[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. It's time for our monthly Call Your Senator segment, with New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Our topics today will include the new inflation report that just came out this morning, and the big cost of living increase for Social Security recipients that came out with it. Also, the implications of who controls the Senate after Election Day, the Senate's role in the influx of asylum seekers from Venezuela, which is a national issue and currently very much a New York issue, with Mayor Adams declaring a state of emergency in New York City, as many of you know, and more.

If you have a question or comment, New Yorkers, call your Senator, but don't tell the people in the other 49 states, they can call too. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or tweet your question or thought for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand @BrianLehrer. Senator, we always appreciate that you do this. Welcome back to WNYC.

Kirsten Gillibrand: Thank you, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Well, that inflation report for September just out this morning, showed an increase of four-tenths of 1%, which doesn't sound like much, but it was higher than expected, which was 0.3%. It means the annual rate remains over 8%, the highest in 40 years. Do you have a take on the main sources of this persistent inflation right now?

Kirsten Gillibrand: There are sources, some of it's still COVID-related, the fact that our supply chain is not fully back up and running. We still have trucker shortages, we still have jobs that are unfilled, and so production and supply chain is still a factor. The second factor is OPEC, the fact that they decided they're going to stop pumping oil at the same rate as they were, which is just extremely cynical and political and very harmful to Americans' families and businesses.

Other than that, I think those are the two biggest drivers, and it's why we spent a lot of time figuring out how do you lower costs. The last bill we passed in this congressional session was to lower prescription drug prices, to look at seniors. There's a third reason, I'm sorry, price gouging, which is literally happening across the board from greedy industries. We made sure for Medicare, that our seniors can get the medicines they take most regularly, and have a cap on how much they're going to cost, influence [unintelligible 00:02:50] Major medicines that they need, we're negotiating in bulk and getting the lowest rate.

We also hear that gas prices, not just OPEC, but we are also hearing there's price gouging among the oil industry participants. That's, of course, a challenge. It's also one of the reasons why this Social Security cost of living increase is so important, because it's even a bit higher than that inflation number you just said. There's going to be an 8.7% Social Security cost of living raise, which is the biggest in four decades. This cost of living adjustment is what our seniors have needed, because when the cost of groceries and the cost of medicine and the cost of heating are all going up, they need some source of money because they're on fixed income.

This cost of living adjustment for Social Security recipients is really going to help our seniors. I just spent the last two weeks flying around New York, visiting communities, and talking about a bill that we passed in the last session of getting more money for LIHEAP. I wrote a letter with a bunch of senators and Congress members telling the appropriators, we need more money for home heating. They answered yes, and we got another billion dollars just for home heating, that's going to mean $60 million are going to come to New York state alone just to defray heating costs.

Seniors and families don't have to choose between food, medicine, and heat, all things that are necessary for life. It's why we're working so hard on these things, Brian, because the strains are real, and we want to make sure we have answers and try to help as best as we can, because many things are out of our control.

Brian Lehrer: I want to drill down a little more deeply on several of the things that you mentioned there. The Social Security cost of living increase, also implications of that for the private sector, the home heating assistance that you mentioned for low-income people. I know you've been traveling around the state, letting people know that that's available. I definitely want to let people know specifically how that's available.

Also, the kind of kick in the shins that Saudi Arabia just gave the United States despite President Biden being very nice to their leader MBS recently, that has a relationship, of course, to the OPEC oil cuts in production, which will push up prices. Which ones of those should we start with? How about the Social Security increase? This is going to surprise a lot of people not on Social Security. Can you explain how that works? Why is Social Security linked to inflation, and therefore, this 8.7% increase in what Social Security recipients will get next year?

Kirsten Gillibrand: When we created Social Security, the whole intention of the program was to make sure our seniors did not die in poverty, to make sure that people with significant medical issues didn't die in poverty. The whole purpose of the program was to keep a lifeline, and people buy into it. They spend their whole life putting money aside into Social Security so that when they are older, they will have the resources they need to survive.

People have been arguing for these cost of living adjustments, certainly the 14 years I've been in public service. They are always insufficient. This is the first time in 40 years that this COL increase is reflective of the true cost of living adjustment that's needed. This comes at a really good time because people need it. It's the difference of literally being able to have enough money for those three items that I mentioned over and over again; heat in the winter and cooling in the summer, food on your table, and the medicines that keep our older Americans and Americans with disabilities alive.

Social Security is absolutely urgent, and it's the most important social safety net America has. That's why we [inaudible 00:06:50] it, and we should always be focused on how we can shore it up, so it's there for this generation and the next.

Brian Lehrer: Does that formula for a COLA, cost of living allowance, not a soda, COLA, does that stress the federal budget and the federal deficit if federal tax revenues go down during hard economic times, but the same thing triggers more mandatory federal outlay for one of its biggest programs, Social Security, is that okay?

Kirsten Gillibrand: The whole purpose is to reflect the cost of things. When the prices of the items that people need go up, that is what the cost of living adjustment reflects. It's not dependent on whether our economy is growing or not growing, it's dependent on, are the cost of things going up? As we described earlier in the show, the factors that are raising prices for Americans are not the normal inflationary factors. It's a pandemic. It's the fact that we put so much strain on our first responders and our hospital networks, and our government services, and that people lost their lives, people lost their jobs, businesses went out of business.

When I travel around the state, a lot of businesses haven't recovered, and many never reemerged. These are the pressures that are unusual, that are not normal. Obviously, the Fed is doing everything they can do, which they have one tool, it's a hammer, and all they can do is raise or lower interest rates, which is not as effective when you're talking about prices rising because of other factors, not just too much money going after too few goods. That's why it's not been a perfect solution. It's not working right away like they thought it would, because these are structural problems that America is dealing with as is the rest of the world, because this was a global pandemic.

When OPEC decides to stop pumping oil, that affects the world too. These are world dynamics, not just about America. That's why these kinds of solutions, like helping our Social Security cost of living increase, is essential, and making sure we put a cap on premiums and prices for seniors for their medicines and making sure our LIHEAP funding is more generous so more people can get it.

The LIHEAP money runs out every year without everybody being covered. What this bill did was we expanded coverage so everyone can get access and put much more money in the pot so no one is left behind. These three changes are trying to be very responsive to the needs of New Yorkers and Americans across the country.

Brian Lehrer: Should that cost of living increase be the norm for employers in the private sector too then, not just the government with Social Security recipients? I know that some unions in some workplaces are asking for higher raises than they were asking for before, specifically as cost of living increases. Do you want to say something to America's private sector employers about the standard of how to treat people that Social Security sets?

Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes, I would. These are tough times and good employers know that their most valuable asset is their people, their workers. The reason why the union movement is so important to our country is because they're the ones that have enough bargaining power to stand up to the Jeff Bezos's of the world. I just went to the Amazon workers rally outside of Amazon in Upstate New York. They're demanding the kind of wages that are necessary to survive, wages that are good living wages, benefits that are necessary, sick days, making sure that if you are injured, that you could have the time to recover.

These things are really how every employer should look at their employees, as their strongest and best asset, and to give them what they need to do well given the climate. I've talked to a lot of employers over the last six months, and I can tell you, a lot of them have raised their pay because of these pressures and because there was a reshuffling post-COVID. People who work in the restaurant industry, people who work in the hotel industry, they're getting higher pay because there's a shortage of workers in those fields. A lot of people rethought their lives and said, "I don't want to do this job anymore. I'm going to find some other career."

There's not a restaurant or a hotel chain that has enough workers to do the jobs they need. As a consequence, they have to fill less tables, they have to have less hours, they can't fill every hotel room because they can't clean them in time to have the next guests come in. That's the reality of business today. We have a worker shortage. Businesses have had to compete for the workers that are available, and they are paying more. Those are smart employers who understand that to have a good business, you might have to pay a little more. People need those resources right now, and valuing one another, it's the golden rule. We should care about one another and care about their families.

Brian Lehrer: Employers are being hit by inflation too, which might affect their bottom line, which might affect what they can pay the workers. Certainly, they should take into account the cost of living increases that their workers are seeing because of inflation and do what they can, especially in the case of very profitable companies that aren't being hurt that much. Let's take a phone call. Rick in Astoria. Go ahead, senator.

Kirsten Gillibrand: Brian, just to close that loop on that. A lot of employers have raised their prices as a consequence. Sometimes they'll raise their price as a consequence because they're paying a little more to their employees, their supplies are more expensive. Take a restaurant. I sat down with a restaurateur in Harlem and he's like, "Well, the cost of potatoes used to be something like $17 a pound and now it's $46 a pound. How am I supposed to run a restaurant when the cost of different goods has changed?" That might have had to do with a blight in Idaho.

These are challenges, and that's a global climate change issue. These are challenges all businesses are facing and some of these things they do pass on to consumers, but some industries have been very greedy. An example is the car industry. When there was a chip shortage, they increased the prices of cars because they said, "Oh, well, we don't have enough chips, so we're going to increase the price." They kept the prices increased, even though people responded to say, "Well, I don't know. Can I afford this car?" They just said, "Well, they're willing to pay it, I'm going to keep it high."

Some industries are responding in a very unhelpful way, and that's what creates recessions. Employers, they're part of this puzzle, and people should be generous and not greedy. That's the moral lesson of the day.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a business owner calling in. Rick in Astoria, you're on WNYC with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Hi, Rick.

Rick: Hi. Good morning. Thank you for making my call, senator. I just wanted to take one quick issue with something you said early on, that the recent cuts to OPEC production affected inflation for this last period. It did not. Those inflationary numbers will not come in for at least another month. We won't see the effects of that and the cuts to OPEC, 2 million barrels a day, for at least another month or two.

A couple of things as a business owner. Number one, we are still dealing with Trump-era tariffs on many of the goods that come into my business that have to be imported from Europe and from around the world. I'd like to know, A, what the Biden administration is doing to reduce those tariffs or eliminate those tariffs. Many of them are from products from Europe.

The second thing is, with regards to the cuts to OPEC, what is the administration going to do to try to counter those effects? We need to bring in the oil from somewhere, and it seems to me like we are continuing this spate around the world with oil-producing countries, granted, for good reason, we are on bad terms with many of these producers. What are we planning on doing? If you could enlighten us, I would appreciate it.

Kirsten Gillibrand: Well, first of all, we need energy independence from the Middle East, because they are not our friends. Saudi Arabia has shown its colors. They are not our friends. I disagree with you. I think the point you're making is that the lack of production won't affect the supply chain for two months, but it affects people's opinions today. When I talk about price gouging, that's decisions that oil sellers are making to say, "We can get away with it. We can keep our prices as high as we want, because look what OPEC just did. We might as well make hay while the sun shines."

You're right. That particular oil doesn't get to America, whatever, and it's not the numbers of what's been produced for a couple of months, but it affects the climate immediately, and unfortunately, it encourages people to price gouge. We have had problems with price gouging in the energy sector. The thing that I'm working on very aggressively, and that Democrats have worked on, is we just passed a bill, which was the Inflation Reduction Act, which invested $370 billion dollars into energy, specifically to reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2030, direct investment into wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, biofuels, all the alternative energies that create a green future.

We are determined to change our energy usage in the country so we are less dependent. That comes through efficiency, that comes through electric cars, it comes through having the infrastructure for those kinds of innovation, so that they can thrive. It's a big long-term plan, but one that I think is urgent. We're trying to do everything we can because the impacts of global climate change also are extremely destructive. We see how violent the storms are in Florida, we see how violent the fires are in California, we see the droughts throughout California and other states that are devastating our agriculture and other industries. All of it has a drag on the economy.

I appreciate the fact that Trump-era policies have not been helpful, but we are working to unwind them and to find a better way to create a growing economy. That's certainly what I'm working on in Congress.

Brian Lehrer: Are you saying, though, that the Inflation Reduction Act that Congress just passed, and it is called the Inflation Reduction Act, is just a longer-term thing and if the president and the Democrats in Congress, like yourself, celebrated the passage of this historic Inflation Reduction Act, that people shouldn't expect that the 8% plus annual inflation rate that we're still seeing is going to be affected right away?

Kirsten Gillibrand: That's why we're doing the immediate relief things. The LIHEAP money, for example, is going to try to offset the fact that this estimate of increase in people's heating is that it's going to go up by, depending on where in the state you are, between 25% and 45%. People's heating prices are going to go up. I don't know if that's because of the price gouging or because of OPEC, but it's probably a combination of both. That's a problem. The LIHEAP money could defray people's costs for their home heating by 40%. That's why we're looking for immediate solutions and long-term solutions at the same time.

The reason why the Inflation Reduction Act was so positive for long-term energy is that it created incentives for clean energy production, $50 billion, to expand tax credits for electricity produced from renewable sources, solar, wind, geothermal, $60 billion to establish clean electricity production and investment tax credits for net zero electric generating or storage facilities, which again is the infrastructure so people can buy electric vehicles.

It also invested in rural power and clean energy, so $14 billion to lower costs for families and support good paying, clean energy jobs in rural communities specifically. That's going to mean biofuels in Iowa, it's going to mean making sure we use rural communities as the heart of how these clean energy jobs get created. Some of it is going to affect people's view and hopefully that will allow for more investment and more energy independence in our country, which therefore allows us not to be beholden to Middle Eastern countries for our oil supply.

Then if you're just talking about oil production, we can increase our refineries because we export a lot of our oil. When we had all those fights about pipelines, it was because the oil was being exported to China. It wasn't even being used domestically. The bottleneck in US oil production is in the refinery capacity. If we want to be able to generate our own gasoline and fuel domestically, we need more refineries. I know that certain states are looking at that now.

Brian Lehrer: Isn't that what the Republicans generally say, "Increase oil and natural gas production in this country," while a lot of Democrats say, "No, let's not do that and enable more production because it contributes to the fossil fuel pollution that creates global warming"?

Kirsten Gillibrand: The reason the Republicans are wrong is because they only want to do fossil fuels. The answer is all of the above. The answer has to be you have to produce what you can produce domestically. You don't need to increase the amount of oil production we have because we have a lot already. You just need to refine it here so we can actually use it ourselves. People like to sell their oil on the open market. It's a world market. That's what they do. We could have some of that here.

Then you have to very significantly increase your reliance on green energy because that's how you're going to address the global climate change problems that are causing all of the damage, billions of dollars. Florida wants $33 billion. That's a huge cost and that's because of the challenges of global climate change and extreme weather. You have to do both. I think all of the above is always the right approach. You have to use what we have here along with all new innovations and new technologies so we can transition in the next 20 years to a green future.

Brian Lehrer: One more on inflation then we're going to move on to some other subjects with Senator Gillibrand. Edmond in Westchester, you're on WNYC. Hi, Edmond.

Edmond: Good morning. I guess my main point is that I remember stories about how companies were restricted from increasing prices when we were trying to fight inflation. I just feel as though this is not a fight we're going to win if we don't literally generate campaigns to say, "Look, corporations have a big role here to resist the temptation to increase prices when there's a market with a mindset that is expecting prices to increase," because if they continue to exploit that mindset, this is just going to continue to fuel the flame.

It was mentioned earlier in the show how some corporations, we could call it price gouging or we could call it just exploiting market opportunity, where their profits are off the charts. I just feel as though-- at what point do we make a plea, if you will, to say, "Look, corporations need to play a massive role in here," and in fact, there might even be room for price regulations. I realize that is just a massive hot button, but that's what we did in the past.

Brian Lehrer: Edmond, thank you. Senator.

Kirsten Gillibrand: I don't remember when we regulated prices not being able to go up. I think the only place we did that during COVID was rents. We told people they had to be allowed to stay in their apartments, but I could be wrong.

Brian Lehrer: He may be talking about the 1970s.

Kirsten Gillibrand: Well, that's something I'm less aware of, but I don't think that's the solution. I do think you did hit on part of the solution, which is creating an incentive for companies to have a common good mission. Right now we have, and this is just a very big idea, but it's one that I would love to implement. Right now you have for-profit companies and you have not-for-profit companies, and for-profit companies have been told at every business school for the last 30 years that the shareholder is the most important constituent. Everything has to go towards shareholder value. No matter what you do, if the share price doesn't increase, you're not doing your job.

All CEOs measure themselves on share price. That was told in business schools that that's good business practice. I don't think that's true because that has created over time a corruption within capitalism. That corruption is exactly what the caller was talking about, price gouging, polluting our air and water, making business decisions based on the bottom line and never for the employees, paying employees less than a fair wage because, again, shareholders are more important than employees.

I think that's been corrupted and it's harmed society and harmed the United States and made us less competitive. I'll give you an example of how we're less competitive. We don't have national paid leave in this country. Every other industrialized country in the world does. That's a drag on our economy because a lot of people have to leave their jobs to care for loved ones during family emergencies, and they always have to start back at a lower pay scale, paying less into taxes, paying less into economic growth. That's just one example.

Why not create a way to designate a tax structure that you can be a common good company, where you have a mission that is common good driven, whether it's green energy mission, whether it's family-friendly policies, whatever. You can choose your common good mission and have a lower tax rate for it, because when I talk to businesses in a state like California, they have a B Corp designation, but it doesn't change their tax rate. It just allows you to tell people you're great and you have a common good ideal, but it doesn't do anything to you financially.

They say there's no point in registering that way because venture capital doesn't give us money, private equity doesn't give us money. It's really hard to make a business because investors don't think their return is going to be high enough. I said, "Well, if you had a lower tax rate, do you think you'd get those investors?" They said, "Absolutely." I think if we could create a common good corporation, that you could have these incentives and say, we're also going to care about these other issues and we will have a slightly less return, but we're going to give you a lower tax rate because you care about other constituencies, making sure that stakeholders like employees matter, making sure stakeholders like the community where you are located matters, any other issue, like just clean air, clean water, just humanity, you can decide.

That would be a solution that I think the caller might agree with that could really incentivize businesses to rethink who they are, what they stand for, and why the common good is worth it.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, as a point of history, I just looked up price controls in the 1970s and 1980s and saw that in 1980, when there was a big debate about that in this country, inflation that year had hit 18%. If you want to feel good about today's 8% inflation, it might be hard, but at least we could say it's not 1980 when they had 18% inflation in the United States. This is your Call Your Senator segment, our monthly Call Your Senator segment with New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, 212-433 WNYC from New York or anywhere else. George in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hi, George.

George: Hello. Good morning, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Good morning, George.

George: Good morning. Good morning, Senator. I have two very important question. One is about the people that coming across the border and one for immigration.

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead.

George: What I want to know is if the Mayor of New York have the right, whenever those people come across, like how they send those people from Texas in the bus, do the Mayor of New York have the power to send them back to Texas or they have to stay?

Brian Lehrer: That's an interesting question. Does the mayor have the power to send them back to Texas and use them as human ping pong balls, I guess in a way, to send them back to Greg Abbott and say, "You can't do this." What do you think about that senator?

Kirsten Gillibrand: Well, I would say that's a very inhumane and cynical view. Those families should not have been bused by Governor Abbott. In fact, we have a lawsuit saying that that was wrong and that he didn't have the authority to do that. It's treating people like political pawns, which is what I find so unethical and so immoral. The mayor is doing his level best to meet the needs of these families.

I am working very hard to get more federal resources, more FEMA money so he can get the resources he needs to help these families. Congress has to do its part and we need to have bipartisan efforts to have a real comprehensive immigration reform system with a pathway to citizenship so that we have the right level of legal immigration so people don't seek illegal means.

A lot of this has to do with we don't have enough immigration lawyers, we don't have enough of the infrastructure that's needed in these host countries. We don't have the real infrastructure that's needed to have a comprehensive and thoughtful program. I think President Biden just announced a piece of that today, that he's going to create humanitarian parole for a certain number of Venezuelans, and his effort is to fix the system, which needs to be fixed, it's broken. I just think these are families, these are people, the United States is a strong and generous nation, and treating them like political pawns is immoral.

Brian Lehrer: Will that humanitarian parole that the president is announcing for some Venezuelans also mean fewer will be allowed to stay in the country while they seek political asylum? Because I think what Governor Abbott is after here, is to pressure Mayor Adams, to pressure President Biden to reduce the flow into the country in the first place so New York doesn't have a state of emergency size influx and neither does Texas. Should the president do that? Is the president doing that in any way?

Kirsten Gillibrand: I think that's part of what he just announced. I haven't read all the details, but from what I read, there's a requirement that if you want to be one of these 24,000 eligible Venezuelan migrants, you need to file and do your request from Venezuela. You cannot do them from the United States, and that people will be sent back to Mexico. Mexico has agreed to take some of the Venezuelans who have come illegally into the country are now allowed to be sent back to Mexico. He's trying to create a good legal system that could work.

Brian Lehrer: DaVita in Manhattan has a question about the election campaign currently underway for control of the Senate and the house in the midterms. DaVita, you're on WNYC with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

DaVita: I want to thank you both for everything you're doing to get the truth out to people. I would like to encourage you, Senator Gillibrand, to please encourage your colleagues to talk about the deniers who were on the 2022 ballots, that they were on the same ballot in 2020 with Trump. If they are denying Biden's success, how come they are in Congress? They want--

Brian Lehrer: DaVita, I'm going to go. I hear you've got the delay feed going on in the background. Listeners, that's a tip for everybody who's calling the show. Once you get on, turn your radio off in the background so you don't hear that 10-second delay. Why do we have a 10-second delay? It's so if you say one of those words that the FCC doesn't let us say, we can hit the dump button, but Senator, you get the question.

Kirsten Gillibrand: I think the election deniers are a danger to our democracy, and they are spreading lies, hate, and division across this country, very destructive way. Many people are running against those candidates and hopefully the voters will see that denying what happened in the 2020 election is wrong. In fact, the January 6th commission is having a hearing today. It'll be their last and eighth hearing. They will be marshaling more evidence for the public to understand what happened on January 6th and who was responsible. I think that's helpful because truth is very important.

I think this election really is one for the ages because people have to be heard and we have to get our vote out and we have to make sure everyone votes with their conscience and votes what's right. I think it's going to be incumbent on candidates across the country to really explain who they are and why they're running and what they want to do to make a difference.

Brian Lehrer: How do you see the implications of who controls the Senate? What do you think would change the most if it flips?

Kirsten Gillibrand: I think if Mitch McConnell is the majority leader, first of all, he has said he will create a federal law banning access to reproductive freedom in this country. That is shocking.

Brian Lehrer: To be fair, he said he might.

Kirsten Gillibrand: Oh, he said he would. Did he say might or did he say would? Lindsey Graham said he would.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, Lindsey definitely said he would, and introduced one.

Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes, Lindsey Graham's bill basically is a ban on reproductive freedom, and it would be federal across all states. Having a federal ban is antithetical to people who believe in basic civil rights and civil liberties, people who believe in the right to privacy, people who believe in the right to reproductive freedom, life liberty, pursuit of happiness for 50% of the US population. It's a huge issue. Senator Schumer, as majority leader, has been so effective and helpful to New York and the whole country. He is, I think, the greatest majority leader when it comes to helping families.

The legislation he has marshaled in the last year to just help families recover from COVID has been extraordinary and almost all that bipartisan. He got through the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the bipartisan chips Act to invest in semiconductor manufacturing and AI and supercomputing. He passed our gun bill that I worked on on the trafficking legislation. That was something that New Yorkers need. We have less gun violence. Senator Schumer makes a huge difference and gets a lot done, and he's on the ballot. I hope people vote for Senator Schumer because he's pretty awesome.

Brian Lehrer: He's gotten so little publicity. The fact that Schumer is running for reelection, I guess he has only token Republican opposition. Looks like New York will very likely continue with Senator Chuck Schumer in the Senate. Will he remain majority leader? That's really what's at play right now. If the Republicans win a majority, will you go from being anti-filibuster to being pro filibuster, the 60% rather than 51% vote rule for most bills? Would you then start saying, "Hey, look, this protects minority rights, makes sure we have a real consensus"? Like sometimes people say about the filibuster rule. What's your position today, and how would that change if the Republicans win control?

Kirsten Gillibrand: My position has been that it's time to eliminate the filibuster because we are having civil rights destroyed left and right easily. People are being denied their constitutional right to vote in southern states and states across the country. We have lost our reproductive freedom because of a radical supreme court because Mitch McConnell stole a justice and then loaded the court up with ultra right-wing people who have a very stark religious agenda. I think that the reason to eliminate the filibuster is so that we can get basic things done.

The debate has been, if you eliminate the filibuster while you're in charge, you will not have the filibuster when you're not in charge, which really isn't great, because Mitch McConnell is as dastardly as you can imagine and will do lots of terrible things. I just think the current system isn't working. I've been in favor of filibuster reform for a long time. Maybe you can amend the filibuster for civil rights issues. Maybe you can do it for voting rights issues. There's lots of different ways to discuss it, but this current system isn't working, and basic things that we should be able to get done when we are in the majority aren't possible.

That's pretty dysfunctional. Will I hate it if Mitch McConnell's ever in charge and we don't have the filibuster? Absolutely. The reason why I'm for fixing it, at least now, is because we've not been able to pass meaningful legislation that's necessary to protect our democracy like voting rights. It's just a conundrum and it's not easy and it's not going to be great if Mitch McConnell's in charge. My job is to make sure we win the Senate and I'm working very hard for senate races across the country to make sure voters are fully informed and know who's running and why, and why these democratic candidates are better for their values and for the needs of their families and communities.

Brian Lehrer: We have 2 minutes left, time for one more listener question. This one comes from Twitter and goes back to the OPEC oil production cuts. Listener writes, many of our Republican neighbors are cheering on OPEC and Russia for making Democrats look weak. Let me frame that comment as a question to you this way. After President Biden had been so nice to Saudi Arabia's scandalized leader, MBS, giving him that fist bump and a photo op in July, remember that, despite the murder of the Saudi-American journalist Khashoggi from The Washington Post, and despite Biden affirming that Saudi is an important ally or country to have relations with, and now the Saudis are cutting production anyway, which really does help Russia in the war with Ukraine and make our inflation problem worse, and it humiliates the president.

What the heck are they doing? Biden has promised repercussions for Saudi Arabia in the last day or so. Do you have any that you recommend?

Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes. We have been such a good friend to Saudi Arabia over many, many years and I would not support selling any military weapons to Saudi Arabia under this, I would stop supporting them in the many ways we have supported them over the last decade. I think these are all things that President Biden will look at and decide what's the most effective way to express our displeasure. We have been helpful to them in many national security issues, in many military issues, and I think they have betrayed us in a way that is deeply damaging and has strengthened Russia while they attack Ukraine.

For Republicans to be happy about harming Ukrainians and empowering Russia, I think that's extremely negative and something that they should not be proud of. That is not who we are as a nation and they should not be cheering on our enemies.

Brian Lehrer: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, that's our Call Your Senator segment for October. Talk to you next month. Thanks so much, as always, senator, thank you, thank you.

Kirsten Gillibrand: Thank you very much, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.