Exceptions for rape or incest. We will bring you the Attorney Generals comments as soon as he starts. Were also watching the White House, where this Afternoon President biden will unveil his new Sixpart Strategy to try to curb covid. The plan includes his Executive Order that requires all federal workers and contractors to be vaccinated with no Opt Out for regular testing. Today his chief medical Advisor Dr. Fauci said the pandemic is under not even modestly good control. The u. S. Is averaging 150,000 new cases every single day with the Delta Variant preying on the unvaccinated. We have an average of 1500 americans a day dying from the virus. Compare that to the fourth of july. The Case Average was about 12,000, deaths were at 200 a day. Right now nearly 100,000 americans are in hospitals with covid. Also, at the same time the president is set to speak, Los Angeles unified School District will hold its meeting where its expected to approve a Vaccine Mandate for students, the first major School District to do so. What should we expect to hear this afternoon . Reporter there is one significant aspect of this speech. That is that millions of federal workers and contractors who do business with the federal government are now facing a Vaccine Mandate. Previously the White House announced this was going to be in place and that essentially they had the option to get vaccinated or face weekly testing and these stringent measures related to mask wearing and social distancing. But now they are saying that option is gone. All federal workers who work for the government are going to have to be vaccinated. Jen psaki said they were going to have about 75 days to get fully vaccinated to get those Vaccine Shots or face repercussions. When she was asked what those were going to look like, this is what she told reporters. We expect employees will have about 75 days to be fully vaccinated. That gives people more than enough time to start and complete their vaccination series. If a federal worker fails to comply, they will go through the standard Hr Process which includes Counselling And Face disciplinary action. There are limited exceptions but the expectation is if you want to work in the federal government or be a contractor you need to be vaccinated unless you are eligible for one of the exemptions. Reporter obviously there she is saying there will be a few exemptions. For the vast majority, which we believe this number is in the millions of people, they will have to be vaccinated if they want to keep their jobs in the federal government or keep their contracts. This is just another step that the president is taking, building on something he announced earlier this year. It is notable they are going to this because this is a place they resisted initially. Two things are fuelling this, this Delta Surge that we are seeing rising hospitalizations, rising Death Rates, numbers we have not seen since vaccines were widespread. Also, of course, the full Dad Approval of the pfizer vaccine. We do expect President Biden to talk about Booster Shots, which we know has led to a lot of questions of people having when they will be able to get their Booster Shot or if its even necessary. He will speak on that today. The challenges are mounting for president who was elected in large part to get the pandemic under control. Our team of reporters lays out the state of the crisis from schools to hospitals. President biden is expected to speak directly to Schools Today with the focus well get back to that in a moment. We want to go to Attorney General Merrick Garland. Last week after the Supreme Court allowed Texas Senate Bill 8 to take effect, i said the Justice Department was evaluating all options to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons. Today, afterc careful assessmen, the judgment has filed a lawsuit against the state of texas. Our position is set out in detail in our complaint. Its basis is as follows. Sb 8 bans nearly all abortions in the state after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant and months before a pregnantcy is viable. It does so even in cases of rar rape, Sexual Abuse or insist. It prevents further efforts to prevent doctors to aid previability organabortions. The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent. Those precedents hold, in the words of planned parenthood versus casey, regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability. Texas does not dispute that its statute violates Supreme Court precedent. Instead, the statute includes an unprecedented scheme to, in the Chief Justices words, quote, insulate the state from responsibility, close quote. It does not rely on the states Executive Branch to enforce the law as is the norm in texas and everywhere else. Rather, the statute deputizes all private citizens without any showing of personal Connection Or Injury to serve as bounty hunters, authorized to recover at least 10,000 per claim from individuals who facilitate a womans exercise of her constitutional rights. The obvious and expressly acknowledged intention of this statutory scheme is to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights by thwarting Judicial Review for as long as possible. Thus far, the law has had its intended effect. Because this statute makes it too risky for an Abortion Clinic to stay open, abortion providers have ceased providing services. This leaves women in texas unable to exercise their constitutional rights and unable to obtain Judicial Review at the very moment they need it. This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution Of The United States is one that all americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear. If it prevails, it may become a model for action in other areas by other states and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents. The damage that would be done to our society if states were allowed to implement laws that empower any private individual to infringe on anothers constitutionally protected rights in this way. The united states has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights. The united states also brings the suit to assert other federal interests that Sb 8 unconstitutional impairs. Among other things, Sb 8 conflicts with federal law by prohibiting federal agencies from exercising their authorities and carrying out their responsibilities under federal laws relating to abortion services. It also subjects federal employees and nongovernmental partners to implement those laws to civil liability and penalties. Among the federal agencies and programs whose operations the statute unconstitutional restricts are the labor Departments Job Corps program, the defense departments tricare health program, the office of refugee resettlement, the bureau of prisons, the centers for Medicare And Medicaid services and the office of personnel management. The complaint, therefore, seeks a Declaratory Judgment that Sb 8 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment is preempted by federal law and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. The united states seeks a permanent and preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Sta Clut Aga statute against the state of texas, Includie Ing private pars it has effectively deputized who would bring suit under Sb 8. The department of justice has a duty to defend the Constitution Of The United States and to uphold the rule of law. Today, we fulfill that duty by filing the lawsuit i have just described. Now, before i take some questions, i want to say a few words to the american people on the eve of the 20th Anniversary of the attacks of September 11th, 2001. That day is seared into all of our memories. Nothing we can do or say can replace the loss so many endured that day. Nothing can change the profound way the events of September 11th altered us individually and collectively as a nation. And let there be No Doubt the threat from terrorists, from foreign terrorists, like those involved in the September 11th attack is one we must constantly guard against. But what we can do and what we have done is learn from the past to better anticipate and prepare for the next threat and to seek to disrupt it. As we mark this anniversary, we rededicate ourselves at the Justice Department to doing all we can to protect the american people from terrorism in all its forms, whether originating from abroad or at home, and to doing so in a manner that is consistent with our values and the rule of law. With that, im happy to take questions. Attorney general garland, is there a provision in the Texas Law that you personally find especially concerning . I think ive described all of the provisions that i find especially concerning, and the complaint does that in even more detail so i wouldnt pick any one. So theres been several gop lawmakers who said that they will follow texass lead. I was wondering if you expect doj to be involved in similar actions against other states . Would it be a Leap Top say this could be one of several similar actions . Well, as i said in my remarks, the risk here, the greater risk here, the additional and further risk here is that other states will follow similar models with respect not only to this constitutional right but theoretically against any constitutional right and in other states. If another state uses the same kind of provisions to deprive its citizens of their constitutional rights and, in particular, to deprive their citizens of the ability to seek immediate review, we will bring the same kind of lawsuit. So there had been some pressure, it seems, from democratic lawmakers on The Hill and antiabortion groups and even some could argue from the White House on the department of justice to Do Something about this Texas Law. Did you feel any of that pressure . Did that play any role in this . The department of justice does not file lawsuits based on pressure. We carefully evaluate the law and the facts, and this complaint expresses our view about the law and the facts. Thanks, everybody. Thank you all. Okay. Weve been listening there to the Attorney General Merrick Garland layout the legal logic of bringing a lawsuit against texas, which they have decided to do today. Lets bring in chief political analyst Gloria Borger and Jeffrey Toobin. What did you hear and what did you think . I thought it was a very convincing explanation of whats wrong with the law. It was less convincing as a legal case. I think this is going to be a very difficult lawsuit for the administration to win. Why . Starting with the question of standing. You know, you cant just file a lawsuit because you dont like a law. The issue of do you have the injury in fact, how has the federal government been injured . You notice that Attorney General garland mentioned several federal agencies he said were affected. I think the defendants in this case are going to say the injury, if there is any injury to those federal agencies, is too small and insignificant to merit the filing of a lawsuit. Thats going to be a big challenge in this case. But the fact that the federal government is in this case is a big deal, and the Justice Department is doing what it can. The question is whether or not the courts will agree, and i think thats very much an open question. Joan, its important that we remind people how we got here by the decision not to act on behalf of the Supreme Court and then the makeup of the court if this lawsuit then reaches them again, the likelihood that the doj will be successful. Well, first of all, i think this was a pretty muscular sounding lawsuit. Jeff is right that they went after provisions that could affect the federal agencies, but the overriding complaint here is the Supremacy Clause, which gives the federal Constitution Precedence over anything that happens in texas, is the main basis for this. Merrick garland, who i just have to mention, you know, Merrick Garland in another life would have been sitting on the Supreme Court if he hadnt been blocked from appointment some five years ago. But it seemed like he was bringing together a couple different grounds here that could fly with this Supreme Court. Youre exactly right. With this new makeup 63 conservative dominance over the three liberals, it will be an uphill battle at the Supreme Court and probably even in the lower federal courts. Remember, this was filed in the Western District of texas and it goes up through the fifth circuit. Thats a very conservative Appeals Court to face for the biden administration, but i think at this point the main message from Merrick Garland was, you tried to evade the law, you tried to set up a scheme that in essence would subvert the federal constitution and a womans right thats been established for nearly a half century and the law will follow you even though you try to get around it. So i think your question is exactly right about how it will fare but i think theyre trying to bring a couple different grounds here and maybe one of them will succeed In The End and in the interim maybe they can get a temporary injunction to block the law from being enforced by the private citizens who might bring these cases. Gloria, you heard one of the reporters bring up the question of if the Justice Department was succumbing to political pressure, because we do know theres been pressure on the White House, Do Something, dont let this happen in texas. Merrick garland said, no, of course not, but that political pressure exists. Well, of course there is political pressure. I would argue that in many ways this gives the democrats an issue that they can rally around, because if you listen to Merrick Garland describe this law as starkly as he did, he said, you know, this relies on private citizens and he talked about them serving as bounty hunters, getting 10,000 reward for turning in a neighbor who was helping somebody to get an abortion or new about somebody getting an abortion. People hear that and the democrats are trying to say just listen to what this law does. And that is exactly what Merrick Garland was staying today. Sure, theres pressure from democrats saying we have to use this, yes, its an okay political issue, its a good political issue for us, it will galvanize our base, et cetera, et cetera, but it is also an affront to the constitution, more importantly. I think that is what garland kept saying. We dont appoint vigilantes to take the law into their own hands, whether it be about this issue or any other issue. So what he tried to do today, i think effectively, was distill it for the american people to hear. The big change is that this was an affront to the constitution if you believe that Roe V wade is still good law. The problem the federal government faces here is that five Supreme Court justices last week let this Law Go Into Effect even though it so clearly conflicts with Roe V wade and all the decisions since then. Thats the problem that Abortion Rights Supporters face in the federal Courts Today and this is a lawsuit in the federal court. We had a doctor on in the last hour who has said that on a typical day he offered services to 20 to 30 women. However, after this law was implemented that number went to six who came in for services. He had to turn away three. For women who are hoping this law will be overturned or blocked, whats the timing for them to see some impact . This is whats so interesting procedurally about the situation, if a state passes a law that is clearly in conflict with supreme Court Press ceprecs this one was, you would get a stay while it was litigated. What makes the supreme Courts Decision last week so significant is they did not agree to a stay. They said, no, the law can go into effect. That suggests to me that its going to be difficult to get a stay even with this very important lawsuit filed by the Justice Department. Again, what makes this law and the reaction to it so significant is that this is the first time since 1973 that abortion is effectively illegal in any part of the united states, and the Supreme Court said thats okay. Thats whats so chilling about this case. Frankly, i dont know that the Justice Departments lawsuit changes anything. Well see as it starts to move through the system, but the Status Quo Today is that abortion is effectively illegal in texas. I mean, weve touched on this, but they did it through this tricky maneuver. You heard the Attorney General repeatedly call it a statutory scheme, not even really a law, a statutory scheme. What does that mean . First of all, he was rightly picking up on language of certainly no liberal Chief Justice John Roberts who dissented from that order that allowed the law to take effect. Attorney general garland used much of the Chiefs Language there referring to how unprecedented this was and that it was designed to evade federal law, the u. S. Constitution. That has got to mean something. You know, if you just step back and say were just going to think about procedural lanes here, who is rightly sued, who is not rightly sued, texas was essentially gaming the system. Chief Justice Roberts didnt say that out loud, but thats effectively what he said and thats what Merrick Garland is saying here. You cant set up a scheme and he used the Word Scheme rightly that says this cannot be challenged when it is so patently against 50 years of precedent. The other thing i would say about roe, roe is Supposed To still be the law and even the majority that refused to block this law said, well, were not saying anything about abortion, were not saying anything about whether this law is constitutional or not constitutional. Maybe some lower court judges can hang their hats on that, saying, well, the court despite allowing this to take effect was emphatic in saying its not declaring its constitutionality yet. But the truth is that for nearly 50 Years America has had this right and how could it evaporate essentially overnight about ten days ago when it did and not have someone be able to Do Something about it . Not just Attorney General Merrick Garland, but the nations federal courts. Yes, everyones calling it a scheme because thats what it was. But it worked. Right. Think about 59 of the american public believes that abortion should be legal, 35 of republicans believe abortion should be legal. The question that i have is, Women Voters listening to what Merrick Garland said today, suburban women that republicans have had a lot of problems with, what are they going to think . What are they going to think when they hear about this plan, this scheme, as garland put it, that can now go into effect with vigilantes out there getting monetary rewards for talking about other peoples private business. I ithank you very much. First for the nation, one of americas largest School Districts, Los Angeles, is expected to vote on a Mask Mandate Vaccine Mandate for eligible students. Like this new and improved Steak And Cheese loaded with our new Tender Steak thats marinated and thicker sliced, on our new artisan italian bread. Man, you covered up the footlong the eat fresh refresh at subway®. Its too much new to fit in one commerc one, two one, two, three only pay for what you need with customized Car Insurance from Liberty Mutual nothing rhymes with Liberty Mutual. Only pay for what you need. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. As i observe investors balance risk and reward, i see one element securing portfolios, time after time. Gold. Your strategic advantage. Mom mom every day can be extraordinary with rich, creamy, Delicious Fage total yogurt. Have you ever sat here and wondered couldnt i do this from home . With letsgetchecked, you can. Its virtual care with Home Health Testing and more. All from the comfort of. Here. Letsgetchecked. Care can be this good. Hey google. Now to that consequential vote later today in the nations second largest School District, the Los Angeles County School Board is expected to decide if students 12 or older should be required to get vaccinated against covid19. Lets bring in jackie goldberg, an l. A. County School Board member. Vaccines for students are not new in l. A. Or across the country, but why take this step . Well, weve seen now since august a ten times higher Hospitalization Rate among unvaccinated adolescents ages 12 to 17 in the country. Weve seen a surge of children being hospitalized and the beginning of seeing some deaths of children from covid. We believe that it is time for us in l. A. Unified School District to tell our students that we love you and we care enough about you to require you to be vaccinated, just the same way we require you to be vaccinated against polio and measles and mumps and other diseases that cause harm and death. Understood that you express that as love. There will be some parents and families who do not receive that as love and will say i will not have my child vaccinated, will they be allowed to go to virtual schooling . Absolutely. We have an independent Study System set up for those right now who want to have their children not in person because theyre afraid of covid. Those are mostly Element School aged children. But we have an opportunity for that and were not going to stop educating the children in l. A. Unified regardless. Were going to say, though, that unless you have an exemption thats allowable under the law, you will not be in inperson classrooms. Let me ask about those exemptions. I apologize for jumping in. Are you including religious exemptions or only medical . Well, its mostly medical. We will do it on a Casebycase Basis even for religious exemptions, but the state of california has outlawed most religious exemptions after a couple of years ago we had an outbreak of measles that started at Disneyland And Spread throughout southern california. That was because a whole lot of parents had said, well, i just have a belief that i dont believe in vaccination. Now you actually have to have a religious belief that is constant in your life. We will take them on a Casebycase Basis. Our goal is not to eliminate anybodys exemptions theyre entitled to, but to say to everyone else you have until The End of october to be vaccinated if youre going to be in sports or afterschool activities, extracurricular programs, youve got until The End of december, December 19th when we go on Winter Break for everybody else 12 to 18 years of age to be vaccinated. We will have mobile vaccine sites on our middle and High School Campuses and we have a lot of Community Partners in the medical field that are also providing vaccination sites. Jackie goldberg with the l. A. County unified School District, thank you so much. We have some Breaking News right now. This is ahead of President Bidens major speech on covid. We have just learned that the department of labor will require all businesses, meaning private businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure that their workers are either vaccinated or Face Testing once a week. Lets go back to chief white House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins with the details. This isnt just for federal workers, this is for private businesses. Reporter this is separate from that Executive Order we were talking about earlier that is going to be basically a Vaccine Mandate. This is an emergency temporary rule we are expected to get in the coming of weeks from the department of labor, saying that all businesses that have 100 or more employees will have to ensure those employees are vaccinated or they will have to be tested once a week if they are not vaccinated. That is a significant rule coming out of the Labor Department and it is something the president is going to announce during this speech. This rule that we are expected to get in the coming weeks from the Labor Department, the White House estimates it could affect up to 80 Million workers in the united states. That is incredibly significant and the fact this appears to be the way they have decided they can compel private companies to get their employees vaccinated. We know that is something they have struggled with. We know they have this belief that the federal government cannot order broad Vaccine Mandates. This is something they can do, they believe, from the department of labor. This is going to be a rule that we will hear from the Labor Secretary Marty walsh when they have finalized it, according to a senior Administration Official who briefed us earlier they are still crafting this rule. It does raise questions of, of course, what happens to those businesses if they dont comply with this new rule . Should we expect this to go the way the federal government is now, because this new Vaccine Mandate that the president is announcing today, previously the standard was you had to be vaccinated or submit to regular testing. That is going to be the new standard for private companies that have 100 or more employees. Thecomply, the Ssions Cououou Department of Labor And Osha will, quote, taken forcenforcem actions that could include up to 14,000 per violation. This is something we expect the president to go into further detail on. We should note those remarks are going to include several different components of their plan to get the Delta Variant and the pandemic under control. The other one, of course, is that Vaccine Mandate for federal workers. One other aspect of this is they say they are going to double those fines for people who try to not wear a mask on a flight or in an airport. That has been something big weve seen play out over the last few weeks. A senior official says they will be doubling those Tsa Mask fines as well. Were going to broaden this conversation and bring back Gloria Borger, Jeffrey Toobin and dr. Leana wen. Weve seen that pretty please hasnt worked, the Honor System Hasnt worked. In large part, the lotteries and the gift cards havent worked. What do you think about this rule thats coming from the White House . I think its definitely needed. We have to make getting vaccinated the easy choice and remaining unvaccinated the hard choice. So i think the biden administration is doing the right thing when it comes to compelling people to get vaccinated, requiring federal workers to be vaccinated, requiring contractors to be vaccinated and now saying that employees and the companies over 100 people should either be vaccinated or get tested. I think this is all going in the right direction, but i actually wish the biden administration would go even further, because planes and trains, for example, are also under their authority. A lot of people want to travel. I think it would make a big difference to say, if you want to travel, then you need to get vaccinated. That makes travel much safer, but it also sets the tone that at this point in the pandemic we have to do everything we can, the federal government has to do everything in its power and its not currently using all of its authority. What is the difference between this announcement and a federal Vaccine Mandate . Well, its close, but its not everyone in the united states. I think the technical legal term for what went on today is no more mr. Nice guy. I mean, this is the beginning of getting closer to a national mandate. There is the question, though, of whether the federal government has the legal authority to do this. Osha supervises employee safety. Whether that authority extends to requiring vaccines for people in companies bigger than 100 employees, you can be sure this is going to be challenged in court. I dont know the answer to that, but i do know this is certainly a Shot Across The Bow by the Justice Department and by the White House, saying, look, we are sick of asking, we are now telling you get vaccinated. Gloria, i expect were going to hear from and see the governors of florida, texas, south dakota, a spate of republican senators come out soon. The president has shied away from these broad mandates for private sector, but now is seeing this is something that he thinks he has to do. As you were pointing out earlier, hes gone from the carrot to the sticks, because they feel they have no other choice. They want to get the economy moving and it wont Stay Moving if you let the Delta Variant spread. What they are doing today is setting a new minimum standard, just a minimum standard. Theyre also giving employers a Way Out, because its controversial in a lot of organizations and the employer will say i have to obey the law. If the employer decides they want to fight the law, they can try and fight the law. The question that i have is, on the testing for example, you know, Delta Air Lines is making people who decide not to get vaccinated pay for tests or charging them more on their insurance. Whos going to pay for the testing . Are the companies Supposed To pick up the tab . Is the docgovernment Supposed T pick up the tab for that . Will the employees pick up the tab for that . What the biden administration is trying to do is effectively make it untenable, difficult, almost impossible for people to work in larger organizations without endangering the health of the people they work with. I mean, thats a pretty simple th thesis. Thats what theyre doing because they feel at this point they have no other choice. They have jumped through every hoop on this. Now its clear theyre at a point where they need to say we Cant Force you, but we can make your life really uncomfortable if you decide not to get vaccinated, because the economic health of the country and the health of your fellow citizens is at stake. Do we know the answers to some of those things . What Will Enforcement look like . Do we have the infrastructure to have that many people be tested every week since at times during this pandemic its been tough for people to be tested . Reporter i think that will be what the companies are asking the department of labor. Its not just getting the testing done, also checking to make sure everyone is vaccinated. Thats a whole other Process And Set of infrastructure in and of itself. That has been something weve seen other businesses say, yes, we want to require vaccines, but having the staff to check vaccinations, to make sure that is another separate part of their businesses now since the pandemic has started, part of their life. I think those are details that are going to be worked out. I think thats why were not getting this rule today. We were told by an Administration Official theyre still drafting the rule and they expect it to be introduced in the coming weeks. Also there are questions about the timeline. How long do employees have to be vaccinated or when does this go into effect . We know from the separate Executive Order the president is signing they are going to have 75 days for federal workers to get vaccinated or risk losing their job potentially. These are going to raise some questions, but i do think this is notable. This is not a position that the White House wanted to go, not a direction they wanted to go in when we were talking to officials six or seven months ago. They really feel that the Delta Variant has forced their hand. The fact that millions of americans have not gotten vaccinated yet has really left them with no option. They think the only Way Out of this is to get millions more people vaccinated. Yes, vaccinations have started to tick up with the Delta Surge. There are millions more that need to get vaccinated for it to actually make progress in the country and for things to look different than what they do now with the Delta Variant. I think thats why youre seeing the white House Resort to these measures, because they dont feel like they have many other options to get people vaccinated. Theres one detail here in what weve learned from this official whos confirmed whats coming, its about boosters. Boosters could be required depending on what other agencies define as fully vaccinated. At what point is a person or a company not in compliance if the administration,if the fda still has not decided on a Booster Infrastructure . Right now you are considered to be fully vaccinated if you have two doses of Pfizer Or Moderna or one dose of johnson johnson. I dont see that plan changing any time soon. I think initially the Fda And Cdc might be coming out this month, hopefully, with some type of Booster Plan saying that people are going to be allowed to receive a booster in order to increase their immunity each if theyre fully vaccinated. But to then go the extra step of saying youre not going to be considered fully vaccinated until you get that booster dose, its going to take a long time to reach that point. Even israel, which started its Booster Strategy well before we did, they havent gotten to that point yet. Having more clarity about the booster is important. We need to emphasize that getting the initial doses is whats really critical for us to stop the spread of covid19, but there are also going to be other people who want to increase their protection further. I think allowing them to do that is the right step while emphasizing that the priority is getting people who have not received any vaccine to get them inoculated in the first place. Back to the law, they say here that companies could face thousands of dollars in fines per employee if they do not comply with this. Do we have any precedent for something like this, this kind of nationwide push of the federal government to force private companies to Do Something like this at penalty of fines . There are lots i mean, osha is a national regulatory body, and there are rules that osha says that if you operate a mine, if you operate a factory, you have to follow. Im not aware of any vaccine requirements. I mean, certainly schools and the military require measles vaccine, polio vaccines,. I am not aware osha has ever had a vaccine requirement. Thats going to be controversial. Certainly a lot of employers are going to simply require the vaccine rather than worry about a lawsuit. Thats the point of this regulation. They dont want fines. They want compliance. Certainly this will boost compliance. The question is will it boost compliance enough to affect the economy and affect the terrible Death Rates were now living with. By the way, the biden Administration Isnt really leading here. Businesses started doing this, mandating vaccines, private businesses, before the federal government ever got into the act. Biden has been saying over and over again, you know, business has to do more. They started and then they kind of stopped short. I think what the administration is saying today is, you know what, you started it, you got to finish it. Now were going to take a stand on this and were requiring federal workers, over whom we have authority, to get vaccinated. I think the president is looking for a partnership here with business. He doesnt want to get in a fight with business, but if some businesses want to pick a fight, theyll do it. I dont know whether it would be under osha regulations calling for a safe workplace, but it seems to me theyve clearly looked at the legal options here. Is that what you see from the White House, this partnership . Reporter i think they hoped that it would set a standard when they took the Step Up having what is now going to be a new Labor Department rule. That was so far until this Executive Order that the president is signing today, that was the rule for the federal government. You had to be vaccinated or submit to testing, masking, social distancing and what not. Of course, thats going to apply to the general workforce for these companies that have 100 or more employees. We should note its also going to be announced today that all workers who are in Health Care settings that get reimbursement from Medicare Or Medicaid services are also going to have to be vaccinated. This includes hospitals, dialysis centers, home Health Care, any of those businesses that have employees where the business gets reimbursed by Medicare Or Medicaid youre going to have cms all of those employees are also going to have to be vaccinated. Thats 17 Million people, according to the White House estimate. We dont know how many of these people are already vaccinated, but thats the Swath Theyll believe theyll be able to reach with that. Youre tryseeing them using the Leav Levers of the federal government they do have. You saw some like tyson food, american airlines, some companies following this. If i can just add about the medical workers, its shocking to me, but there is enormous noncompliance with vaccines in the medical profession, not necessarily among doctors, but certainly among nurses and home Health Care aides. They are not vaccinated in the numbers that you would expect. So the fact that the federal government is potentially withholding reimbursement to these medical operations is a very important step. Its huge. Were a little more than an hour out from this speech from the president where he will detail many elements of this new plan. Yeah, they werent kidding, there are going to be some bombshells in there. Thank you all. Meanwhile, former President Trump is heaping praise on a confederate general, but of course his historical facts need a little fact checking. New projects means new project managers. You need to hire. I need indeed. Indeed you do. When you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. Visit indeed. Com hire and get started today. At pnc bank, we believe in the power of the watch out. The make way, coming through. Great. The storm alert. Dad. And the subtle but effective ding. Thats why we created low Cash Mode. The financial watch out that gives you the options and time needed to help you avoid overdraft fees. Its one way were making a difference. Because we believe how you handle overdrafts should be in your control, not just your banks. Low Cash Mode on virtual wallet from pnc bank. Weighing in on Yesterdays Removal of the Robert E. Lee confederate statue in virginia. He called the removal an embarrassment and claimed that, quote, we are suffering because we dont have the genius of a Robert E. Lee. A cnn political Analyst And Historian and professor at Princeton University and joins us. Professor, great to see you. President trump is a super fan of Robert E. Lee. I mean, he really likes Robert E. Lyrics but i think that the point is that in this statement hes doing something bigger than that, and that is getting back to his stoking of racial tension. Thats exactly right, like he did with Confederate Statues throughout. Hes trying to stoke that kind of racial politics in the conservative movement, and hes also trying to draw the attention of the media towards these sorts of questions and initially it looks like he succeeded in both, but were seeing him return to the public stage with the same kinds of arguments that hes used all the way back to his announcement of running the first time and to charlottesville. Let me read a bit of the former president s statement on the removal of that statue in richmond help. Writes here of the late general. If only we had Robert E. Lee to command our troops in afghanistan. That disaster would have ended in a complete and total victory many years ago. He goes on to say, except For Gettysburg, lee would have won the war. Many things here. First, lets start with except For Gettysburg and details. Minor details. He would have won that war. One is assessing lee that way and making this claim about how the Civil War would have unfolded, and the second is Lee Wasnt on the side of the union, and so here he is invoking him about what he would do for the nation where the history is just the opposite, so we dont even know if lee would be fighting on the side of the united states, and i think thats why this historical argument is so contorted and obviously its a political appeal, not a historical argument. Also. Im not quite sure that he wrote that statement. It wasnt some of his usual kind of monosyllabic language in that statement. There were some words that im not familiar with President Trump normally using, but in any event, its certainly his thoughts, whoever is writing it. I also want to ask you, professor, about this. President trump apparently reach out to and called some of the Family Members of the fallen soldiers in afghanistan, some of whom made it clear that they were not happy with President Bidens reception, and if President Trump comforted them, obviously thats wonderful, but its interesting since we know that in the past he has been critical of Gold Star families and he has called fallen soldiers, im thinking of the time in 2018 when he went Supposed To go to the cemetery outside of paris and he called the soldiers who were lost in that Cemetery Losers and sufferers according to different officials that were there. Its a different tone from him. And remember his comments about Senator Mccain which started a lot of this kind of conversation, and these comments are a bit of a different tone, but they are coming in the context of his potentially announcing that he will run again, and from what were reading using afghanistan as a key political issue to go after the biden administration. Theres a Fault Line between what he said in the past and this, but its also an incredibly politicized way to use this kind of consoling. Yeah. This reporting coming from the washington post. Is it typical for a former president to make these calls that were used to sitting president s make to these families . Im sure there have been calls to people who have been through tragedy, but this is a president a former president who might run again and a former president who is in the midst of shaping a political argument, and i think we have to see the conversation in this light. I want to also talk about what former President Trump, how hes going to spend on the 20th Anniversary of 9 11. Hes going to be calling a boxing match. That is not doesnt feel particularly patriotic. It doesnt feel particularly sensitive. What are we to make of that . Oh, its more of the same. I dont think his supporters will care that hes doing this. This is the lesson that weve learned before. Their loyalty is very strong, but its not what we would expect of a former president. This was a national tragedy unlike almost any other that we have suffered through, and so we would want our elected officials and former leaders to use that day not to cover a Sporting Event but to but to be part of the remembrance of the tragedy and think about what lessons we can learn for the future, so i think hell have a lot of criticism for this this decision. Yeah. Its being billed as no holds Parts Commentary with don Trump Jr. At the Hotel Rock and casino in hollywood, florida. Thats what the former president will be doing on the 20th Anniversary of 9 11. Julian, thank you. Okay. Thanks for having me. Now to the topic of the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Construction crews are searching for a Time Capsule thats believed to be hidden inside the base of that statue. So listen to this. Historians think the capsule was stashed in there back in 1887 and what is in there, victor . So a Newspaper Article from The Times says it contains mostly memorabilia, including u. S. Silver dollar and a picture of President Lincoln lying in his coffin. What does that mean . Illustrated picture . Maybe a sketch. A sketch . The plan now is to replace that Time Capsule with a new one with artifacts from, of course, current times, including an expired vial of the Phizer Vaccine and images of the black Lives Matter Event because that movement in large part is why that statue is coming down. Time capsules are so cool. You have to think about what you would put in there right now of what captures this moment. I got it. The lead with Jake Tapper starts now. Biden tries to give his Pandemic Plan a Booster Shot. The lead starts right now. Breaking news. New details on president s plans to fight the pandemic, including new Vaccine Mandates, new steps for schools and new requirements for many american companies as President Biden continues to fail to stop the new surge. Then, cnn is back live inside afghanistan as the first commercial flight leaves since the u. S. Pulled out. Were any americans on board this flight . How many americans remain stranded there . Plus, breaking today. The new challenge