority. Because what he hasn't named is what we shouldn't pass out of that $3.5 trillion package.

Shouldn't we deal with climate change, which is delivering huge levels of unforeseen rain or killing people in heat waves? Shouldn't we deal with the fact that we still pay folks far less for their work than other high-income countries? Shouldn't we deal with the fact that people don't have childcare or home-based care? What of these packages shouldn't we deal with?

And I'll be honest with you, as Democrats, our job isn't to just hold the majority. It's to do something with the majority.

And I know Charlie's an old Penn State guy; I went to Michigan. So let me use a football analogy here. You don't just tell someone don't score a touchdown because then you're going to have to go on defense. Score the touchdown because you've got to win the game.

But the point here is to do something with our power. And I think if we do -- if we deliver to the voters who actually delivered this presidency for Joe Biden -- young people, people of color across this community -- I do think they're going to return the majority. And at this point, even if we don't, we'll have done something with it, which is the whole point of governing.

KEILAR: Congressman?

DENT: Yes, those -- look, the Democrats would be very smart to try to advance their spending priorities through the regular order appropriations process. That does require 60 votes. If they want to go through this reconciliation process that needs 51 votes in the Senate, I would advise they do that with their tax -- with their tax priorities, such as they are.

But the spending part -- they have thrown everything in here. Free community college, universal childcare. And by the way, I've dealt with a lot of folks in the childcare community over the years -- preschool -- and they have often said don't do universal. They said make sure the quality is there. If you do universal, you're going to be warehousing children.

I mean, these are big policy considerations. They're throwing it all in there. I think the long-term implications for the country are substantial.

Again, I don't think that Joe Biden was elected on this mandate at all. He was -- swing voters put him over the top and they wanted to put a check on the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Many people voted for Joe Biden in a Republican down-ballot.

They don't have the types of majorities to launch this type of massive spending program, in my view. I think this is a miscalculation. And if you don't believe me, believe -- listen to Joel Benenson, President Obama's pollster. He's saying the same thing.

KEILAR: Doctor, you actually had a little debate with Joel Benenson last week about this. Can you just respond to what the congressman is saying?

EL-SAYED: Yes, I did talk to Joel last week and he ended up arguing all the things that I'm arguing, which is that we have to have action on these issues.

I'll say a couple of things. Democrats would actually be smart to address the filibuster, which is making it so that we hold our whole democracy to -- hostage to a majority of people.

The second point here is about spending, which is to say that our deficits grew largest under Donald Trump who, by the way, passed a tax cut which I believe you voted for.

So at this point, the question is should we be giving money to millionaires and billionaires or shouldn't we be spending our money to solve problems that people actually have? And I think at this point, it's rather clear that decades of governance that hasn't solved people's problems, the check has come due.

And I think this is an opportunity for us to finally right size government -- to right size the ship to deal with problems that people are facing. And I think this is the opportunity in front of us.

The last point here, I'll just say, is on that filibuster point, democracy itself is on the ropes and we've got to speak the truth about the fact that right now, that is because of where my colleague Charlie's party has gone. And I think it'd be smarter to be talking to that side about why, actually, we shouldn't be taking voting rights away from people across this country. Why, actually, we should admit the fact that the president won the election. And I think once we deal with that we can have an honest conversation about where we go from here.

But let's not pass a tax cut and then on the backside say well, spending is too high. The deficit is too big. We can't actually solve problems that we face.

KEILAR: Yes, we are at a pivotal moment with these infrastructure bills, so we will see which of your perspectives is going to win out as Congress proceeds here.

[07:55:04]

Congressman, thank you so much. Doctor, appreciate it as well.

Still ahead, a county in New York moving to punish protesters in the wake of the George Floyd demonstrations.

BERMAN: And breaking news from the Olympics. Simone Biles back in the hunt for U.S. gold. Details live from Tokyo, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: The county legislature in Nassau County, New York will vote on a bill today that would allow all first responders, including police, to sue protesters and seek damages of up to $50,000. If the bill passes, first responders will be able to sue individuals they believe harassed, injured, menaced, or assaulted them.

CNN's Athena Jones live with much more on this -- Athena.

ATHENA JONES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, John.

This is -- this is really interesting. Look, we're talking about Nassau County. It's a county right outside New York City on Long Island.

A couple of years ago, this county passed a law that includes first responders, like police officers, under its human rights law. So it prohibits discrimination against them.

So this bill that they're expected to vote on this afternoon -- the county legislators -- this would take that protection a step further. And as you laid out, it would allow police officers and other first responders, like corrections officers, to sue individuals that they say harassed, menaced, injured, or assaulted them. They'd be able to sue these individuals, whether it was an incident where they were in uniform or another incident where they are clearly identifiable as first responders.

So, what are the penalties? Well, this bill, which is a very short bill, talks about penalties in two sections.

One of them is civil penalties - essentially.