The Daily Signal - Does DC Mayor Have More Power Over Children Than Parents Do? Sen. Mike Lee Weighs In.

Episode Date: March 2, 2021

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser recently proposed that children as young as 11 should be able to consent to vaccinations without their parents’ knowledge. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, joins "The Daily Signal Podcast" to talk about whether this is part of a larger agenda to deny parental rights and persuade children to trust government more than their parents. Among other topics, Lee outlines his new bill designed to hold social media giants accountable for their promises. And we cover these stories: The Biden administration announces that it will allow families who came into the U.S. illegally and were separated during the Trump administration to remain in the country.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says sexual harassment against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo should be taken seriously.  A whopping 70% of conservative academics say their work environment is “hostile.”  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, March 2nd. I'm Virginia Allen. And I'm Rachel D.C. Mayor, Merrill Bowser, have more authority over children than their parents. She seems to think so since having a policy that allows children as young as 11 years old to consent to vaccinations without their parents' knowledge. Senator Mike Lee of Utah joins me on the Daily Signal podcast to discuss. Congressman Ted Budd of North Carolina also joins me to discuss the Democrats 1.9. trillion COVID-19 bill. And don't forget, if you're enjoying this podcast,

please be sure to leave a review or a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Now on to our top news. President Joe Biden's administration announced Monday that it will be letting families who came into the U.S. under former President Donald Trump and were separated to remain in the country. Families who are separated will also have the opportunity to be reunited in their own home country.

Here's what Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Maracas said on Monday about the announcement via Bloomberg Quicktake. Finally, let me turn to, I think, the most powerful and heartbreaking example of the cruelty that preceded this administration, and that is the intentional separation of children from their parents. I am the chairman, I have the privilege of serving at the President's designation as the chairman of the Family Reunification Task Force. The First Lady has driven us to action through her personal commitment to this moral imperative. And that moral imperative is to reunite the families and restore them to the fullest capacity that we as a United States government can do. and I should say that we are not doing it alone. We are working closely with counsel for the separated family members.

We are doing it along with the countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. I spoke with the foreign minister of each of those countries this past Friday. We are doing it with non-governmental organizations, and we intend to and will shortly harness the capabilities, resources, and desire of the private sector. This is not only an all of government, but all of society effort to do what is right. We are hoping to reunite the families either here or in the country of origin. We hope to be in a position to give them the election. And if, in fact, they seek to reunite here in the United States, we will explore lawful pathways.

for them to remain in the United States and to address the family needs so we are acting as restoratively as possible. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, says the sexual harassment claims being made against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo should be taken seriously. Two former Cuomo staffers have come forward with sexual harassment allegations against the governor. One woman claims Cuomo kissed her without consent. and both say he used language that implied a desire for intimate relations.

In a statement Monday, Pelosi said, The women who have come forward with serious and credible charges against Governor Cuomo deserve to be heard and be treated with dignity. The independent investigation must have due process and respect for everyone involved. Governor Cuomo has denied any inappropriate actions but says he will fully participate in the investigation. A whopping 70% of conservative academics say their work environment was hostile. According to a study from the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, right-leaning academics experience a high level of institutional authoritarianism in peer pressure.

In the U.S., over a third of conservative academics and PhD students have been threatened with disciplinary action for their views, while 70% of conservative academics report a hostile departmental climate for their beliefs. Additionally, over 9 and 10 Trump-supporting academics and 8-10 Brexit-supporting academics say they would not feel comfortable expressing their views to a colleague. More than half of North American and British conservative academics admit self-censoring in research and teaching. Now stay tuned for my conversation with Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Congressman Ted Budd of North Carolina. Do you have an interest in public policy? Do you want to hear some of the biggest names?

and American politics speak, the Heritage Foundation host webinars called Heritage Events Live. These webinars are free and open to the public. To find the latest webinars and register, visit heritage.org slash events. I'm joined today on the Daily Signal podcast by Senator Mike Lee of Utah.

Senator Lee, it's great to have you back on the Daily Signal podcast. Thank you. It's good to be with you. Well, you recently introduced a resolution disapproving of an order from D.C. Merrill, Merrill Bowser, which basically stated that kids as young as 11 can get the COVID vaccine without their parents' knowledge. Can you tell us about this and also what your response to it was?

Yeah, so the District of Columbia adopted a law applicable to D.C. residents that would allow kids to give their own consent to be vaccinated, starting at the age of 11. Now, look, I want to make very clear up front. I believe in vaccinations. I've had my own children vaccinated. But I believe that this choice is something that should be made by parents and not by the government. Not everybody shares my view about vaccines and there's nothing more fundamental and more sacred as it right than a parent's right to have to be the one who gives consent or withholds consent for particular medical treatment, particularly invasive medical treatment like a vaccine. So when the District of Columbia did this, I recalled the fact that we are the sole sovereign lawmaker over the District of Columbia. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, the Constitution, the so-called Enclave Clause, makes us the ultimate lawmaker over D.C. We've delegated out that authority to D.C.'s city government. But we retain the power to undo any of those

pieces of legislation. We've got a process by which we can do it. So I'm running a resolution to undo this resolution. I think this is a choice that belongs to the parents, not to the government. Well, on that note, and can we talk a little bit about, do you think there's a larger agenda here to start removing parental rights and have children be more trusting of the state than even their parents? You have seized upon the exact concern I have, Rachel, which is that if we do this here, where does that lead? Well, we know where it leads. The minute you start to say that the government is itself the custodian. The government is the ultimate parent. And that inevitably leads to other things. Now, this in and of itself is a grave diminution and a deprivation in parental rights and in the

relationship between the parent and the child. But it could also lead to other bad things, and that's very concerning to me. We recently introduced a bill called the Promise Act, and this bill is really designed to hold big tech companies accountable for their promises. Can you start off by just telling us about the bill? Sure. In the Promise Act, I propose giving authority to the Federal Trade Commission to go after big tech companies for lying to the public, to lying to consumers, to lying to people who, for example, use a particular social media platform, let's just say.

When you get one of these free services, when you're not paying for it, It's often said that you are the product. You're not paying for it because you are the product. And that's all fine. But people need to understand what it is that they're agreeing to. They need to have clear terms of service. And when they offer up terms of service in which they promise, either expressly through their policies or through statements made by their CEOs,

when they're told, for example, come on to this site and agree to our terms, and if you do, we will not discriminate on the basis of your political ideology or your views on proper treatment of COVID or this or that. We're going to at least treat you even handedly as a political matter. If they make that promise and then betray it and act in a manner inconsistent with that, the Federal Trade Commission ought to be able to exercise its authority under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act because that is a deceptive practice. And I think that has happened.

We've had hearing after hearing with people from Facebook and Twitter, and by people, I mean, they're CEOs, in which we've raised this issue and in which I've raised concerns. I'll point out that they have de-platformed or flagged or otherwise suppressed or mistreated conservative statements over and over and over again. The CEOs of those companies inevitably tell me something like the following. Well, it's okay because we've got some Democrats mad at us and some Republicans mad at us. It must mean we're doing something right. And I pushed back on that, saying, okay, I'd like you to tell me, I'd like you to give me a single example of where you've done the same thing that I can rattle off by memory of what you've done to conservatives.

Give me a single corresponding example where you've taken similar action to a corresponding statement on the left. They couldn't. And that's an indication, notwithstanding the fact that they themselves, the CEOs of these companies have repeatedly said, yeah, we don't put our thumb on the political scale. We don't favor or disfavor one political ideology over another. It's not true. They need to stand accountable for that. Well, bigger picture here, what do you see happening if big tech isn't held accountable? I mean, what lies down the road if people continue to not address this?

What I worry about is the cancel culture. It's become almost a cliche. It's become almost such a common word that we don't think about it as much. But when you have the ability of a very small handful of individuals or corporate interests to suppress or promote views that they either disfavor or favor, that ends up being a problem. ends up being a problem for society. Now there's some tension here because on the one hand, if somebody wants to start a company, they want to be liberal activists,

they've got every right to do that, and I want it the government interfering with that in and of itself. But there's a limit to that, meaning if you're defrauding people in the process, that's a problem. That's a place where the government can, may, and I believe must step in. Well, you've been vocal on Twitter recently

about how there's been a consistent trend over the past 80 years with both parties really taking the power away from the American people. And can you talk about why this is a problem and what you think the solution is? I'm so glad you asked about this. Look, the twin structural protections of the Constitution are as important as any other feature in it. What I refer to as the vertical protection of federalism keeps most of the power, or it's supposed to, rather, at the state and local level. It's not because state and local governments are always,

better, but they're closer to the people. They're easier to hold accountable to the people. And so our founding fathers wisely entrusted most powers of government to states and localities, reserving just a few powers at the top, at the federal government. You know, weights and measures, trademarks, copyrights, and patents, declaring war, granting letters of mark and reprisal, regulating trade or commerce between the states with four nations and with the Indian tribes, coining money regulating the value thereof, and there are a few basic others, but you get the idea. Everything else is supposed to be left to the states. So we've deviated from this vertical protection of federalism by taking this power from the

broad base of the states and localities pushing it to Washington. Then we've also deviated from the horizontal protection that we call separation of powers. We've got one branch of the federal government that makes the laws, Congress, legislative branch, where I work. Another branch, the executive branch headed by the president that executes, implements, and enforces the laws. We've got a third branch, the judiciary headed by the Supreme Court, that interprets the laws. As we've moved power from the states to Washington,

we've also seen a trend where Congress, uncomfortable with its newfound power and newfound accountability, seeks to avoid that accountability by handing it over to the executive branch, usually to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. You've always got somebody else to blame there. Thus, power has been taken away from the American people in two steps. First, from the people to Washington, within Washington, from the people's elected lawmakers to unelected unaccountable bureaucrats.

that is bad. So what's the way forward? How would you suggest remedying this? So we've been doing this since the 1930s, and I've always believed that it's no coincidence that the deviation from federalism occurred at the same time as the deviation from separation of powers. I also believe that if you can restore either one of those,

to the degree you can restore either one of those, you can also start restoring the other. One of the first steps that I would like to see the passage of reforms like the Raines Act. REINS stands for regulations from the executive need of scrutiny and says that these big federal regulations put in place by executive branch bureaucrats can't take effect without Congress affirmatively passing it into law. And the president ultimately having the power to sign or veto the legislation saying

this major rule issued by EPA or OSHA or whatever alphabet super agency you're talking about. If Congress had to affirmatively enact those things, then all of a sudden you'd have members of Congress being held accountable for those laws, that would start the restoration of separation of powers. And so too with the Global Trade Accountability Act, which is something I introduced to do for trade policy, what the Raines Act does for regulatory policy. Little by little, as you see members of Congress having to be held accountable for these things

because they'll have to take their own votes to have them kick in, in, you will eventually see, and you mark my words, members of Congress also saying, hey, maybe we don't need to exercise all this power in all these areas. Local activities that take place in one state at one time that while economically mining, agriculture, manufacturing, labor, things like that, should eventually be returned to the states for state regulation, and they will be if you make Congress actually responsible for passing the laws. these are baby steps, and they may sound indirectly related to it,

but they are the absolute keystone to the whole thing. If we can start restoring separation of powers, we'll restore federalism, and the opposite is also true. Well, House Democrats just passed their Equality Act, which there's a lot to this bill, but it's going to allow men, biological men, women's restrooms, boys being able to disrobe in girls' locker rooms. What is your perspective of the Equality Act? and, I mean, is there anything that can be done to counter it?

My problem with the Equality Act is that it utilizes language up front, the Equality Act. Who can be against equality? And it also uses a cause that I think a overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with it, which is let's make sure that equal rights are accorded to LGBT persons. You take that title and that basic objective, and very few people are going to disagree with it, and very few members of Congress instinctively are going to want to vote against something like that. But when you dig into the details and you see some of the ramifications of this, you can see that it's not well crafted, and it's crafted in such a way that's going to really harm a lot of people.

Our rights are such that they should be things that can be accorded and protected fairly and even handedly. and giving someone a right here shouldn't necessarily deprive a broad other group of people of a corresponding right. In this case, you've got a big problem. Girls and women's athletics, girls and women's shelters for the victims of sexual domestic abuse, girls and women's locker rooms and restrooms are all examples of things that could and inevitably would be jeopardized and ultimately brought to an end in the case of girls and women's athletics by this legislation. There are also significant religious freedom implications of it. By its own terms, it repeals significant swaths of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

And look, it is great to protect all Americans, including LGBT persons. This is not a well-written piece of legislation. it's bad and it needs to be voted down. I hope that it will. Well, Senator Lee, thank you so much for joining us again on the Daily Signal podcast. It's great having you with us. Thank you very much. I'm joined today on the Daily Signal podcast by Congressman Ted Budd of North Carolina. Congressman Bud, it's great to have you with us on the Daily Signal podcast. Rachel, thanks for having me. Thanks for being with us. So I want to start talking about Democrats 1.9 trillion COVID relief package. You're calling a Biden bailout. Why is that?

Yeah, essentially it's unspent funds and it's just a liberal wish list. Look, here's the number that you need to know, 9% of this. That's all that is dedicated to actual COVID relief. So, you know, do the math, that's 91% that is simply a liberal wish list. Look, if you want to do the COVID relief part, well, the best, let's back up for a second, the best thing to do, it's just open the economy. That's the best stimulus. That's the best COVID in the economic relief our country could ever have. Every state open up. We'll take care of those who need to be. taken care of. And look, if you want to spend the 9% of this bill, there's a case for that, but not $2 trillion that's completely irresponsible. Can you talk about some of the things that are included in this bill that have absolutely nothing to do with COVID relief? Because there's a lot. You mentioned the percentages. But can you just highlight some of those things so people are aware? Yeah, well, what's on the bubble right now is the minimum wage increase. And if that's a standalone vote because of the Senate parliamentarian, we'll figure all that stuff out. But just even the fact that they wanted to put that in there will kill 1.4 million blue collar jobs.

When our economy is so vulnerable, now is not the time to be doing that. There's stimulus checks to illegal immigrants. There's taxpayer funding for abortion that is allowed in there. There's no guardrails against it. It even funds some colleges that partner with companies that are controlled by communist China. And now we're seeing direct payments to federal employees whose kids aren't even in school. And I think that's playing favorites when there's other people outside of the federal government and outside of federal employees that need help as well.

Well, looking at everything that's in this bill, that has nothing to do with COVID relief. What are some ways that COVID has impacted in just the different restrictions we've seen? And what are you seeing when it comes to small businesses and just the impact it's had in your state? So up in North Carolina, we've seen a lot of restaurants hurt. You know, that's one of my greatest concerns. As people are out, they're dealing with problems of despair. You know, now we say, well, let's lock down for safety. but then you're seeing people start having problems for addiction, depression, in the worst case, suicide, alcoholism.

These are other problems that are replacing COVID. So that's very concerning. Schools are staying shut when we're funding schools to stay closed when we need them to be open. And when kids aren't in school, a lot of these parents can't go back to work. So we're seeing social problems related to that. Kids behind. Some kids are going to have to repeat a grade. And ultimately that hurts our economy.

There's just one concern after another. Well, we're going into now about the third month of President Joe Biden's administration. And I'm just curious, what's your perspective on the administration so far? And are there just concerns that you've seen surface already, just given that we're barely into? I'm just curious, like, what your thought is on the temperature of what's going on. So the question was asked when he was inaugurated on January 20th. And then, you know, hey, do I support him? Well, I'm going to support anything that helps our country.

And am I about unity? Well, anything that we can unify on that grows our economy helps us be a stronger nation. But one of the things I'm going to be talking about today, Rachel, is the 1619 project and this versus the 1776 Commission. We talk about the heroes that founded our country that ultimately eliminated slavery and created a country that is a nation of laws and not of men for the first time in history. In 240 plus years beyond that, he cancels that very commission. So I don't like what I'm seeing. I want him to do what's right. But even the Democrats are having questions.

I mean, within the last few hours, they're saying we need to remove sole authority for nuclear codes from Joe Biden. That tells you what they actually think of him and how they actually don't trust him. No, you have a really good point there. So you did mention the 1776 Commission, and I do want to ask you about that. So you had written an op-ed for the Dealey Suna, actually. It's called The Right to Pass Down America's Founding Values is Worth Fighting for. Can you talk a little bit about why you want to bring back the 1776 Commission and just why this is so important to begin with? I mean, look, we have to push back.

We have to stand up for what's right. The 776 Commission brought together scholars and historians to understand the principles of our founding, things like life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, fundamental truths of human liberty, equal treatment under the law and a government by and for the people. And that's not what we're seeing because the 1619 project, it tries to reframe U.S. history and put the consequences of slavery at the very center of our national narrative, and that's wrong. They want to teach our kids that our country is hopeless. It's flawed. It's evil. And, you know, I'm really concerned because I'm in a North Carolina, Winston-Salem area, even a town like us has adopted as part as well as 4,500 classrooms across all 50 states has adopted this curriculum.

And I think it really sets us up for a bad future when people hate their own country. Well, something else you've been outspoken about recently is talking to members of Congress and urging them to reject the proposed restoration of earmarks. Why is this important and why are earmarks bad? Yeah. Anytime you use taxpayer money to fund a local interest, that's essentially a quasi form of bribery. And this is something that in the 2000s, early 2000s, I mean, members of Congress are going to jail for this. And now they want to bring back and mainstream it.

I mean, that's not a good idea. When our economy is as vulnerable as it is when it's crying out for some efficiencies to get our country moving again, and now they're wanting to do earmarks, I think that's ridiculous. Well, I'm curious, given that we have this Democrat House, White House Senate, there's not a lot Republicans can do in conservatives, but how would you encourage your colleagues to respond to what we see going on and what can we do despite the political climate we're in right now? Well, we can use every procedural tool in our tool belt and in our toolbox on the House floor and the Senate floor. We are grateful for some of the nearly 300 judges that Trump appointed, so we should see some favorable federal court outcomes in the lower federal court. So there's optimism there. And we need to set the table so that we can win in 2022. We can flip the Senate back.

will be defending 20 seats, the Democrats defending about 14, and then every House seat is always up for re-election. They have the finished majority since the 1930s or so. So they're very vulnerable. They're going to overplay their hand. The problem right now, Rachel, is that when they overplay their hand, it hurts America. So it will be painful. Let's be realistic here. It will be painful for the next year and a half, but we need to win so that we can take back the House and ultimately take back our country. Well, something else the Democrats just passed is the Equality Act. And I'm curious to get any reaction you have on that. And just, you know, specifically how it impacts women, especially when the Democrat Party often talks not about how they want to be so, you know, welcoming of women and

want to elevate them. Just any thoughts you have on the passage of this bill and, you know, any concerns you have about what, you know, how it can impact women into society as a whole. Well, one of the things that the Democrats are really good at is hacking language and using language. And using language, to pass deceptive bills. You know, the Four America bill was H.R.1. The Equality Act is H.R. 5. But now we're going to see if this passes the Senate in its current form, it's going to destroy women's sports, something that other parts of federal law have worked so hard, Title IX, so hard to bring about the elevation of women's sports over the past several decades. And it's been phenomenal for our institutions and the female athletes.

And now there's going to be a blending of the two, and it's going to allow a lot of bad things. Well, we're here talking at CPAC, and the theme this year is America uncanceled. And we've just seen a lot of different examples lately on social media, just in society in general, of cancel culture everywhere. And so what about this concerns you, number one, and the number two, how would you encourage your colleagues and just Americans in general to respond in the ways they can? Well, let's be loud. let's be kind. There's no mean spirit needed, but we need to call out cancel culture. We need to, we need to step up. Don't retreat. Let's be on the advance right now, whether it's on social media, and whether it's in person and whether it's with our neighbors, whether it's in the school systems.

Be engaged in civil discourse in the town square, whatever that town square is that you can engage in. Please do engage. Do not retreat. Don't let them take ground here because we have the moral high ground on this and we always need to remember. Do not let them cancel us. Well, we couldn't end on a better note. So Congressman Ted Budd, thank you so much for joining us on The Daily Signal podcast. Thank you, Rachel. It's great to be with you. And that'll do it for today's episode.

Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal podcast. You can find The Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and IHeart Radio. Please be sure to leave us their review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Thanks again for listening, and we'll be back with you all tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Rachel Del Judas, sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. For more information, visitdailysignal.com.