♪ host: good morning. it is tuesday, november 26, 2024. we begin this morning on the roll of scientists in public

policy debates. whether americans believe should take an active role in public policy debates or whether they should focus on establishing facts and staying out of the policy realm. this morning, we want to know what you think about scientists making public policy decisions. phone lines split as usual by political party. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. a special line this morning for scientists, (202) 748-8003 is that number. or if you want to text us, you can also dial in at (202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media, on x, on facebook.com/c-span. very good tuesday morning to you. there are thousands of scientists who work for the federal government, an increase

since 2005. we are asking this morning, how involved should scientists be in creating public policy? you can go ahead and start dialing in now. the reason we are having this conversation, a recent pew research. scientists and their views on policymaking. the new york times had a view on what the report found. for the first time since the coronavirus pandemic, the public opinion of scientists has improved. about 76% of americans have confidence scientists act in the public's best interest, but about 10 points lower than the figure before the pandemic. this year's uptake was largely driven by a slight increase in trust among republicans, a group that also experienced the steepest drop in confidence during the pandemic. roughly 9500 americans surveyed were divided over whether scientists should play a role in

policy decisions. the story goes on to say about half of the survey respondents said experts should take an active role in policy debates about scientific issues like childhood vaccines and climate change while the other have said they should focus instead on establishing sound scientific facts. that is the wrapup from the new york times. we will take you more through the pew research report, but we are asking you this morning, how involved should scientists be in creating public policy? democrats, republicans, independents, and the special line for scientists. this discussion also part of a recent discussion on our "q&a" program. a composition on truth, science, faith. a conversation started about robert f kennedy, junior, being appointed to be the head of the health and human services in the next trump

administration. [video clip] >> do you see robert f kennedy, junior, and his efforts with regards to vaccines as dang >> yes, io. he is capable of putting forward information that is demonstrably false beginning with the idea that vaccines have something to do with autism, which is one of the most clearly debunked claims that has ever been made about a connection between the medical procedure -- a medical procedure and an outcome. he continues to cast doubt on vaccines for childhood illness, which if more and more people start to believe those, we will start to see children die of measles and whooping cough and other conditions we had pretty much eliminated on the basis of totally falsified estimates of what the risks are of those vaccines. yeah, rfk, junior, for whatever reason has identified himself with a set of ideas that are clearly not compatible with truth. and yet sound compelling,

because he can put a lot of data, mostly from second or third rate journals that have been pretty much disqualified and debunked. people tend to go along because we are right now a society that is distrustful of everything. we are particularly distrustful of expertise if it happens to be something that looks like an elite. you know what? if you want information about your health, don't you want it from somebody who studied that issue for 15 or 20 years who has an appropriate degree, understands all the nuances of the biology and the medicine? but somehow, these days, those are suspicious people. and the people who just posted something on the internet or rfk, junior, are seen as somehow being the ones you can rely on. america, what happened to us? how do we forget the principles of how we maintain a good repertoire of established facts and depend on those?

and don't begin to throw those out the window when suddenly it is a fact we don't like or it makes us uncomfortable. truth does not care how you feel about it. it is just truth. host: the former nih director on the "q&a" program. you can watch the program in its entirety on c-span.org. rfk in his own words talking about what he would do at hhs. he was in an interview with nbc news just after the election. this was some of his comments. [video clip] >> well, he has been very specific. he said he wants to do three things. one, clean up the corruption at the agencies. generally the conflict of interests that have turned those agencies into captive agencies for the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry, the other industries they are supposed to be regulating. number two, to return those agencies to the gold standard science, empirically based, evidence-based medicine.

i think what they were famous for when i was a kid. president trump has told me that he wants to see measurable results within two years. a measurable diminishment. host: that was rfk, junior, earlier this month. taking your phone calls this morning, asking you how involved should scientists be in creating public policy? a special line for scientists. there are about 175,000 scientists who work for the federal government. whether you are inside or outside the federal government, you are welcome to call on that line. otherwise, phone lines split as usual by political party. we will start on the independent line out of ohio up first for us. good morning. caller: morning, john. host: morning. caller: i am not sure how involved they should be if they

are not qualified, but it is hard to tell how qualified someone is, like the fellow who spoke earlier on the clip. they have a phd or whatever. that does not mean anything. like a lawyer or a doctor. they have a certificate. you don't know how well they did or what they know. the way things are now, you really have to do your own research. the great thing about the internet is you can look at all of the clinical studies and everything. we had a clinical study, we had this, we had that. you can go on the internet and pull up the studies and make a decision yourself on whether it be an individual drug or a course treatment or a vaccine. because really that is all they are telling you anyways. depending on who you are listening to or what you are watching, they will pull up the data from a particular study or a handful of studies that support their side. host: let me ask you, this is

the way they put it in the pew research report, how would you describe your level of trust in scientists in general? would you say you have a fair amount, a great deal of trust, or not too much? caller: i have great faith in your average scientist. this world is split between -- in the old days, you had great theoretical scientists and the theory would trickle down to the applied engineers and applied scientists. that is how i am talking to you on a cell phone today. things like that. it does not work that way anymore. now you have people that are hidden. a lot of great people. a lot of great scientists. a lot of great inventors that will never see the light of day. they are keeping the world together. that is when things pop up like covid or whatever. you just have to go along. like every day you see this and that about your health.

but i have great faith in the average scientists, the average engineer in this country that develop things. well, i will not keep going on about that. anyway, they are butting their head up against a brick wall because it is politics, politics, politics. host: i appreciate the call from ohio. let me show viewers, visual learners all the numbers of trust in scientists. before covid in january of 2019, it was about 86% of the country that said they had a fair amount or great deal of trust in the scientific community. during covid, that dropped as low as 73% back in october of last year. this year, it has rebounded to some 76% saying they have a fair amount or a great deal of trust in scientists. 23% of the country saying they don't have too much or none at

all trust in scientists. that compares to just 13% pre-covid. this is gregory in sherman oaks, california, democrat. good morning. caller: hello. the question is, should scientists be involved in public policy? of course they should be for the same reason that we want people who know stuff being involved in public policy. it seems to be about incompetence. we live in a time with huge problems that can only be figured out and dealt with with the help of scientists. and the most existential issue of all, climate destruction and global heating. if we listen to the scientists, they are pretty darn consistent when they talk about the dangers of continuing to fill the -- host: gregory, you still with us?

gregory, one more try. i think you are still on the line. then we will go to william in tucson, arizona, republican. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning, john. listen. i think it's kind of rich sometimes because we as americans, we quickly forget things. i remember it was high school biology, and i remember hearing the teacher tell us all that global freezing was coming back, the ice age was returning, and that in the future wisconsin and minnesota would be completely uninhabitable because it would be too cold for large numbers of people to live there. in the year 2000, i heard al gore tell us all that within a few years the oceans were going to rise and florida was going to disappear. i think one of the last real

scientists we had that people took seriously was a fellow named jacques cousteau. i used to love his series. used to explain to us. i know that generally we are trashed chaucer's -- trash tossers. we can take better care of the oceans. but i think in reality we are not in control of the heating of the earth. i think that is outside our ball here is that we live in. i think there are some things we have to outrun. we have the trouble with hurricanes on the coasts. people still build their homes and stuff right out there on the coastline where they are going to be subject to these big winds. bring them in. i don't understand why people necessarily put themselves in harm's way against nature. that is all i have to say. host: that is william in tucson,

arizona. the crux of this question is how involved should scientists be in creating public policy. let me show you this charge from the recent pew research report. people were asked about what roles scientists should play in public policy debate. the two options where they should take an active role in public policy debates about scientific issues or they should focus on establishing sound scientific fact and stay out of the policy debate, the policy prescription part. 51% say the scientists should take an active role in public policy debates. 48% say they should focus on establishing sound scientific facts but stay out of the policy debates. that latter answer was much more often given by republicans, 64% answering that among republicans who were asked this question. among democrats who were asked this question, 67% say

scientists should take an active role. this is all in a pew research report, the impetus of this question today. so we are asking you, how involved should scientists be in creating public policy? william in missouri, independent. good morning, you are next. caller: good morning. i think it is worth mentioning it is important that scientists are involved and it is also important that scientists with opposing opinions are involved. i think we can all agree throughout covid there was this huge split and the scientists that did not agree with the quote established narratives were shut down. there was no discourse, no opposing opinions around. the only scientists allowed to present their opinions were the ones that agreed with politicians. that is a critical factor. it is not if they should be involved but which one should be involved. we should listen to all the

scientists. all the information in the world is available on the internet, and a good number of people are educated and intelligent enough to formulate their own opinion. a lot of scientists who formulated opinions were shut down. i think that is something that is very important to remember. i think they should be involved, but i think that should be involved in a secondary role, not necessarily on tv. i think it is easy for people who are not used to the camera to fall in love with it, and i think that is what happened. host: you think that is a bad development, scientists going on tv to speak to the public to explain research or what they found in their decades of work in certain fields? caller: i don't think it is a bad thing for scientists in general, but i think it is a bad thing to correlate an individual -- coronate an individual. we need healthy discourse and

scientists who disagree and let both sides present their arguments for and against a policy. host: william, thanks for the call from missouri. i'm sorry, maryland, not missouri. (202) 748-8000 for democrats to call in. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, it is (202) 748-8002. that special line for scientists, (202) 748-8003. on this topic, i want to show a doctor that was on this program in september, set to be the fda commissioner in the second trump administration. he is talking about his book. this is part of that conversation. [video clip] >> so we have a $4.5 trillion health care economy, and we have to deal with the root causes. we have to deal with good scientific standards for our recommendations. and we have to promote clinical

excellence. so, increasingly you are seeing doctors go directly to the public and explain things in ways they can understand it, presenting the latest scientific research. that is what i am trying to do in the book "blind spots," and you are seeing a lot of efforts to educate the public. we need a civil discourse. in the past, there was a feeling we should only have one position as a medical field. that is what the small group of people at the top of the medical establishment believed. but an open civil discourse among medical experts is not only important, it is how we learn. it is how we grow as a field. and we should evolve our position as new information comes in. so i do believe in civil discourse, and i believe in civil discourse not just in medical science but in society at large. there is a lot of agreement in america. i think if we can turn off the polarization of all of these

voices in the echo chambers, we can see that we all want the same things. we want to address chronic diseases. we want to address childhood obesity. we want to address our food supply to live healthier. and we want to lower the cost of health care. 48% of all federal spending goes to health care to its direct forms and its indirect hidden ways. we can increase spending or we can cut the waste and focus on promoting health and stop just dealing with a sickness business and instead actively promote health based on good clinical research. host: set to be the next fda commissioner if confirmed, and he was on the program back in september.you can watch that in its entirety on c-span.org. we are asking, how involved should scientists be in public policy? here are a few of your answers from siamedia. thistony in florida. scientists lk specific

own narrow areas.erts in their they should be consulted but policy.ut in charge of public they are not used to weighing and cost-benefit analysis. only if they are elected to congress, otherwise no. marty saying, can you find on doing pure science and not pushing an agenda? that is our question. that is kind of the crux of this pew research report. taking your phone calls on the phone lines for democrats, republicans, independents, and especially for scientists. from fort washington, maryland, go ahead. caller: i can do a whole half-hour on this. i do not want to call you disingenuous, sir, but the cdc failed us during covid. the polio vaccine has been questionable at best at doing

anything but causing -- all of our vaccines have been terrible at best. scientism have been used for ideas that have been false holistically, and it should be a continuous questioning of the information. that is the idea of science. host: have you ever taken any vaccines? caller: i stopped it when my kids were seven because i realize when you start reading the effects, your intestines can flip over. unnecessary. host: what is scientism, mike? caller: scientism is the idea i will use science to push an agenda and propagandize. all we have to do is look at what we are doing compared to other science around the world.

picking out the polio vaccine they were pushing on kids because it was killing their limbs. host: you trust scientists in other countries more than you trust american scientists? caller: look at what their food is like over there versus ours. we have carcinogenic food. the fda is terrible too. we have to literally continue to do experiments and testing. but let me say a lasting on scientism. we say fossil fuels are where we get our fuel. there are no dead plants or animals giving us oil. they go in the soil and dig in the same place. it is not from fossil anything. we are using propagandized ideas to teach people things that are false and you cannot prove it. like the dna stuff. host: got your point. we will move to randy in the louisiana, independent. good morning. caller: hey. host: go ahead, randy.

what are your thoughts on scientists creating public policy? caller: look what happened this last presidency with wuhan fauci. look how many people got murdered. i lost two friends due to blood clots and the so-called vaccines. i don't like taking vaccines. my doctor talked me into taking a pneumonia vaccine. now i got chronic bronchitis. the only way i can get rid of it is taking a supplement from a grocery store and it works. host: would you say you are not somebody who trusts scientists? caller: i don't trust them at all. all the money. they formulate a killing on this and they killed a lot of people and you cannot sue them.

you have some idiot up there. you deal with fools in authority and watch it go to their heads. the president and wuhan fauci, it went to their head. host: who do you trust? caller: your own opinion. it is up to you, you know? you have to trust a doctor. they shut doctors down. they would not let them talk. host: who would not let doctors talk? caller: the government. they shut them down. i could not get my own doctor to give me a prescription. i have been around forever.

it treats malaria. i forget the term, the name of the drug. you there? host: i am listening to you, randy. caller: yeah. i just don't trust them. my doctor, he was right. he is from india. and man, he has kept me alive 25 years. host: randy louisiana. this is tina from facebook saying, i will trust a scientist more than a lawyer any day. got a special line for scientists, (202) 748-8003. hunter calling in on that line from new jersey. good morning. caller: hey, good morning. thank you for the topic. i just want to say this arrogance of ignorance of people. you have a caller earlier who said you can go on the internet and read this stuff. you know what? next time you need an open heart surgery, why don't you go find somebody who read that on the

internet? i bet they would not hire a contractor who read stuff on how to install a permanent addition. come on. people like myself are going to school, postgrad school, 5, 10, 15 years. that is who you want. the other person who called in about vaccines, some nonsense. it is crazy stuff. crazy. host: what kind of scientist are you? caller: i do drug development. host: why do you think there has been a drop in trust? the pew research service has been charting this for years. there is a big drop during covid. it has rebounded a little bit. explain what happened here and what the scientific community needs to do to regain that trust. caller: you had trump in the office, and you had fox news proliferating the nonsense. remember trump in the office saying put bleach in your arm? come on.

this is all about using propaganda to create distrust. when trump was in the office, because he delayed even communicating about covid, we lost about 140,000 to 200,000 people because he did nothing. vaccines save lives. vaccines for covid saved -- was used on tens of millions of people around the world and saved lives. host: what can scientists do now? caller: they need to stand up and not be bullied. that is what it is. you have to have communication. there need to be more public service announcements in this country about what science does for people. drugs are approved, things are approved because the benefits outweigh the risk. everything has a risk. you take an aspirin, it has a risk.

you approve and have medicines and things that happen because they outweigh the risks. fox news promotes lies. they were fined with $1 billion for lying about the last election. take their license away. host: on wave risks, back to this -- on weighing risks, back to the question, what should the role be of the scientists in the government? every agency has some scientists. should their job be we will establish the facts and we give that to you and you make the public policy, or should they be actively involved in public policy recommendations and decisions? that was one of the aspects of this report. caller: that is a fair question. people by law have the account ability to make decisions. fauci was not elected. click at -- look at the sky for

60 years. he dedicated his life to helping society, not just in the u.s. but around the world. he suggests policies. but for trump and others to denigrate the guy is crazy. we should be denigrating trump for not doing -- as a president to lead the country and have 200,000 people die because of his inaction. elected people constitutionally make laws. everyone else contributes to that decision. host: callers said anthony fauci had too much power. you say he suggested policy. i assume some who call in would disagree with that and say he had much more influence than a nonelected person should have. what are your thoughts on that? caller: anybody who is head of an agency department makes the ground rules for what they recommend. we have thousands of agencies.

look at your local municipality. there are people who make decisions all the time. sometimes you think they are right. sometimes you think they are wrong. it happened to be in my municipality, you call them up and have a conversation. but you cannot have arrogance based upon ignorance. people have studied, have knowledge in certain areas, and they are doing the best they can and what is right. if you disagree with that, have a conversation about that. we were in a pandemic. we were in a pandemic. people were dying by the millions, and people were trying to pick decisions that were the best decisions at that time. host: before you go, what kind of pharmaceutical drug do you help develop? caller: i have been in many of them. many in cardiology, neurology, and so forth, women's health. a lot of them. host: thank you for sharing your thoughts. shawn is next, pennsylvania,

democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i am reading a lot and hearing a lot about student loan cancellation forgiveness. the solution is right in front of us actually. america's founding fathers actually called for bankruptcy rights. host: we are talking about scientists, not student loan forgiveness. caller: oh, i'm sorry. host: i got open phones later today if you want to call back on that topic. let me keep it to this so we can focus the conversation. kryst from kalamazoo, michigan -- chris from kalamazoo, michigan, good morning. chris, you with us? julie, orlando, independent. go ahead. caller: yes. hi, john. i just want to say scientists should not be involved in any public policy whatsoever. i did not get the covid shot but i got covid and have long covid and have heart issues.

i went to a specialist, and they said a lot of people that had covid had heart issues. it did not matter if they had the shot or not had the shot. so, no, absolutely not. host: so you think things would be different if you had taken the covid vaccine? caller: no. according to my cardiologist that is a specialist, he said some people who took the vaccine got worse and others that didn't take the vaccine had the same effects as the vaccine. whatever covid did to people, it did it no matter if you had the vaccine or did not have the vaccine. host: what is it about your cardiologist that you trust, but the scientific community who came up with the covid vaccine and a vaccine in record time that you don't trust? why that person and why not the scientific community behind the vaccines? caller: first of all, my

cardiologist laid it out for me. he has seen it. people that took the vaccine, he has seen the causes of that. and the people that didn't, he has seen it did not matter if you took it or not. it is your own body and you should be able to put whatever you want into it. host: that is julie in orlando, florida. this is eric in buffalo, new york. good morning, line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. it just baffles me the way some of these people take their information. like the gentleman was saying before about fox news and the internet and the disinformation and misinformation. i have friends that died of covid, and they still swear they

died from the covid vaccine. i'm sorry, they did not get the vaccine. people developed problems from the covid vaccine and stuff. just endless, chemtrails in the sky from the jet airplanes, just the endless snake oil salesman back in the olden days. you know what i mean? it is baffling. it is. host: let me bounce one off you. this is from today's "washington post." it is kevin roberts, the head of the heritage foundation and project 2025 from the heritage foundation. his official title is president of heritage action. but he has a column in today's "washington post" talking about

donald trump's cabinet picks. this is one paragraph that goes into the science and science issues. he said the american people are sick of the status quo and tired of listening to the so-called science. they want science to listen to them for a change. they want science that is untainted by big pharma. industry funded science that manipulates studies to talk for people is useless. rfk, junior, is not credentialed. that is precisely why conservatives like me are excited about his nomination. what do you think about that? caller: rfk, junior, what did he go to, samoa? wasn't it that he promoted to not do vaccines against measles? proven fact. the one politician got arrested and he walked away.

wound up 80 something children got killed because of that, because of the outbreak of measles in 2019 believe if you look it up. wasn't that something? host: you are not a big fan of rfk, junior? caller: no, i am not. not at all. not at all. heroin out of -- heroin addict spouting his opinions. everyone has opinions and i do not agree with his beliefs. host: this is jeff in maryland on the line for scientists. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what kind of scientist are you, jeff? caller: marine, coastal marine scientist. host: what are your thoughts on the role of scientists in creating public policy? caller: i think there should be science that informs our managers and decision-makers, and there has to be science because if you don't know all

the information you need to know , you are just making guesses. i am really scared that is where we are headed. i do trust some of the choices that trump has made, but most of them i am very nervous about because they are people who don't have careers in the fields they are going to be overseeing. you can have a very intelligent person be an excellent manager or ceo, but they still have to have excellent counsel and input from their most informed scientists or the people that have information about the agency and whatever it is they manage. host: what are the picks -- who are the picks you like, and who are the picks you don't? caller: well, i am not a fan of

the interior department pick. he is known to be pro industry and to disregard information from his clear scientists. i am ok with robert kennedy, junior. i don't agree with everything he has to say, but he is very bright. i like the way he speaks. he presents information and is persuasive. i don't dispute the information he has presented because i am open-minded. i am a scientist. and until i learned otherwise that is what i am trained to do, to get as much information as you can. i am concerned about our oceans. i am concerned about the basic building blocks of life at the cellular level. we have a lot of things happening in our environment. the people no matter where you are, you are just going about your life without understanding. and there are changes that are happening that we cannot undo. the corals throughout the planet

are dying. you can argue about what is causing it all day long. and it does not matter in the end if we know what is happening and we choose to ignore it because we disagree about policies or we disagree about what the cause is. host: how do you think the former new york congressman lee zeldin, donald trump's pick to head the epa, how do you think he will do on that front? caller: the epa has been troubled ever since its conception. it is hard to run an agency with their mandates when you've got attorneys all over the place that are trying to sue on behalf of oil companies, attorneys trying to sue on behalf of pharma. one of the things we do in the agency i will not name that i work for is we clean up pollution. when you have an army of

attorneys that outweighs, has more money to spend then the government, and has 10 times the manpower, you have a tough time enforcing regulations. so the epa has always had a tough time with its mandate. i don't think where we are going is the right direction.we are not listening to scientists. we are just ignoring scientists. host: that is jeff in maryland on the line for scientists, (202) 748-8003. about 20 minutes left in this segment. a little more from the pew research report that spawned this conversation. views on the quality of scientist's policy judgment -- scientists's policy judgment was something they pulled americans on. americans reserved judgment on the quality of scientists's policy decisions. 43% think scientists are usually better than other people at making good policy decisions on scientific issues. 46% say they are neither better

nor worse than others in this regard. 10% view them as worse at making science policy than other people. half of americans say scientists make judgments based solely on the facts while nearly as many say the judgments are likely to be as biased as other people. those numbers break down along party lines as well. again, that from the pew research report on this. this is tony on that line for scientists out of pennsylvania. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. so i think it is an interesting question. how involved should science or scientists be in creating public policy? some just work for interest. there are no scientists doing science without an employer. i don't think scientists should be trusted. i think that peer-reviewed research and the data that

supports that should be trusted. we should definitely not support scientists. they can be hired for any purpose. the other thing i want to point out is i think the question itself is maybe a little bit misleading or not a great question. and a better question would be something around, you know, how does public policy get created? whose voices are heard? i would just remind americans there was a study that showed there was no relationship between voter preference and legislative policy. and i think that i would probably start there really sort of dissecting who has power in this country and will voices do influence public policy and wipe -- what voices do influence public policy and why. i would look at social media, the funders of c-span, the think

tanks that come on c-span. i would probably dissect a lot of those powerful voices and entities and look at how they corrupt and influence public policy in america. and maybe think about them in reform. i don't think scientists are the problem or science. i think there is a lot of powerful misleading voices. host: what voices would you like to see on this program? caller: i like c-span very much. i think there are some good qualities to it. i think the place where i have some issue is when you have clearly these special interests that are called think tanks, and they come in and they have one representative to basically provide very misleading skewed data, drunk science, and they go unchallenged. i would say i would want you to do some education with your viewers about who these think tanks are.

and then i think having 1% come on and giving their skewed perspective -- having one person come on and giving their skewed perspective, not allowing that. i think having a more diverse -- having more diverse people on the program, and you do have that, i will give you that. just the ownership to the people who own c-span. the cable industry, right? monopolies. i would say the funding for c-span is problematic. i would challenge that and would challenge a lot of the people you have on. the regurgitation of these news stories that are owned by five companies that own 90% of the media in the country. so again, a lot about you guys are doing is spreading propaganda and special interests and not science, not well-thought-out, well reviewed material. host: on the cable industries, they don't own c-span.

they pay a. fee to carry c-span -- they pay a carriage fee to carry c-span. we are a 5013 ec nonprofit that we are a nonprofit -- we are a nonprofit. if they are influencing members of congress, if they are in their ears, we want to give a chance to talk to them as well and challenge them as well and have them explain what they do. a lot about we ask in most every one of those conversations, what do you do and how are you funded? and then give viewers a chance to challenge them. i think we are on the same page of what we are trying to do. caller: i think there is some genuineness in that perspective you just shared. i would just say having them on, it is really hard to challenge them.

often they don't get to respond to the questions directly. they just go over there talking points. i think having more than one guest with an opposing view would be a better format. and maybe having a line that has more educated callers. i like the scientist line. maybe have a line that can have callers that are a little more informed. some of your guests that call in are dubious at best. host: that is tony in pennsylvania. this is charles next out of michigan. 15 minutes left in this segment. the question we ask, how involved should scientist to in creating public policy? charles, go ahead. caller: yeah, hi. can you hear me, john? host: yeah. caller: that guy from pennsylvania, tony, wow, you hit the nail on the head with everything you just said. unbelievable. yeah, i just want to start out by saying all these years i

have been a liberal progressive. i was on that side because of the environment. covid changed all of that for me. i have called into the show a couple years ago. i had gotten covid early on. never had a vaccine. i don't take flu shots. i am healthy. it lasted for about two days. i called in and asked one of your guests, a scientist. just completely blew me off when i asked a question about natural immunity. somebody that i truly think you should have on your show is dr. jeffrey sachs. when we sit there and talk about covid and scientists and public policy and the question you are asking, there were things happening right at the beginning in march of 2020 that you had a doctor from minnesota that was talking about how six-foot foot

of distance was not going to work and masks were not going to work. nobody really said anything. i cannot think of the guy's they might now but i know he is up from minnesota. he talked about it later. dr. jeffrey sachs is also a liberal progressive. it is funny where he is at now today. he came out after being part of a big study and said everything points to the virus coming out of a lab. he did not say whether it was malicious or it was just a mistake. but the people they had making the policy, fauci, the other people in charge of the cdc and whatnot, they kept on the wet market that it came from, a natural environment. yeah. having somebody like him. something else that dr. jeffrey

sachs came up with was, this is a bit off-topic, but the nord stream pipeline and who blew that up. look at where we are at with that nowadays. another bit of information that we leaking out that i read was there was a high up official from the netherlands, the dutch government that just recently came out and said the dutch government on the covid policy, it was dictated to them by nato. not the who but nato. these are the things we are now finding out that everyone was calling misinformation for so long surrounding this stuff. you know what? we were right. host: that was charles in michigan. this is sandra in beaumont, texas, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a first time caller. thank you for having me on. i believe in science. we studied science in school. without science, we would not

have doctors. i believe that with the covid situation, it was handled that. dr. fauci had been around a lot of administrations. a few administrations. i remember when aids became an epidemic. dr. fauci was renowned. he put a name on it. i think doctors and scientists in a situation like that, they should come together with the public and give information. my thing is if i am diagnosed with a fatal disease and my doctor comes and says, sandra, you have so many months to live, but we have this experimented drug that may help you live 10

years longer, i am going with both sides. thank you for letting me say this point. and have a blessed thanksgiving. host: thanks for being a first time caller. you can call in once a month. hope to hear from you down the road again. these are comments from social media. west virginia saying some people don't understand how knowledge is gained through science, the scientific . if they did, they would absolutely be in favor evidence-based science. people are dedicating scien and expertise for their own selfish reasons. science such as health risksr the weather risks should problye a consideration in some decisions of government.do not turn over decisions to scientists and for heaven's sake honestly consider opposing opinions. one more saying i trust a scientist more than a lawyer any

day. this is dexter, a scientist -- i trust a scientist more than a lawyer any day. this is dexter, a scientist. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. a previous scientist said your question was not direct. i think it is a focused question that addresses the issue. if someone approached this from a practical point of view, would you make a decision about how you drive your vehicle without getting advice from a mechanic or engineer? i think ordinary people need to break things down to everyday situations to understand clearly. would you not want a doctor to give you advice if you had a medical issue? a doctor is a scientist. it is very clear. i don't understand what it is even a question.

this uneducated culture of ours that someone would question not having an expert provide the necessary information. anytime you want to make a decision, you want as much information as you can gather. host: what about scientists in public policymaking? not just determining the scientific facts, but also things like cost and benefit analysis and the public opinion on things and whether people will trust it. are scientists good at that? caller: yes, i think scientists are good at that. but they are partly responsible for the fact that people are ambiguous about trusting. it is a question of the fact that in history, it records results. they presented facts that are contrary. for example, the asbestos crisis. smoking tobacco.

these special interests like someone mentioned before have contaminated policies because they have corrupted some of the processes. but the essence of science and the fact that it is about taking as much in as possible is what it is about. host: what kind of scientist are you? caller: i am studying management philosophy, so based on the interactions of people and experiences. we need to observe people as a science to understand how we can suggest and be better for the whole community or entire world population. host: thanks for the call from texas. another scientist out of new jersey. good morning. what kind of scientist are you? caller: i was a professional engineer. i was a managing partner of a firm that did some work on

energy stuff that made it into the bill recently approved by congress. host: which bill is that? caller: the $1.6 trillion energy policy program that just went through congress. it went through a couple years ago actually. host: what are your thoughts on the role of scientist? caller: yeah, that is why i called. in general, i think engineers and scientists should absolutely be included in policy discussions because they are trained to evaluate complex information and render objective assessments. and what i see in the public discourse that comes out, somebody called in suggesting that everything we do has benefited -- benefits and risks.

that is true. sometimes those benefits are not benefits for society but those who earn those benefits, earning money and things like that. and the thing is i do think it is important that not only engineers and scientists engaged as citizens, but -- be engaged as citizens, but our government agencies employ engineers and scientists to evaluate things objectively and that they really can't people who own stock in things. i think that was the problem with fauci. there have been some suggestions that he made a lot of money on things the government did. that taints his input and advice. host: what about this explanation for the concern that people have about scientists

being too involved in public policy? this is from a fox story again on this pew research poll we have been talking about this morning. there are some people that are worried scientists are so married to their data that they ignore everything else. during the 2020 lockdowns, many people disagreed with school closures so closing schools was a largely evidence-based decision. but evidence limited and uncertain and the closures caused lasting damage to children's education and mental health. in policy debates like that where scientific evidence is pitted against academic reality and family values and individual emotions, some people may worry that scientists only consider their science. what are your thoughts? caller: here is the problem with what you just said, and that is not an area in which i was involved. but i will use an example. first i will comment on exactly what you said.

that is exactly the problem. i think people who said that was evidence-based were wrong. there was no evidence to support. in fact, all the evidence i heard was that children were the least likely to be affected by covid. and therefore shutting the schools down was really counter indicated. we learned a lot during covid. i don't know that it is a fair assessment. i will give you another one that i don't think is complicated. in the field we evaluated, global emissions caused global warming. the u.s. produces about 15% of global emissions, carbon emissions. and that means that if we achieve the goals set by the government, we would cut global emissions -- our emissions to 7.5% of global emissions. but in the meantime, global

emissions increase at a rate in which it will never matter in the overall problem. you can point to data to suggest that with 4% of the worlds population producing 15 -- world's publishing producing 15%, it is a problem. it is -- world's population producing 15%, it is a problem. shutting down within two weeks, it was an incredible effect on the world and a global effect -- and an incredible effect on global emissions. we could be so much more cost-effective if we approached the problem by investing on improvements in india and china where most global emissions are affected so that for about a quarter of the cost we could achieve a much more substantive

effect and improve the conditions around the world. that is where people selectively talk about data. engineers and scientists represent about half of a percent of the population of working people. you are talking about a very small group of people capable of digesting the information. so, yeah, they need to be involved to produce and inform people of what is objectively the best decisions. another situation. do what is objectively the best decision. sometimes politics governs. but it really needs to be part of the discussion, does that make sense to you? host: i appreciate that.

we can talk about it further in open phones if viewers didn't get through in that segment. up next, a conversation with documentary filmmaker martin smith about his new pbs frontline film "china, the u.s. and the rise of xi jinping." and later, it is ethics and public policy center ed whalen to talk about the potential use of recess appointments to fill cabinet positions. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> sundayn a, author of my two lives talked about surviving nazi germany as a half jewish member of the hitler youth, the steps taken to conceal his identity in the day his jewish mother was arrested. >> my mother lived, or we lived

with my mother and saw all kind of gestapo in front of the building. this was a large building, there were many families in there. my brother and i decided that rather than going in and going there with all these gestapo people, we waited on the corner and watched it from there, and we decided to ask our mother as to why they were there and what they were doing there. we would go and ask our mother. will after a while to our surprise it was our mother they were bringing out of the building in one of the cars and they took her away. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m.

eastern on c-span's q&a. you can watch q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2. explored the people and events that tell the american story. this weekend, conversations with veterans and historians on world war ii. here for merchant marines, the last rosie the riveter, soldiers the korean war, all cost survivors and more. and on the presidency, actor dennis quaid portrays ronald reagan in the film "reagan" and headlines a cast discussion about the movie. the 40th president's story is told through the eyes of a kgb agent and is based on the soviet union's real-life surveillance of ronald reagan. the event features several clips from the film. exploring the american story.

watch american history tv saturdays on c-span 2 and find a full schedule on you program guide or wat oine anytime at c-span.org/history. washington journal continues. host: martin smith joins us now from new york. is the producer and director of a new pbs frontline documentary titled "china, u.s., and the riser xi jinping." good morning to you. guest: good morning to you. host: that documentary set to air tonight, 10:00 p.m. eastern. let me give viewers a preview. this is about 30 seconds of what they will see tonight. >> g asian ping wants to restore china to its grandest state. >> the rise of a chinese leader. >> team is not afraid to say we are not giving you freedoms and rights. >> if anyone could stop the

chinese rise, it is probably a fantasy. >> he has chosen to go down the route of consolidating power, the route of nationalism. host: martin smith, why is it important for americans in this moment to learn about who xi jinping is? guest: well this is our chief global rival. when we have a new president or a returning president coming into the white house, it will be foremost on his agenda to figure out how he wants to deal with asian ping -- xi jinping. so we took it upon ourselves to help our audience understand who he is, what shaped him into the man he is today. important because you know, we've been focused on ukraine, we've been focused on our own domestic issues. not enough has been focused on

chin ping and china and where we stand vis-a-vis that global superpower. host: where did he come from and what did shape him? guest: he was born into the china of mao zedong. and in the midst of that up people that marked his time in office, g asian ping -- xi jinping was affected by so much that happened. his own father was a fellow communist revolutionary. he was put into a high office once the resolution -- revolution succeeded in 1949 and not long after that, this happened to many politicians of all stripes, he decided he didn't trust him. he sent him to work in a factory

and then he incarcerated him for eight years. that was when he was just a child. and then he himself was subjected to what is called struggle sessions, where you are put in a dunce cap and put in front of thousands of people and humiliated, derided, denounced. his own mother denounced him. and he was sent into the countryside to do hard labor for seven years from age 15 to 22. all of this was tremendously impactful on him, and instead of turning against all this and all the humiliation he suffered, he embraced mao. he understood that to get ahead in china you had to align yourself with the party. so he emerged from all that saying in an interview that his

time in the countryside and all of that was something that was good for him. it was a tremendously stressful time. his own half-sister committed suicide. his father was imprisoned, he was doing hard labor. he tried to escape. his family sent him back. he lived in a cave in one of the poorest provinces of china. so that was really what cast the die for who he became and how he decided to embrace this very system that had so punished him. host: i want to give viewers the phone numbers to call in. ahead of the airing of the documentary tonight on pbs, go ahead and call in on phone lines as usual by political party.

(202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independent, it is (202) 748-8002. martin smith, bring us to the more recent history. when did he start really climbing the ladder of the chinese communist party and how long has he actually been president of china? guest: he's been president of china since 2013. he became the chairman of the party in 2012, which is really a more powerful position. he came out of exile. he came out of the countryside. he was 22 years old. he was able to get into a university, but his interest was in politics even though he got a degree i think in chemical engineering. but then he went out into the provinces and was there for several decades working his way up the ladder until he got a big

break in that the party brought him into cleanup a corruption scandal in shanghai. and from there, after seven months, the party noticed him and they brought him to beijing and put him on the standing committee and he became one of the most powerful people in china. that was 2008. host: since then, and specifically since he became president and head of the party in 2012, 2013, have his views on the united states changed, or has he been consistent in how he views the united states as a chief rival? guest: it's an excellent question because he kept his cards very close to the vest. he was a very cautious bureaucrat while he was climbing the ranks in the countryside. once he got to beijing, the party saw him as pliable and they wanted somebody to lead the

country. they were looking about at the various candidates. they put him in charge of the 2008 olympics which was a great success. and he sort of passed the test, if you will. he was made the head of the communist party in 2012 and 2013 he becomes the president. but it wasn't really clear. there were clues. one of the things he did before he became the chief was that he was running the central party school, sort of an elite academy that trains communist leaders of the future, and we have an interview with a woman who was a member of the party for many, many years. she was a teacher there. and he was the administrator, and she said that he operated

something like a maffei a boss in terms of the way he talked to teachers, told them the limits of their teaching. he said if you want to speak freely, get out of here. and she said that was the harbinger of her for things to come and indeed, once he took office, he really became -- people thought he was going to be something of a moderate when he came in, and he wasn't. he became a very tough customer. host: how long did it take you to make this documentary, how much access did you have to people, to interviews in china and the people who were willing to talk to you for the documentary? guest: i'm glad you asked. we made every effort possible to engage more voices from china. i traveled to china on a business visa in january of 2024. i arrived, i contracted covid, i was down for a week.

but i was there for a month and i had many conversations with many various academics, former party officials, all of whom agreed to participate in the documentary. i said look, i'm going to do a film here and i'm going to have a lot of american experts and they are going to criticize china. they are going to criticize xi jinping specifically on human rights, on his expansionist policies in the south china sea and hong kong, his threats against taiwan. i want you to have a chance -- i'm saying this to the various people in china -- i want you to have a chance, and i will take the opportunity to respond and give your point of view. they all signed up. i had agreements, i had letters inviting me back. i came back to new york and applied formally for a journalist visa, and they sat on the request. and my passport and the

application sat in the consulate in new york city for several months. i had several meetings with officials. they didn't say no, they just never responded. finally after several months, we had to pull the plug on that. i did find a few people that would speak on behalf of china, government advisors or others, unofficial spokespeople who did speak on camera, and i caught them here when they were visiting the u.s. but the restrictions on media in china are severe. international media is heavily restrictive. and so they never let me in. but we were determined that we would tell this story, and we did it with u.s. experts, a few chinese spokespeople, and lots and lots and lots of archival

research defined bits and pieces that we had to stitched together to make this film. host: if you had somehow gotten the opportunity to ask a question of xi jinping himself, what would you ask him? guest: it would not be just one question, it would be many questions. i would want to understand is thinking about where he is taking china. since he took over, he exerted enormous control. there are some 600 million surveillance cameras in china, that is about one for every two citizens. they have a technocratic way with ai and other sophisticated tools of monitoring everybody's movements. he has fired a lot of people, purged a lot of people. i would want to understand what happened once he got into office. what were you thinking?

and when he inherited the top job, when he became president, china was at its peak. the u.s., the west was in decline. we had an economic collapse in 2008. once he becomes president, china is looking very good. why he focused so much on control, on expansion, that would be my question. he took a country that starting back in the 80's, in the 70's was opening. it was called reform and opening and that with the policy, and there were many decades under several u.s. presidents where the relations were quite warm. when he comes into office, he turns hostile. i would want to understand more about the roots of that

hostility and what it is getting him. host: if you had to guess, what would you say is his biggest fear today? >> i think he's beginning to understand that he can exert control through repression. but that somehow in order for the economy to grow, you have to have foreign investment. foreign investment is now fleeing the country. you need to have the markets in the west. you need to have friendly relations if you're going to have china healthy. so i think the problem here is that he is trying to find the balance between a strict control and hostility toward the west with trying to get the economy going again, and he needs foreign investment. he needs trade. and now trump is coming back into office and just yesterday,

he talked about slapping another 10% on chinese goods coming into the u.s. these policies tend to create inflation here in the u.s. because the cost of these goods coming in goes up, and that is passed on to the consumer. xi xinping is saying and repeating to trump, look, nobody is going to win in a trade war, but yet that is the direction we are going. i think he is really struggling to find how he can open and maintain control. there's a lot of unhappy people, especially the young. there is an unemployment rate up to 25%. it's not an official figure, but that of the estimate. so you've got a lot of very unhappy young people in china, and they are protesting and paying the price.

his china is not invincible. host: it rs tonight on pbs's frontline, also available to stream on their website and the pbs video app and martin smith is here to take your phone calls for about the next half hour this morning. we will start on the independent line. harry in maryland up next. caller: wouldn't you say that kissinger was partly responsible for the rise of china and our cozying up to the communist parties all over the world except for russia? and maybe even russia and the greed that goes along with it. i would think that we have been

complicit in the rise of china. that is my question. guest: i don't think there's anything wrong with the rise of china. the people in china have every right to have their living standard raised. before the revolution it was one of the poorest countries in the world. the opening to the west, which you referenced the visit of kissinger with nixon in 1972, this was all going in a fairly good direction until we got to xi xinping. so it wasn't reasonable to think that we should just squash the ambitions of the chinese population. this is a very sophisticated culture and nation and it was a good thing that they were able to amass great amounts of wealth.

the problem is the hostility that now exists. and i can't say that american leaders have stoked that. i think that you have to look at xi xinping and hold him accountable for why he has turned in that direction. host: raymond out of michigan, republican. you are next. caller: hey, what is up. this is the michigan state police line. host: what is your question on this documentary? caller: well, this is mr. smith talking about the president of china, right? from what i'm hearing on the inside, i am a trump certified team leader. trump is a military man. and ever since the saudi's dropped the dollar and we had all of that inflation, the pandemic happened to us, the whole deal was everybody invest

in the united states for world war ii and all that with the oil, we still had pretty good amounts. but after the dollar -- host: bring us to your question on xi xinping today. caller: sure. china is way overpopulated. i'm not sure how strong they are especially on the tiktok app. i think we've got to stop that. thank you, sir. host: social media, tiktok. guest: i'm not sure what the question is, frankly, but i appreciate the caller. we don't take on tiktok in this documentary. there are many things that we couldn't get to. our focus is on xi xinping and who he is, how he became the man that he is today. i have to punt on the question of tiktok and what harm it is causing. we have to find a way back to a

reasonable competition with china. i think that under xi xinping, it's going to be difficult. i don't think that he is really looking for improved relations with the west. his friends of course are russia, iran, north korea. he set himself up sort of on the other of the equation. host: this is from andrew in texas, our text messagg service. xi xinping has already change the constitution to stay in power. do you believe that he will remain in power his entire lifetime? guest: i don't know what his intentions are but he did in a 2018 revise the constitution and it was ratified by the people's congress a few years later, so it allows him to serve his five-year term and then run again and be elected.

so as long as he can lead china in a direction that pleases the party, the top-level party officials, he will remain in power. he has tremendous ambitions. more than any chinese leader since mao. he has a strong vision for how china can be a leader in artificial intelligence. he has put together the biggest infrastructure program in history with connections around the world, building ports and bridges and train tracks all over the world. he is a tremendously ambitious leader. host: line for democrats, new york city, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i'm listening to the conversation and it has always been my opinion that when trade

relations began with the chinese government when there was a question earlier, industries move their businesses and their manufacturing facilities to china to save money and to have more profits. and it has always been my understanding that all these contracts that were signed were controlled by the people's army. but i wonder what is the relationship with the minister, because 51% of the contract was controlled by the pla, and 49% was in the western investment in that particular contract, which meant that they would be in

control of the contracts, the trade relationships in that country. and what with the tariff that the incoming administration is proper in is what effect is that going to have on american consumers who are buying all of their intangible products to have the label made in china? guest: well one of the effects of those tariffs is going to be, at least in the short term, the effect in the long-term is a little bit squishy to figure out, but in the short-term, i'm talking several years, it is going to cause a rise in prices. and it is going to cause, therefore, inflation. you are quite astute in terms of the investment and the control by the government of china so

that a foreign investment comes into the country and then makes agreements with china because they want the cheap labor, they want cheap property, they want benefits, but china says you've got to tell us what your trade secrets are, what is your secret sauce? and then the government takes that information and gets a chinese company to manufacture the product using the special sauce, whatever that is, whatever product we are talking about. and then drives the u.s. company out of business. it has been a very rocky road for many businesses. in the 70's and into the 80's, and foreign investment was healthy, but it was struggling. many corporate leaders came to the white house to complain about how china was stealing their intellectual property, driving them out of business.

now, tariffs are a kind of different page and all of this, but you are quite right that there is a problem with the way in which u.s. companies are able to operate in china. at this point, many of them are fleeing the country. elon musk is an exception. he has a huge tesla factory in shanghai and he is a kind of bridge between xi xinping and donald trump. it will be interesting to see if he can be effective in bridging that gap. host: the question coming a day after we found out from the incoming president about plans to drop an additional 10% tariff on all chinese products. what are your views on the trade war and tariffs in particular? this is about two minutes 20 seconds from the documentary,

china, the u.s. and the rise of xi xinping. >> trade war worries igniting after the president signed this order to slap tough tariffs on china. >> he started with a 10% tariff on chinese aluminum. 30% on solar panels and electric vehicles. 25% on steel and nearly everything else made in china. >> china not happy, already threatening retaliation. >> what china did was move its exports to other countries and move its imports from other countries as well, so it shifted the purchase of soybeans, for example, from the u.s. to brazil. so that wasn't a useful policy. >> president trump has just slapped tariffs on another 200 billion of chinese exports. >> the biggest trade war and

economic history. >> trumps trade war would consume the remainder of his presidency. >> china is now punching back with an equal amount of tariffs on american exports. >> after several tit-for-tat tariff increases, the trade war which continued into the biden administration actually increased the trade deficit. >> the trade deficit has skyrocketed to $891 billion, the highest ever. >> cost increases also lead to a decline in u.s. manufacturing jobs. intellectual property theft continued, and the cost imposed by tariffs were simply passed along to consumers of imported products. and now, trump has promised to impose even higher tariffs when he is back in office. >> tariffs were put in place because china's economic policy was hurting u.s. factories and workers. >> that is a belief of some

people in the u.s., especially people of the trump administration. >> the biden administration even extended those. >> they don't agree with such kind of policy. why? because it hurts the u.s. economy. the high inflation. where do you get it? in part because of these tariffs. host: the documentary set to air tonight. what is your expectation of the reaction in china to this latest 10% tariff threat? guest: the line that they are using, i've heard the spokespeople and i've heard from xi xinping himself in various venues that he has spoken in, that he thinks this is not going to work and everybody is going to be hurt by this. i don't know exactly what will

be accomplished. right now, president trump is not in office, so this amounts to some saber rattling. he fashions himself a dealmaker and i think he is trying to set the stage and get xi xinping's attention to try to negotiate something that will not be harmful. we are bound together. they need our market, we need their investment. so it is very hard to decouple. and that has been the phrase of late, that we are decoupling from china. but it hasn't really benefited anybody at this point in time, and i don't know if the rattling we are seeing is going to play out once trump is in office.

that remains to be seen. it's very hard to predict what donald trump is going to do tomorrow. host: less than 15 minutes left with martin smith this morning. diane is waiting in kansas. republican, good morning. guest: thanks for taking my call. thinking about the way he grew up, it almost sounds like he had an attitude if you can't beat them, join them. but anyways, my question is with regard to his relationship with trump and especially china's aggressive attitude toward taiwan and the philippines. i think that they are both survivors. xi xinping is a survivor, donald trump is also a survivor coming back a second time. and i just wonder how do you think this influences both of

their reactions to the other with regard to, especially aggressive policies in taiwan, etc.? thank you. guest: it's a very good question. i think donald trump admires strong leaders. he is in fact envious of the way a leader like xi xinping can control what happens in his nation, in his country. so i think there is some admiration that goes on there. with xi xinping, it is hard to say. it is relatively opaque and hard to determine how he sees donald trump. i think he is sort of cautiously circling right now and trying to figure it out and figure out what is next. i think xi xinping has focused

very much on his domestic enemies, on repression, and then on his threats against taiwan and the philippines, the moves to build military outposts off of coral reefs in the middle of the ocean. i think he has been focused there. but now he needs to focus on the economy, and i think that is something he has, in the words of one of our interviewees, taken for granted, that the economy was in very good shape when he took over, not such good shape now, and that he needs to focus on that. i think the coming of donald trump will force him to focus on that even more. during the covid lockdown, there were demonstrations across china against the restrictions on movement of people, and they were the largest demonstrations since the tiananmen square protests in 1989.

the pla and the state security didn't shoot people in the streets, but what you saw was a lot of people arrested and given prison terms and i think it portended trouble ahead because there is this sort of undercurrent of resentment of protest, of unhappiness, especially among 20-year-old and 30-year-old people in china. and so he's got to manage that with his toolbox of repression and at the same time get the economy moving again. so he's got a big challenge there. host: is the pla any match for the u.s. military? guest: we don't know. i've talked to a number of military officials when i was in china, and they say well, our

army is not experienced. we haven't fought wars. the united states has fought several wars. we haven't really won them, but there is experience in the u.s. and the pentagon that they lack and i think there is a certain amount of insecurity. i think xi xinping would see taiwan as an opportunity for his military to learn and get some experience. i don't know if that is enough to push them to pull the lever, but are we a match for one another? they have a bigger navy, they have more ships. they are turning them out very quickly. but it is really hard to say. it is a massive army. i had a conversation, it is in the film with the admiral who is the head of the indo pacific command, all soldiers in the

indo pacific. it is a huge responsibility. he says look, if there is a war over taiwan, it will dwarf the second world war, it will lead to a depression, it will be catastphic if that happens. host: florida, independent, ian. caller: good morning, guys. thank you for taking my call. for my question, i just want to also say i have not heard of this film before today's segment, and throughout hearing you speak about it and a couple of clips that have been played, i'm really looking forward to watching it. unfortunately, it airs at 1:00 in the morning for me, so i won't be watching it today. guest: let me say that it will be available online. caller: i'm looking forward to that. guest: it is free there, you can watch it on your own time. caller: so the question i had was throughout the making of

this entire film, was there any moments in particular that were memorable for you, and if so, which one with the most memorable? guest: there is a scene that came up throughout the documentary from the cultural revolution to tiananmen square to the battle for hong kong and the crackdown against muslims, the minority there that has been resisting chinese rule. and that is when they take a dissident and put them in jail, they often then pressure family members to testify against their offspring, their siblings, whatever. and this theme is repeated. they seem to be saying that look, your loyalty has to be to the party, not to your family.

and i found it extremely moving to listen to some of these people who have fled the country and talk about how they were turned against them. and this is a tactic that repeats itself over and over again throughout the documentary, just extremely moving and heart wrenching to watch. you will see it in the documentary, especially one woman that fought against the uprising in hong kong. there is a bounty on her head and she says look, at the end of the day, this is about fighting for the people that you love. but they cut you off, she is not able to talk to her mother and father who are still in hong kong and she resists crying in the documentary. she was very moving. host: gaithersburg, maryland,

republican. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm excited to hear the topic. i'm a first generation immigrant from china, so i think i wanted to add some of my perspectives. i think i got really interested when i heard about the part where you were trying to shoot this documentary in china and he was basically kind of like -- and that is so typical. how do you think, and i want to say i left the country more than 20 years ago. back then it was quite open and much, much more open than. -- open then nowadays. i was shocked looking back myself and realizing that, you know, how the country has gone backwards, and i believe xi

wants to be mao number two, which i really detest. the worst part about him is that he treated the people of china like trash. and so he does not care about the people. he was basically riding the coattails of others, but he's ruining the country. i feel so sad about the people of china and they are suffering under the communist party, even though the economic condition was better before, now it is kind of like coming down. i want to say i always laugh when i hear about people calling trump a dictator. they have not seen a dictator yet. and they also laugh when people talk about fox. if it were not for them, this

country would be just like communist propaganda because it is all the same thing. that is just my two cents. thank you. guest: i appreciate your thoughts, and i think they are quite cogent in terms of xi jinping and the turn to a sort of mao-ist autocracy. i've talked to many chinese. i welcome you to america, i'm glad you are able to speak freely and make a phone call and speak on the air about these things. you couldn't do that in china. chinese censorship, it prevents any free speech, freedom of assembly, all these things are threatened. human rights, ultimately. so i appreciate your call. host: i wanted to end on a

column in today's washington times. a senior fellow, director of the china center at the hudson institute. he spoke on what you and i talked about, xi xinping and his biggest fear right now. he said the demand for noninterference of democracy and human rights issues reflects the regime's deepest fear. it is not defense of sovereignty, but indictment of his repression from the tiananmen square massacre to the balancing of hong kong's road democracy movement and the internment of millions of uighurs. the record is one of systematic oppression. his paranoia stems from a well-founded fear of his own people. the stifling censorship to the absence of basic freedoms by branding democracy and human rights as foreign impositions. he seeks to delegitimize the universal principles ensuring that his regime remains

unchallenged. he writes this tactic, however, is failing. the world increasingly sees china not as a sovereign defender, but as a regime desperate to silence the voices of its own people. would you agree? guest: i have to agree and i think if you watch the documentary, you will see what this author is saying played out in pictures and in witness testimony, in many cases very painful testimony given in the documentary. so you will see this play out. i think one of the things that you have to understand about xi xinping is that he watched the fall of the soviet union and he became very afraid that that could happen, and that peripheral states would split off from china just like they did in the soviet union. in the soviet union you have the baltic states, you have georgia,

all these countries under the control of the soviet union. gorbachev came in and all of this began to unravel. xi xinping sees this and his attitude is that the russians were not man enough to really keep control. so xi xinping speaks of a chinese dream where he is going to maintain his china including mongolia, taiwan, without -- the south china sea. that is his dream, to keep all of that under his control. he's running into trouble. his economy is faltering. for economies to succeed, they need to open themselves to foreign markets. they need people to feel free to express themselves, to innovate, to create.

and all of that is stifled in china, so he is running into a cul-de-sac. we don't know what is going to happen. it does seem to be quite dangerous when you consider what could happen over taiwan, for instance. we've already seen the fall of hong kong. the future is not that bright. host: "cha, the u.s., and the rise oxiinping" premieres tonight, available to stream on pbs's frontline website and the pbs video app. martin smith is the producer, director, correspondent for it. congratulations and thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you very much for having me. host: coming up in about a half hour, we will be joined by edward whalen. we will focus that conversation on recess appointments to fill cabinet positions. but first, until then, more of

your phone calls in open for them. the phone numbers are on your screen. you can go ahead and start calling and now on any public policy or political issue. as you are dialing in, i want to show you a portion from yesterday at the white house, president biden pardons two turkeys, peach and blossom ahead of thanksgiving in the annual ceremony on the white house staff lawn. >> the two turkeys are named after delaware state flowers, the peach blossom. and by the way, delaware has a long history of growing peaches. in fact, the peach pie in our state is one of my favorite. and peach blossom flowers also symbolize resilience, just quite frankly, fitting for today. this white house tradition began when turkey was resented to president truman, and then president began pardoning turkeys. the last four years we've

continued that does by pardoning the butter and jelly, chocolate and chip, liberty and ballot. today, peach and blossom. they will join the free birds of the united states of america. born this past july, raised by the -- yeah, i hear you. peach and blossoms p a bit here. with the help of the children who helped the turkey get ready for this very moment. according to experts, peach weighs 41 pounds. and loves to eat tater tots. and cross-country skiing. the real dream he has is to see the northern lights, i'm told. keep calm and gobble on.

meanwhile, blossom weighs 40 pounds, loves to eat cheese kurds and watch boxing. dreams to visit each one of minnesota's 10,000 lakes. lives by the motto no fowl place, just minnesota nice. just finished a two day road trip from minnesota to washington. by the way, you have chairs, sit down. i forgot you had chairs. [applause] i'm sorry. thinking about the arduous trip they made, you guys are still standing. takes 16.5 hours. through it all, they stayed calm and they gobbled on and are still gobbling. [laughter]

listening to the favorite music which apparently includes the song living on a prayer. well, fellas, based on your temperament and commitment to being productive members of society, i hereby pardon peach and blossom. [applause] announcer: washington journal continues. host: here's a bit of situational awareness where we are this morning. coming up in about 10 minutes, there would be a brief house pro forma session and of course, we will take you there for live gavel-to-gavel coverage. when that happens we will take your phone calls in our open forum now and after that at about 9:15 this morning. discussion on recess appointments. other things happening today that you should know about, a discussion on cyber threats and infrastructure security.

that is happening at 11:30 a.m. eastern, and you can watch that live on c-span.org, c-span now, and here on c-span. that is being hosted by the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency's. at 1:00 p.m. intern today, a discussion on the trump administration agenda for the securities and exchange commission. it is a discussion on cryptocurrency, climate regulation and their impact and the sec new enforcement approach from the federalist society. 1:00 p.m. eastern, c-span.org and of course, the free video app. a lot going on today. hope you stay with us. open forum now, so any public policy that you want to talk about, the phone lines are yours to do so. maryland, republican, go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i wish i could have gotten into

talk to mr. swartz about that frontline that he is going to air supposedly tonight. no mention of joe biden's involvement with china and the policies that were on with xi xinping. the book showcases his laptop, $22 million he's accepted for china and chinese policy. remember, the democrats were not concerned with the covid-19 investigation. they tried to shut that down. they came out with the narrative that was man-made. on a laptop that implicates joe biden as extorting chinese millionaires who wanted to enter our energy market and the money

that they've accumulated. there's no investigation on any of it. there's no concern. this is huge. our president has been compromised for four years. host: the book you are referring to, is it "red-handed: how american elites get rich helping china win"? caller: yes, sir. i was hoping that you would have him on as a death but it seems like the book that you are all pushing is from the left. this would have exposed everything. the fbi has had that laptop since 2019. they won't tell you where it is, who has it, they are not concerned about what is going on. they've got over 21 recordings of joe biden leading to his delaware mansion. talking about money transfers back and forth. all the evidence, no one is looking into it. i hope one day somebody investigates this. host: if you want to watch peter schweizer on c-span, 15 different programs featuring

author peter schweizer including one of our three hour in-depth programs, all available on our website. you can find all those at the top of the page. caller: good morning. i'm calling mostly just to comment on watching the program this morning about xi xinping. it seemed to me like it was a discussion almost like the sopranos. it seems like it is mafias juggling for power on the world stage, and it is just amazing. one of the biggest things that democracy seems to do in this country is protect monopolies.

everybody that creates a power structure seems to have a particular interest. that is pretty much about all i wanted to say, how everything represents a mafia mentality. thank you for listening. host: new york city, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. first off, you just played the clip of joe barton -- joe biden pardoning the turkey, that was really hard to watch, like pulling teeth. on the other hand, i know you guys are talking about xi xinping. a little over a month and a half ago, he was videotaped in front of his entire military saying to prepare for imminent war with the west and whatnot. speaking to the threat of these people constantly talking about

nuclear war and whatnot, this is escalating to an enormous level. i think we need to pay a lot more attention to what these leaders on both sides, whether it is china, russia, the u.s., turkey amongst a whole host of other nations that are really perpetuating this threat of war at this point. thank you very much. host: georgia, republican, good morning, open forum. caller: good morning. i'm calling about the fact that in response -- do you believe in scientists? basically if you believe in scientists, can you hear me? host: yeah, the question we had was what role should scientists play in creating public policy? it was based on a few research

report that found americans were split on whether they should be involved, actively involved in public policy or just focused on establishing fact and not creating public policy. so for viewers that didn't watch, that was the discussion this morning. caller: can i respond? host: please. caller: when i spoke to you and dr. fauci on november 20 5, 2020, you cut me off when i made a very good point with dr. fauci. many times it is not the scientists, is the people involved with the scientists. for whatever decision, you wouldn't allow me to finish or to follow-up with dr. fauci to make my point. host: i apologize for that, do you want to finish your point now? caller: the point is that sometimes when scientists sometimes are wrong.

the people who are around surveying what they are saying sometimes allow them to be wrong, and there is no follow-up and there is no criticism. sometimes there is self-evident truth, and people don't see it. and when i mentioned that dr. fauci was dangerous, to the young people of america with his school closures, i was right and dr. fauci and you were wrong, and that is why people have lost confidence. host: november 25, 2020, anthony fauci appeared on this program and bill was barely one of the scholars on that program. you can watch it on c-span.org if you want to go back and listen. coming up now, we hope you stick

around after this brief pro forma session in the house. it shouldn't be more than a minute or two, that is how long they usually are. we will see you back on the other side of that.

november 26, 2024. i hereby appoint the honorable adrian smith to act as speaker -- speaker pro tempore on it day. signed, mike johnson, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: today's prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. the lord most high is awesome. you, o god, are the great king over all the earth. on this thanksgiving week, may this nation clap its hands and shout to you cries of joy and gratitude. through all our lives, be near us and we main with us and may we, with ever joyful hearts, be cheered by the multitude of blessings and peace you grant us each day. keep us in your bountiful grace and guide us with your tender mercy when we are perplexed. free us from all ills that seek to overtake us in this world,

that with sureness and certainty of your redemption may we be received into the next. all praise and thanks to you, o god, our creator, redeemer and sustainer, one eternal god whom we adore. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-z of house resolution 5, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. pursuant to section 3-z of house resolution 5, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on friday, november 29, 2024.

caller: they get to the castle and the curtain is pulled back,

there's a little orange clown standing back there. i'm scared for this country. i'm a historian. i love history. our country is very new, still very new. it is only held together by a thin thread of sanity. the more i hear conspiracy theories and outright ignorance, it scares the dog out of me. that thing about scientists? yeah, we were wrong. that's how you get to the answer. you go down a thread of logic. sometimes logic is illogical. host: in the future remember to turned on your television when you're speaking through your phone. gary, sterling, virginia, go ahead. caller: i'm an old-time,

old-time republican. one of those tries to grasp logic, reason, and common sense. logically speaking, i would say the strongest or biggest cabinet pick trump has made is chris right. he is the most powerful, because he could stop fracking with sand and water, which are finite diminishing resources, and still frack with co2, which we have an abundance of and we need to get rid of it. there is no better place to store it. 10,000, 15,000 feet underground. then they converted all the big block diesels to natural gas. that would give everybody, they

could pay half the price, that's half the price, diesel fuel. it's 85% cleaner. it's 50% cleaner than gasoline. president putin ought to be sending natural gas to china to get them people off of coal. ought to be sending it to india to get those people off of coal. i, i don't know why we can't use some logic in this world. host: that was gary, virginia. chris right, the energy department pick for the trump administration. cheryl, maryland, good morning. caller: how you doing? host: doing well. caller: i was calling in, all this stuff that's going on right now in our country. it seem like it's a -- it's another place, like it's not the united states of america.

i'm an african-american woman and i'm tired of all this stuff going on. i've got generations of grandkids that will be born, grandkids that's already born. i don't think it's right for, you know, to bring about -- we need to bring about our children in the right way. the united states of america is the only nation on the planet blessed by god and we keep on doing things he don't want us to do. he'll let one of those haters of the u.s. take us out. we got the head military man standing up for this country to go against donald trump, because he's going to take this country down. host: walden, new york, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have to agree with the gentleman who called about biden and china. i'm going to walk it -- watch

his documentary tonight, but i want to see how bias it is going to be. i believe that mr. smith and his interpretations was biased about mr. trump. anyway, this country is new. we all have to just, you know, relax, take a breath. nothing's going to happen in a minute. i appreciate the show that's going to happen. i also have a little bit of angst about hoping that everybody will come together, like the young lady said before about her children and grandchildren. i have concerns. we need to leave the planet and the government in a better place than us always being angry with each other. thank you. i hope everyone has a wonderful thanksgiving. host: you mentioned mr. smith. story yesterday about a

different mr. smith, a federal judge monday granting jack smith's request to dismiss the fraud cap -- the fraud case against the president-elect, ending the criminal prosecution accusing him of attempting to overturn the election. the case was dismissed without prejudice, leaving it open for possible refiling after trump leaves office. the special counsel said that the prohibition on prosecution extends to president-elect's as well. mr. trump was elected to another term, of course, during the prosecution. in a social media post trump said that all of the social -- all of the cases should never have been brought. 100 million dollars of taxpayer money wasted as they fight against me -- that was trump and his social media post about the filing.

donald, omaha, good morning. go ahead, donald. caller: hello? yes. that congress, that phony deal we just had on, they count that is doing their duty and they are all at home? they are phonies. why don't they just shut that place down. they are never there. take the money. thank you. host: part of the reason for the pro forma sessions has to do with the topic of our next conversation with ed whelan of the public policy center who is joining us in about five minutes to talk about the history of recess appointments, congressional role in recess appointments, it's all coming up in a few minutes. craig, tulsa, republican.

open forum until then. caller: i'm glad you brought this up, science and policymaking. how is the -- how did you ask a question? how did you frame that? host: the way we framed it was how involved should scientists be in creating public policy. caller: first of all, i appreciate c-span for bringing up these important ideas. it's the question of whose wheelhouse you are in. in other words, policymakers, they deal with thoughts and actions of human beings. those things are, you cannot see a thought going through the air. no one has held a thought in their hand. scientists deal in the physical world of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling. they can deal with factual things or even like this current

tent technology. computers. we used to have a paper and a pen. when you make policy, you are dealing with thoughts. let's look a you shall not steal, that's in every -- our whole system, our whole country, you are not supposed to steal. that doesn't need any science. it's just a human behavior that you are not supposed to do. in that, i would think i would say that policymakers deal with the transcendental or the unseen, as well as the scene. science can contribute, but science cannot solely run policy , that's not its wheelhouse. there needs to be -- everybody needs to hold hands and work together. very carefully. host: would you agree with this -- this is from a fox write up

about the pole that sparked the discussion about scientists and public policy -- writing that some people are worried that scientists are so married to the data that they ignore everything else. in 2020 many disagreed with school closures, though it was a largely evidence-based decision. the evidence was limited and uncertain and it ultimately caused lasting damage to education and mental health. policy debates like that where they pitted evidence against economic reality and individl emotions, some might worry that scientists only consider the science. caller: that is their only strength, ok? praise them for their strength of knowledge, but then they don't think in terms of -- let's say like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. they might come to the conclusion that if we lock everyone in a room, this thing goes away. the problem is policymakers look at it and say if you lock everyone in a room the economy

crashes and we all lose everything. so, there has to be a balance. they should not be the sole dictators of policy. there is no way. because of that whole point there. we have done damage by trying to make them the soul policymakers. so, we need to have some balance. you are still going to have to balance the transcendental, the unseen with the scene. except that we need policymakers as well, which is philosophy and yes, sometimes moral writings, things like that, the bible, about how we should live together without destroying each other. then, of course, how we should take care of our children as well, which is the issue there. lock them in bubbles, how will they rate -- progress? we have got to find a balance.

if it was a 100% kill virus, there might be some logic in what we did in the past, but it was not a 100% kill virus. it wasn't 100% lethal. it was not as lethal as they expected. host: just a minute or two left here and open forum. brenda, thank you for waiting in michigan. caller: i wanted to add a comment. the united states, we are in for a rough ride. we had better get pillows ready so that we can kneel on our knees. the snake -- this man is not a reader. -- not a leader. he's sowing confusion. he's not choosing pop qualified people to be in place. it's a sad situation and we will be destroyed within. the united states is destroying within. thank you. host: that is brenda in

michigan. last call and open forum, margaret, go ahead. caller: i just wanted to make a comment on the last caller that came in. i agree with her. i have noticed -- right now there is a lot of things that aren't being reported on because they are still developing, but i live in central florida. this time of the year is our season when it gets cold up north and all the old people come down that can't stand the cold. they are not coming down like they were. i live in a mobile home park. we have 200 residents with 30 that stay full time, which i am one of. very few of them have come down. host: running short on time, but why aren't they coming?

caller: i understand. i don't know, it might be a mixture of fear -- waiting until after january 20 -- i don't know. it's just there is this air of unease wherever i go in stores, even at the congregation. it's, i, i'm just going to have a weight and see attitude right now, but i'm not very optimistic about things. that's all i got to say. thank you very much. host: martha, florida, last caller in open forum. stick around, 45 minutes left this morning, we will be joined by ed whelan at the public policy center and the president elect bosse potential use of recess appointments to fill cabinet positions. stick around for that conversation. we'll be right back. ♪

♪ >> attention, middle and high school students across america. it's time to make your voice heard. the studentcam documentary contest 2025 is here. your chance to create a documentary to inspire change, we raise awareness, and make an impact. you should answer the question -- your message to the president, what issue is most important to you and your community? are you passionate about politics? the environment? community stories? this is your platform to share your message with the world, including a grand prize of 5000 dollars. it's your opportunity to make not only an impact, but b rewarded for your creativity and

hard work. enter your submissions today. scanhe code or had to stentcam.org for all the details on how to enter. the deadline is january 20, 2025. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through the latest collection of products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps to support our nonprofit operation. shop now at any time at c-spanshop.org. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast feed makes it easy to listen to all of our podcasts featuring nonfiction books in one place. you can discover new authors and ideas. each week we make it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically

acclaimed authors from our signature programs, "about books," "after nudes -- afterwards," "book notes plus," and "q&a." you can find the podcast feed and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now mobile video app and on our website, c-span.org /podcasts. ♪ >> sunday on "a," the author of "my two lives," talking about surviving nazi, germany as a half jewish member of the hill or youth in the day that his jewish mother was arrested by the gestapo, hiding his identity. >> from where we lived with my mother, i saw all of the gestapo

in front of the building. this was a large building there. my brother and i decided that rather than going in and going there, with all of these ss gestapo people, we waited on the corner and watched it from there. we decided to ask our mother as to why they were there and what the gestapo was doing there. once they left we would go home and ask her mother. well, after a while all of a sudden, surprise, there was my mother they were bringing out of the building. they took her away. >>'s book, "my two lives," on "q&a." you can listen to "q&a" and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: ed whelan is back at our

desks, past president, current anthony scalia chair of constitutional studies at the ethics and public policy center. remind viewers what epp is. >> we are a premier think tank in d.c. dedicated to applying christian value to public policy. host: how long have you been there? guest: 20 years now. host: two weeks ago in "the national review," there was a column in which you called it " terrible anti-constitutional scheme of recess appointments." why is it a terrible and anti-constitutional scheme? guest: referring to the idea they talked about that donald trump would try to force the senate to adjourn, perhaps right on inauguration day, proceeding to make blanket recess appointments to top cabinet

offices. i think that would be an outrageous upsetting of the constitutional scheme, contemplating that the senate will, especially on high offices. as hamilton explained in the federalist papers, this provision of the constitution that gives the senate authority to advise and consent on nominations is important to making sure that the president makes high-quality pix. absent that check, the president can indulge his own whims, his own favors, and as hamilton put it, might even appoint someone simply because that someone possesses the ply seed to render him obsequious of the president possible pleasure. it's a fundamental feature to the constitution and yes, to be sure, there is a provision for recess appointments that is as hamilton put it, and auxiliary provision designed to supplement the core provision.

this appointment scheme would turn things on its head and there has never been anything like it in american history. host: in constitutional terms, what does advise and consent mean? guest: the process by which the senate decides whether to approve or reject the nominees of the president. a majority vote process through which it goes through a senate hearing, the appropriate committee, and is voted up or down. guest: why were read -- host: why were recess appointments put in in the first place? what's the point? guest: it's quite clear, it was to address a situation in which the senate was not available to act on a vacancy that had just arisen. it has been interpreted very expansively. i'm fine for present purposes on the present purpose of that expansion. i'm not challenging that when i

raise my objections to the president elect's scheme. the problem is that he would again try to force the recess of the senate, something played in the way outside the purpose of the provision in order to bypass the senate's advise and consent provision to install high-level cabinet officers. host: how does one force a recess of the senate? guest: that's a good question. there are two paths that president trump and his advisers have been considering. the first would be to cokes and control the senate into recessing itself. i would not call that forcing. i think it would be shameful if the senate were to do so. i don't think it will. but the scheme to force would use or misuse a provision of the president to adjourn both houses in the event of a disagreement

between the houses on the time of adjournment. this is in article two, section three of the constitution. a provision never used before and not one that i think could be lawfully used in this instance, but the idea would be to have the house collude with the president to force the senate out of session. host: what's the point of giving the president that power in the constitution? guest: sometimes the houses might disagree on whether the other house can adjourn. let me go back a step. the constitution says that if the house is to adjourn for more than three days, it needs to get the consent of the other house. you could imagine a situation in which one house doesn't consent to the adjournment of the other and you might need a tiebreaker where the president can come in and adjourn them both, the provision says. what we have here is not a

situation in which the senate is seeking to adjourn with house consent. on the contrary, it's a situation where the senate would want to stay in session. there is no role for the house to object to the senate staying in session. any disagreement on the part of the house with the senate staying in session is no more constitutional than you are i disagreeing with them. guest: 12 -- host: 26 minutes ago we saw a pro forma session. what is a pro forma session? there was one in the house and they did one for caller: caller: the guest: -- for the senate as well. guest: that's correct. they have become common for the senate since the ruling 10 years ago on recess appointments. they might well have existed before then, i'm not fully aware of the history, but the idea is to prevent a recess of sufficient length in which the

president could make a recess appointment. what the majority said was that a recess of 10 days is presumptively enough to allow a recess appointment. if you have these pro forma session every three days, the recess never rises. host: did they contemplate the idea of senators turning over their advise and consent power to a president by saying we will not be in session, allowing you to do a recess appointment? guest: it's a deeply anti-constitutional idea. there's nothing in the constitution contemplating it. is it within the bounds of the senate to abdicate its responsibility? sure, i suppose, but i think it would be deeply objectionable. guest: some senators are arguing for this process. bill hagerty was one of them on "abc this week," on sunday.

let's play a minute and a half of his interview. [video clip] >> recess appointments, trump had six set -- suggested it, john thune agreed to it. this idea that if he couldn't get confirmation on these, he could bypass the senate and do it with recess appointments. is that still on the table, still something that trump is considering? >> it is on the table and it should be on the table. it's a constitutionally available tool. we want to see the democrats cooperate with us. but with the resistance as heavy as it's been, i've been through the confirmation promise s, i didn't get through the process until july. we need to see things move quicker. the american public has spoken in that regard. president trump is ready and we need a team for him that gives him every tool. >> recess appointments have been

used before, barack obama did that with the national labor relations board, but as i understand it never for positions as important as, say, cabinet secretaries of the largest cabinet agencies. let me ask you, finally, if democrats are obstructing, would he try to do that if he didn't have the republican votes to get someone confirmed? that's the issue. if he didn't have the republican votes, would he try to bypass the senate to appoint a major cabinet secretary in the recess? >> again, i haven't spoken about specific plans with him. he will wants to see the appointments made quickly. i think everything should be on the table. my colleagues understand that and know that they need to step up and move expeditiously to get these members confirmed. host: that was bill hagerty on the sunday shows this week. he called it a constitutionally

available tool. guest: i will charitably construe his comments is not embracing the scheme at the outset. you can't have everything on the table when you knock everything else off the table and just have this. he's interested in making sure that nominations get confirmed promptly. perhaps on the road there might be occasion for a recess. i want to emphasize, though, there are tremendous advantages that the president-elect has that most per previous ones never had. they make the comparisons to, say ronald reagan, completely inapt. for starters, he has a large majority in the senate. he has the filibuster having been abolished for executive nominees. you can't have a single senator put a hold through the cloture process to tie things up. there was the adoption of a two hour rule with respect to post

cloture. not on cabinet officers, but others, to get those confirmed easily. the federal vacancies were mapped in 1998 that reagan didn't have, enabling him to put acting officers and place in a broad range of positions throughout the federal government. there are a host of reasons why he doesn't face some sort of crisis and should be able to work things through the process to get competent nominees confirmed quickly. hearings could start as early as january 3, if i may. formal nominations can't be submitted until the 20th, but officials cannot -- can be confirmed and appointed on that date. trump has -- had three done so in 2017 and there's no reason he can't have at least that many, if not more. host: are you saying that the bar is lower for achieving the advice and consent for cabinet officials?

guest: it's a lot lower with the abolition of the filibuster. that's a huge change. the democrats have virtually no tools to obstruct. in the past the minority would have had a huge ability, a huge difference, absolutely. host: ed whelan, with us at the top of the hour, democrats are (202) 748-8000, republicans are (202) 748-8001, independents are at (202) 748-8002. a good person to ask your judicial question, questions about recess appointments, ed whelan can answer it all for you. joseph, new jersey, republican line. caller: i had a question for

this guest. i'm listening to him and neither of you mentioned that president obama did it 32 times. i don't want to hear that things were different with reagan. obama did it 32 times. it's just another thing, you guys are in your bubble in d.c. against trump. trump hasn't made it once yet and he likes to talk. hasn't done it once. likes to talk. discussing it. trump does it and it's unconstitutional. obama did it and it's ok. you guys didn't mention that. host: ed whelan guest:? respectfully, joseph misses the point. i'm fine with recess appointments being made. the question is whether you make them at the outset of the presidency blanket. barack obama did not do that. there is simply no comparison between what president elect trump is said to be considering

and what barack obama did. i'm sort of twisted between -- it's a great idea and he's not even thinking about this crazy idea, so i'm not sure how to respond to that. host: what did barack obama do? guest: he made recess appointments during intersection recesses. he had the supreme court struck down unanimously three of his appointments to the national labor relations board. again, recess appointments have been made in the past and it's a perfectly proper tool when the senate is actually in recess. forcing the senate to recess to make blanket appointments of cabinet officials at the outset of a presidential term is a far cry from that. it's not apples to apples or even apples to oranges, its apples to orangutans. host: what would you be comfortable with? how many recess appointments, if

they don't get the votes that they need? if it's not a blanket recess appointment, what would you be ok with? guest: there is no magic number. it is a process. talking about previous presidents, almost all of them have made nominations, try to work through the senate process, and when they got frustrated and obstructed said i had no choice but to do this recess appointment. here we have a majority in the senate. any competent nominees to major positions ought to be confirmed quickly. it is tempting to wonder whether this scheme being talked about is designed to enable the installment of less competent nominees. for example, we saw the nomination of matt gaetz to the justice department, a nomination has been withdrawn, but a terrible pick in so many ways.

not someone who, who should ever be installed by recess appointment. host: anyone else that you would describe as a less than competent nominee or a terrible pick? guest: one great thing about the confirmation process is that the nominees will have the opportunity to prove their competence. yeah, some questions have been raised about different candidates. can't say i'm wild about rfk junior, for example. let them go through the process. if they shine, all the better for them. they will have even more influence in the administration. if they bomb, that will be telling as well. but to the republicans in the senate, there should be a good dose of deference to the trump picks. host: gaithersburg, maryland, good morning. caller: i don't really have a comment on the prompt, but i wanted to make an overall

comment about some observations from my own working experience. i did notice that sort of the framework that i know from, with an accounting background and the federal government, the control framework. it starts with the tone at the top. unfortunately or fortunately, that occurs at the presidential level. it's interesting to kind of see how these polarizing nominations throughout the upcoming second trump presidency can kind of shift and control the tone surrounding the american public. host: ed whelan, any thoughts? guest: interesting comment. i think that the president does set the tone and a lot follows from that. host: roy, republican beach, florida. caller: how you doing? host: doing well. caller: pertaining to what your

guests are speaking about, recess appointments, if it needs to be done it's constitutional, correct? guest: it all depends what it is. no, i don't believe the president has constitutional authority to get the house to force a disagreement with the senate so that he can adjourn both houses. i have explained in writing why i think that's unconstitutional. it's deeply anti-constitutional for the president to try to force a recess of the senate for the purpose of making recess appointments. i will add further that the court was deeply divided in noel canning, 5-4, on the scope of the presidential recess appointment authority. my objections to the scheme assumed the majority is right in that case. but justice scalia had a powerful dissent that he read from the bench and was joined by three justices still on the court. pardon me if i said this

already, in that opinion he said -- a, the recess appointment authority can only be exercised during intercession recesses, recesses at the end of the session before the senate of the next session. this would typically happen sometime in december. b, the recess authority can only be used with respect to vacancies that arise, that happen during the recess. host: not at the outset? guest: not vacancies that preexist the recess. there's a very good chance that if donald trump or to pursue this scheme, some months down the road you would have a supreme court majority striking it down on several basis, including the possibility that the three new justices, republican appointees, would join with the chief justice, alito and thomas, in adopting

these positions that were set forth by scalia. host: you bring up the supreme court, shifting slightly to the supreme court, what is the expectation among folks who watch the court as much as you do? how many picks might he have in a second administration? guest: i would for the over under line at around two. vacancies are often over predicted. it might end up being a mistake here. i would think that there are some justices, i won't be coy, speaking of justices and alito, who might decide this is a good opportunity to pass their seat along to someone who would entrench their legacy. you have a republican-controlled senate, it would be easy to get high quality nominations

confirmed, and he would basically have a conservative majority rejuvenated. they will make up their own minds. we will see. it seems to me that there are strong arguments why they might decide to step down sometime in the next 1, 2, or four years. host: if it were two and he ends up appointing five over two terms to the court, where would that rank in terms of number of supreme court justice appointments by a single president? guest: i believe he would tie dwight eisenhower, who had five. fdr had more than five, i believe. caller: more time, of course. guest: washington of course a point of them all at the beginning. i'm forgetting someone, it might've been lincoln who appointed five or so. it's, it's a significant number and hardly unprecedented. host: do you think it is a good

thing for the judicial branch to have one president appoint a majority of the sitting justices on the court? guest: it all depends on how good the appointments are? i think they've been great so far. host: what is an appellate judge? guest: the federal judicial system is divided into three levels. federal district court with trial courts at the bottom and the federal court of appeals in the middle. so, we have 12 geographically organized federal courts of appeals, as well as a specialized court to hear certain matters. when you hear about the ninth circuit, the d.c. circuit judge, the fourth circuit, formerly known as the court of appeals, these are the appellate courts. host: how many are there and how many picks to the appellate courts does the president usually get? guest: i believe there are 12 geographically organized courts of appeals, as well as the

so-called federal circuit, which handles intellectual property and claims against the government, i believe. host: each one of those has about how many judges? guest: there's a wide variation. the first circuit has maybe five? the next is 29, i believe? it's quite a variation. the mean is in the 10 to 15 range, but don't hold me to that. so, right now there are only five announced vacancies among the 170 or so active judgeships on the federal court of appeals. there might be some more vacancies arising. far fewer right now than at the outset of his first term in 2000 2017. the main reason for that is that in his first term, republicans controlled the senate for the two years of proceeding that

coming into office. they obstructed a lot of obama nominees. of course, we have the opposite situation now where senate democrats control the senate and have been pushing the biden nominees through expeditiously. host: in terms of what is considered the most important pic, obviously, supreme court, is the appellate court the next important -- most important pic, is that fair to say? guest: sure, i think so. from there you might say that some courts seem more important than others, courts where there is an ideological tipping point where the en banc decisions might change if you had one or two more, say, conservative judges. the d.c. circuit judge has a very lopsided democratic advantage that would be difficult for anyone to alter. it is seen as, by many,

particularly important, because a lot of big cases of administrative law and up in that court. i don't know that that is going to happen. host: more calls for you. this is billy in texas. good morning. caller: i just want to say that america is the nation of god. even though donald trump, i wasn't behind him, even though he won, what i'm saying about our nation is we are a nation of god and it's why we are a leader. anybody coming in here talking crazy to do crazy things, god is real. host: did you have a question about the judicial branch? or recess appointments? caller: well, i would just like

to say that i am for the things that would be better for the people. with america being the type of nation we are, some kind of crooked place, we have a lot of people in the nation wanting chances to speak and react. host: appreciate the call from texas, billy. mike, poughkeepsie, new york, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. first time calling. looking online, i saw that you mentioned clinton and bunt -- clinton and bush, 100 71 recess appointments under bush, 32 under obama. which seems low. during the barack obama

breakdown they said the 20 were later appointed by the senate and 12 were withdrawn. i'm wondering -- what's -- what's the difference between those figures? you know, those occurrences and what's being suggested now? they said the obama ones were all appointed or nominated before the recess. so, i don't understand the handwringing going on that i'm hearing. maybe i'm taking at the wrong way. just curious what your take is on that. host: let me repeat -- guest: let me repeat myself, it's more than handwringing. it's an objection to the inversion of our constitutional system in the senatorial role in major nominations. recess appointments have their place and if donald trump ends up making 200 recess appointments during actual recesses for mid-level,

low-level offices like previous presidents have done, fine. what i am objecting to is the idea of forcing the senate into recess in order to make recess appointments. something ham and up -- hamilton would have found abominable, something justice scalia would have found abominable. recess appointments of top cabinet officials are the sorts of folks who ought to be getting senate scrutiny. all of this in a senate with 53 republicans. what a blunder this would be if down the road these were challenged and invalidated, to have six months of a trump turn blown by this scheme. host: if that were to happen, invalidated, what does that mean for what happens in the agencies for six months? guest: it all depends on what the unlawfully appointed recess officials did.

you could have lots of folks with the authority to challenge the actions taken. let's say for example that the attorney general fires a justice department employee. the employee challenges the firing saying -- among other things, you are not lawfully in office. that person would presumably be reagents -- reinstated or awarded damages in the point is, this would just be a huge mess at the outset. it takes simple tackling and blocking to make a lot of progress here. it's easy to go through the ordinary channels. i emphasize again that presidents prior to 2013 didn't have the benefit of the abolition of the filibuster. huge, huge change. presidents prior to 1998 did not have the advantage over the vacancies reform act of the gay

presidents another vehicle to put in place officials to implement their vision. again, there was a change back in 2019 that means that post-cloture debate for some cabinet officials limited to two hours. that makes it very easy to get lots of nominations confirmed. host: all of these efforts on the confirmation side happened to make it easier to get a nominee confirmed. has there ever been an effort to overhaul or get rid of the recess appointments because of these causes for concern? guest: i don't think it's recess appointment so much that because the concern. admittedly you have a lot of federal government officials subject to advise and consent by the senate. somewhere near 1200. there is a legitimate question

about how you go about enabling those positions to be filled. some of the changes that occurred, by design or not, mediate -- made it easier for that to happen. the question on recess appointments is whether the position that justice scalia expressed in his concurrence in the judgment, that it would some -- at some point be adopted, but there hasn't -- host: there hasn't been a proposal to overhaul the constitution to get rid of recess appointments because it hasn't been an issue? and it could potentially be, this time around? guest: it's because the senate has plenty of tools available to prevent recess appointments. we are talking about pro forma sessions. you don't need a constitutional amendment to limit recess appointments. host: just one senator coming in

and calling it into session. independent line, good morning. caller: question for mr. whelan, with the caveat of not wanting to jinx anybody, what are some of the names that trump should consider for possible supreme court openings? guest: well, i don't think i am particularly in good favor with the future white house folks at this point, so i will not name any names. i will say that donald trump appointed 54 courts of appeals judges in his first term. an excellent group of judges, outstanding on his part. some 30 or so of those appellate appointees are in the age range to be plausible candidates for a supreme court nomination. a good 12 to 15 would be held as

outstanding candidates. you can look around different courts of appeals to find the candidates. it would be easy pickings for him to select one of the outstanding individuals he already had the good judgment to a point the court of appeals. host: have you lost favor over this issue? guest: it's fair to say, i have had my reservations about the president-elect. host: do you care to elaborate? guest: only that i would have preferred a different candidate in the primary. that said, i very much want him to succeed. i am trying to do what i can to help. on judges and on other matters. that includes beating down bad ideas other people are trying to push on him. host: mary grace, florida, democratic line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for explaining recess appointments

and other things. the public does need to be educated. although i am a democrat, i feel you are doing things fairly for all people. i am extremely worried that the supreme court with six republicans and only three democrats, nothing is getting done because of the fact that their ideology on the others, republicans, with women paying a price for it. is there anything in the constitution that can settle this matter so that it can be equal and fair to all people? i also feel that politicians on both sides are not listening to their constituents. they just want to be in power. i would deeply appreciate what your thoughts are, and thank you for your work. host: to explain a little bit,

what do you want to be equal and fair, supreme court membership? caller: yes. it's unfair, the women now, they defeated roe v. wade and now women are dying because they can't get an abortion. there was the case in texas where the woman had a miscarriage and she couldn't have a d&c because the doctors are afraid because of the way the law is written. that's because the supreme court is unequally divided. host: got your point. let me let ed whelan jump in. guest: i respectfully am in disagreement with i think virtually everything the caller had to say, other than her thanks for my comments. for starters, republicans, conservatives worked for decades through the process to transform the supreme court.

i am very grateful that we succeeded in doing so. if there is one lesson in there that bears on the recess appointment matter, it's that there were some very shortsighted decisions made on strategic grounds, ignoring strategy, by senate democrats that were very costly and paved the way for this conservative ascendancy. one, the launching of the phila best -- filibusters back in 2003 against lower court nominees. second, abolition of the filibusters for lower court nominees in 2013. the third is the use of the filibuster against the neil gorsuch nomination in 2017. the only thing that could possibly have unified republicans to abolish the remaining part of the filibuster. you never would have had the confirmations of brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett without

that huge strategic mistake that democrats made, being shortsighted. i worry again on the recess appointment area that some folks are being shortsighted in not understanding what this could mean in the future. say, for example, 2020 nine a democratic president and 55 republican senators and a house controlled by democrats. instead of the republican senators being able to be a check on the president's cabinet appointments, that democratic president could do the same gimmick if it succeeded. i don't think it will, getting the house to pretend to be in disagreement with the senate on something so that the senate can adjourn both houses. again, i don't think this scheme would succeed, but if it did, it would have damaging consequences. let me briefly address the idea of some sort of political balance on the court. the court is not, should not be a political body. what we want our judges and

justices who are faithful to the constitution. i think that the improvements, the changes to the courts have gotten us closer to that. i heartily welcome their question on dobbs restoring a torsion policy to the states. there are lots of stories out there that are simply false. where lots of people are scaring doctors into thinking they can't do things the law plainly allows. this is part of an assault on the supreme court. this is a matter of abortion policy that people obviously have sharply divided views on. in our system, this is laughed -- left to the democratic process to decide. i hope, i'm very grateful that dobbs allows real protection of the lives of unborn human beings and i hope we will continue to make progress in that direction. host: if you want ed whelan more of's thoughts on the judicial

system, public matters, you can do so in many ways --ed whelan's thoughts on the judicial system, public matters, where else can they find you? guest: i have a sub stack on judicial confirmations, "confirmation tales," where i present stories about confirmations of the last 30 years, which was my general involvement in them, some stories go back even further. readers may find the stories amusing and informative and i hope that you enjoy them. host: and i hope we will find you back on this program we will of course be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 pacific. have a great tuesday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024]