[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. It's a day when Mark Meadows, White House Chief of Staff, on January 6th, who's now been referred for a criminal contempt of Congress charge for defying a subpoena, to say what he knew about coordination between the rioters and President Trump or his aides. Text messages from Meadows that were made public yesterday, have you heard this?

Include ones from three big Fox News hosts, asking Mark Meadows to get President Trump to call the rioters off. For example, Laura Ingraham wrote, "Mark, the President needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy." The New York Times notes, however, that on her show that night, Ingraham said no such thing and instead spread the false rumor that left-wing Antifa people were the rioters. She said, "Earlier today the Capitol was under siege by people who can only be described as antithetical to the MAGA movement."

Wow. If Chris Cuomo just got fired from his cable show, for advising his brother on his scandals while recusing himself from the topic on the air. What should happen to Laura Ingraham for advising Trump on his and then lying on her show to cover up for him? That's one story. Over in the senate, with the Christmas recess about to start, Democrats are still trying to get President Biden's human infrastructure bill, child care, elder care, pre-K, climate protections and other things passed past their needed hold out, Joe Manchin.

Reportedly, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has been trying to convince Manchin to support the paid family leave provision in the bill, which she's been very involved in crafting. Senator Gillibrand joins us now on that and more for our monthly Call Your Senator Segment. Hi, Senator Gillibrand, happy holidays. Welcome back to WNYC.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Thank you, how are you?

Brian Lehrer: I'm okay. Thank you and listeners from New York, if you have a question for Senator Gillibrand, or if you want to do some citizen lobbying, call your senator (212)-433 WNYC. You don't have to be from New York to call, anyone else can call too to (212)-433 WNYC 433-9692, or tweet @BrianLehrer. I see we have one tweet already coming in a question about Penn Station. We'll get to that.

Senator, if the report I read is accurate, how's it going with Joe Manchin and family leave?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: It's been a labor of love. [laughs] I started talking with Senator Manchin about five weeks ago. He's come a long way. In our first meeting, he didn't know a lot about paid leave, and now he not only understands what pay leave is and that it's for all family life events, whether it's a new child or a sick loved one or a dying parent. He also likes the structure that I originally wrote for the Family Act, which is an earned benefit that people would buy in across their lifetime.

He wants it to be sustainable, and he wants it to be there for everybody and portable. Those are all really good signs. What I'm working on right now is this idea that what the House passed was the start of paid leave. It was four weeks of a universal benefit for all workers, for all life events. I've tried to make the case to Senator Manchin that this is a great place to start because some states like his own state, West Virginia, may never have a governor that wants paid leave.

Many low-income workers or middle-income workers may never have an employer who's going to be willing to offer paid leave. No matter how many incentives are offered to employers, through the tax code, or how many incentives might be offered to governors to offer it, if you don't have those two willing participants, you may be out of luck. This is one moment in time where we have a democratic-only proposal to create universal leave for everyone.

That's an earned benefit; you have to work for at least a year to qualify. I'm suggesting to him this week that this is a chance. It's a moment in time that won't come around again for probably a long time that you can guarantee your low and middle-income workers at least four weeks. When their parent is dying, or when someone is disabled in their household or gravely ill or when a new child is welcomed into a home.

That that parent or that individual, that caregiver can have the opportunity to meet the need of that loved one for four weeks. Which you know, in your own life, Brian that can mean the difference of all the world to be with your parent before they pass, just before they pass. To be with a new infant, for a new mother to be able to nurse, to be able to walk again after childbirth. These are really important things and without paid leave a lot of workers don't have the vacation time or don't have the sick days to add up to any leave after these urgent life events.

I'm hoping to convince them that there is some things today that can only be done with Democrats. I think it's universality, and it's an earned benefit. There's no Republican that I've spoken to that wants a universal program or an earned benefit program. They're happy to support drying down early on Social Security or voluntary programs or tax credits, but not this one thing that the House put in their bill.

I'm going to hopefully meet with them this week for one last go. I'm hoping in the interim that a lot of people from West Virginia have talked to him; businesses, small businesses, parents, caregivers, that they've had a chance to make the case directly to him.

Brian Lehrer: What do you think? Are you going to get to Build Back Better bill passed before Christmas?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I'm hopeful. I always believe in Christmas miracles. I always believe the goodwill of the season has a special magic that brings people together and gives us the opportunity of getting things done. It's how we pass the first 911 Health bill. It's how we repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It was these Christmas miracles that make a difference, so I'm hopeful

Brian Lehrer: Is Senator Sinema, a yes now, and only Joe Manchin is not on board, or is it still both of them?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: It's my understanding that Senator Sinema has signed off on the framework in how we're paying for these bills. She put her work in on this early and I think she's in a good place, so I think it's really just Senator Manchin. It seems to me from the public statements, he said most recently, that he's just worried about making sure these bills are paid for and they are, and he wants to see the final text.

I think there's six main provisions in this bill and four are already, the ink is dry. I think there's two, there's still being written. One very importantly, being the part where paid leave, is in it. [laughs] I think they're still drafting that measure, and I think they're still drafting the green energy provisions, which are areas where Joe Manchin has strong opinions.

Brian Lehrer: A listener tweets, "Really, it's a good sign that she has to explain to a grown man, let alone a US senator what paid leave is. Oh, brother gross that we have to appeal to a man's ego to provide basic human rights." That's a tweet from one listener. Of course, we talk about Senator Manchin all the time. We don't talk as much about the Republicans, none of whom are going to vote for any version of this bill.

I was wondering on the climate provisions when something like the Kentucky tornadoes hit, and the officials there say it's the worst ever such event. 200 miles of one tornado being on the ground had never been seen there before. Meteorologists are saying there is no smoking gun that climate change contributed, but there is a lot of smoke. I saw a quote like that. In the context of increasing warmth in December, contributing to the conditions for it.

Last year also had a third more tornadoes there than the average for the 20 year period in the late '90s, and early '00s. Does Mitch McConnell, who represents Kentucky, just continue to tell his troops in the Senate to keep blocking climate bills?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: It's hard to fathom the unwillingness to see the facts for what they are because over 70 people have already lost their lives. They think the death toll is going to be in excess of 100. That is families destroyed, and this is just heartbreaking. We lived through it in our own state, Brian, when we saw all the different superstorms come through our state, and the death toll they left.

We had to do something to reverse these trends, we have to take global climate change seriously before it's irreversible. This bill has a chance to begin to do that. We have a chance of writing into legislation, the greatest investment in green energy, renewable fuels, energy efficiency, green housing, green buildings. Everything that changes the trajectory of this nation in the world, and we can put a price on carbon.

These are real implementable ideas that can be in this bill right now. I'm actually optimistic that we can do this demo only vote and propel this forward. I have not given up hope on that. I don't know why this is not shared, but if we do create this opportunity now, there are some things we can do on a bipartisan basis to build on it. There's lots of opportunities for energy efficiency, and supporting businesses that go green, and those things can be done on a bipartisan basis.

Brian Lehrer: Bruce in Yonkers has a Joe Manchin question, Bruce, you're on WNYC with Senator Gillibrand. Hi.

Bruce: Wow, surprised. Senator Gillibrand, one of the things that I've wondered about, first of all, I admire the fact that the Democrats--

Brian Lehrer: By the way, I just have to say, I love how people call into a talk show and then they're surprised when they get on. Bruce, go ahead. Sorry.

Bruce: I'm sorry. The Democrats have been very positive in the way they've approached this in trying to nurture their colleagues along and really develop a consensus. I think that's very admirable. In the old days though, there would be some implicit arm twisting going on, that if you don't go along, there's going to be a penalty to pay. It has always surprised me that the senator from [unintelligible 00:10:34] is the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee. The primary place where we're looking at issues of climate change. Is there a chance that Joe Manchin might lose his position as Chairman if he doesn't go along?

Brian Lehrer: That's an interesting question. He's chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Senator, is that what it's called?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes, Chairman of Energy and Natural Resources.

Brian Lehrer: I could look it up specifically.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes, Energy and Natural Resources. I don't think so. No. I don't think that's the name of the committee. Let me make sure, that's not right. We're looking at it right now.

Brian Lehrer: We'll look it up, too, but something like that, who makes those decisions?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I don't think Senator Manchin will lose his committee. The reason is this, we have a majority in the Senate because we were able to win states that President Trump won, and that includes West Virginia. If we don't focus on how we bring people together, holistically in a positive way, through convincing them that we're right, that our policy ideas are preferable and stronger and better ideas, then we just lose.

You have to have the better ideas, you have to have the weight of the argument. There's no amount of bullying or pressuring, or punishing you can do to someone who is really trying to just represent their state that is so different from our state. West Virginia is a red state, it supports President Trump, probably 8 out of 10 West Virginians support President Trump. They don't share our values.

If Senator Manchin doesn't feel like he can work within his own party, the Democratic Party, then he has no reason to be a Democrat. We want to nurture him, and we want to work with him, and we want to build him up, and listen to his views, and respect his views. Part of the benefit of the Senate is when you do listen to people with different viewpoints, oftentimes you improve your views, you improve outcomes, you find consensus that can bring other parts of the country along with you.

We're in a huge challenge right now where the whole nation is divided. It is better to work towards bringing people together than working towards pushing them apart even further for the good of the world, and for the good of our communities and our families. That's why it's important to just work together, find the common ground, build from there. Frankly, that's how you have to do legislation, it was bipartisan anyway. That should be our normal setting, fnding common ground, listening to one another, and building what we can.

Senator Manchin and I agree on a number of things.

We would love this to be a sustainable earned benefit that people buy into like social security. That's the ideal way to build this program. We're getting as close to that as we can, given the circumstances that we're in. That's why it is an earned benefit, where you have to work a certain amount before it even accrues to you. Long term, I'd love to build the program the way P&I want to build it, where it's exactly like social security, where everybody buys in across their lifetime, and that employers match it.

It's like social security, so no one can ever take it away from you. It doesn't matter who's president because something you bought in across your lifetime. It shouldn't be up to the whim of who's the president or whether they like paid leave or not, it should be a social safety net program, just like social security, so that when these family emergencies happen, a worker can always meet that emergency, because if they can't, they often have to quit.

When you quit your job, it's hard to get reemployed. It means time passes when you're not buying into social security. It weakens our social safety net, and it keeps people out of the workplace. Paid leave keeps people working. I think that's common ground. I want to build on that, and that's what I'm really trying to do right now. We support Senator Manchin because, without him, we don't have the majority and we don't have a governing 50 in the Senate to actually do all these things that our caller believes in, that I believe in, that our state needs.

We need to work together. I believe that's the best way.

Brian Lehrer: That committee that he chairs is called the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Just looked that up. Dan in Manhattan, you're on On WNYC with Senator Gillibrand. Hi, Dan.

Dan: Hey, how are you doing? Here's my question, Senator. What's more integral to human infrastructure than voting rights? I'm concerned of this issue that has been silenced and put on the backburner. As we've talked a lot on the show, if we don't have that, we lose the whole game. What's been done to keep that a priority? I'm going to take my answer off the air.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you, Dan.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Dan, you're exactly right. I promise you it is not on the back burner. We talk about voting rights every week in our caucus meeting. We've been working with Senator Manchin specifically on voting rights as another must-do by the end of the year. Again, we need his consent is something that he has to, want to have a rules change on, requires all 50 Democrats to vote, yes. This is something where we've listened to his concerns.

We let him draft the changes that he wants to support. He believed he could get Republican support. The only Republican he was able to convince was Lisa Murkowski. Obviously, that's not enough for 60. The thought of allowing time to pass and allowing these attempts to go forward over and over and over again, without Republican support, I think demonstrates effectively that we need to do this now with Democratic only support.

Hopefully, that will be something that Senator Manchin will agree with at some point, maybe by the end of the year, maybe in the new year, but we need his support. We're ready. We're using a lot of our goodwill and a lot of our best advocacy to get that full 50 votes towards amending the rules to protect voting rights with a 50 vote threshold. You have to amend the filibuster rule to do it, and I fully support that.

Brian Lehrer: In the intro, I mentioned the Mark Meadows subpoena and Laura Ingraham to Meadows text message news items. I know you're not specifically on a January 6th committee, but one way to look at the coming next few elections is whether rejection of real results and even pro-Republican violence are really the biggest threats to the people right now. Yes?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I think it's a serious concern. I think these hearings that the house is doing, and this investigation is vital and extremely important. The text messages that were revealed from Mark Meadows are deeply disturbing. The question you asked about various Fox News hosts and what penalty they should pay for lying to the American people on television. I think it's a serious question. I hope that it is asked, and I hope the American people demand an answer.

Brian Lehrer: You're hoping that the filibuster can be suspended just for this issue, is that what you were saying a minute ago?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes, I think that is a fair compromise, to meet the needs of Senator Manchin who does not want to amend the filibuster, but asking him amended for this one thing, because we've tried and failed to do it a lot of bipartisan basis. We've demonstrated in good faith that we've tried and failed to do it on a bipartisan basis. There is no way and without protecting voting rights, you have no democracy. It's fundamental just as your caller said it's fundamental to the infrastructure of our whole country.

If you don't have a democracy, and you can't protect our democracy from the whims of an elected official who says, "I should be able to overturn any election results I want just because I said so," that needs protection. We have to do everything we can to strengthen and support voting rights in every respect. I fully support amending the Voting Rights Act. I fully support amending the filibuster to do that. I also support amending the filibuster to do a lot of other urgent issues like immigration reform and stopping gun violence and several other things, but given that, this is a question for Senator Manchin, Senator Sinema who oppose amending the filibuster.

If the compromise ends up amended for one thing, I think voting rights is the highest priority at this point.

Brian Lehrer: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand with us in a monthly Call Your Senator Segment. We could also call it Tweet Your Senator. Here's a tweet that I mentioned at the top I would ask you about. "Please ask Senator Gillibrand, if she supports the Penn Station neighborhood destruction plan," as this listener calls it? They write, "We need a new Penn Station, not a new neighborhood. Thanks." Is this something that you as a senator would even weigh in on or is that more for state and city officials?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I might weigh in on it, but I would need to know a lot more about what the caller is talking about, but I do know we need a new Penn Station for sure. It needs to be improved and upgraded and the facilities need investment, that is for certain. Based on what the caller says, "I would question why would you need to destroy neighborhoods." I will definitely look into it and I'll see what's happening on the ground and try to see if my help is needed there. Thank you, caller, for raising the issue to me.

Brian Lehrer: I want to ask you about another issue that I know you've been heavily involved with and we've talked about a lot when you've come on. Military justice reform. This year's big defense authorization bill has passed, and from what I read, your provisions to deal more honestly with commanders' conflict of interest in sexual assault and other military conduct issues, were taken out of the bill behind closed doors. Can you give us an update?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes, this is very disappointing. Obviously, I've been working on military justice reform for a very long time for the past eight years. Based on survivors' stories and the desires and the hopes of constitutional experts and military justice experts, what we wanted to do was remove all serious crimes, excluding military crimes from the chain of command, and give the decision-making about whether those crimes need to be pursued and brought to court-martial, give those decisions to trained military prosecutors independent of the chain of command.

We wanted to do this bright line at all serious crimes, at felonies, and that was our bill, essentially. What the DoD did was try to limit that change to just a couple of crimes. They just wanted for sexual assault and a couple of related crimes. They wanted this independent prosecutor to only retain some authority, just the authority to decide whether to prosecute, but a lot of the other authority that rests with the commander stayed with the commander.

The Commander is designated the convening authority. It's a term of art in the military that designates authorities such as pretrial restraint, separation authority, preliminary inquiry, the ability to actually convene the court-martial, preliminary hearings, choosing members of the jury panels, order depositions, and many other privileges like granting immunity, granting clemency. Anyway, unfortunately, the DoD got its way. Even though we got these independent prosecutors put in the House Bill, that winded up being the final bill, they are not entirely independent of the chain of command, because the convening authority is still resting with the commander.

The independent prosecutor gets one decision point; they get to decide whether to prosecute, and that's it. All these other rights and privileges that I mentioned, still rest with the commander. The thing that's disturbing is that, from the perspective of a survivor, he or she may not believe that this new independent prosecutor, despite that label independent and despite that its decision can't be changed by the commander, without all these other authorities, they may not be perceived as independent.

I don't know if, under these changes, then more will report. Only about a third of survivors report these crimes. I don't know if the number of cases that end in retaliation will change. I don't know if the percentage of cases that will end in conviction will change. We'll see. It's a disappointment and it's one that the DoD orchestrated very intentionally to make sure that the status quo was maintained and that commanders retained their authority.

Brian Lehrer: What is that do you think? Is it as simple as the patriarchy of these mostly male commanders blatantly protecting these mostly male accused who they see as their brothers or is it more subtle than that?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I don't know. I'm not sure. I think they like to have control. It's about control. They're not trained. [unintelligible 00:24:15] is not lawyers. They're not prosecutors, and they're not independent. Survivors believe that justice isn't possible is a perception issue. Unfortunately, on the opposite side, from the defendants' right side, many Black and Brown service members believe that they also don't get a fair shake if they are a defendant. They also perceive bias in the military.

You've got perception of bias by both plaintiffs and defendants in different cases. The whole benefit of this bright-line reform was that you might have fixed the whole system, you might have just put in place something that put independent prosecutors in place that are highly trained. That would have given the opportunity to remove bias. It might have created justice for plaintiffs and defendants. It might have created a more professional system for everybody.

That's why we pushed so hard for it. That's why it's so disappointing that the DoD just couldn't let go, and they just couldn't let go of command authority and just couldn't give the convening authority to these new independent prosecutors. It's just a shame. It was a moment in time where we had all the support we needed. We had 66 senators, we had 220 House members, a majority of both sides. We had every veterans group endorsing it. We had 29 attorneys general, we had Speaker Pelosi, we had leader Schumer, we even had Minority Leader McConnell. We had everybody supporting this bill. Again, for the chairman [unintelligible 00:25:55], for the Senate Armed Services Committee in the House, Armed Services Committee to exert their will. Which was really the DoD preference over all these other areas of support just was very disappointing.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a COVID-related question for you from Rachel in Manhattan. Rachel, you're on WNYC with Senator Gillibrand. Hi.

Rachel: Good morning. Hi, Brian. Hi, Senator Gillibrand. Can you all hear me?

Brian Lehrer: We can hear you just fine.

Rachel: Great. My question is about disability leave. I, during the pandemic, held two essential jobs; I worked in a grocery store and worked as a special education teacher. I got COVID a year ago in December of 2020 and had partial unemployment during my recovery. Then my jobs ended and I continue to have long COVID symptoms, so I'm not eligible to collect unemployment and I believe I've also missed the window for disability payments.

I was wondering if there's any thoughts or plans about how to support the millions of Americans who are suffering from long COVID and unemployed and unable to seek employment. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Senator?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I think that you are eligible for disability. We're happy to work on your behalf to inquire with the federal government what you're eligible for. If you'd like our support, we can get your name and phone number offline after this call. I would imagine you are eligible for disability. If you are, then you're eligible for social security benefits, and you're also eligible for Medicaid benefits.

Brian Lehrer: Rachel, that may be good news for you. Hang on, we'll take your contact information off the air. Senator Gillibrand, thank you for offering that help for her. Listeners who are interested in this topic, Rachel and anyone else, we are planning a long COVID-specific segment for tomorrow's show. We don't have this nailed down yet so I can't say for sure it will be tomorrow, but we know there are so many of you out there dealing with long COVID now that for some of you, by this point in the pandemic, is very long. We're going to do a long COVID segment, specifically, probably on tomorrow's show.

Another COVID-related question. Josh says he's in a hospital bed in Northern Manhattan. Josh, you're on WNYC with the senator.

Josh: Thank you. Good morning to both of you. Senator, you were speaking about the need for bipartisanship. I would like to see you extend that to an area that the Democrats have completely failed to support, which I think consequentially is going to result in their loss of a number of seats in purple states, which will cost them control over Congress in 2022. I'm referring to a bill that has been introduced by numerous Republican senators and Republican House members called the Natural Immunity Act, which would exempt the millions of COVID recoverees like myself, which I may be the reason that I'm in this hospital bed, from the further indignity of having to either have a vaccine mandate or be considered a social pariah.

I would like to know whether you will support that bill, because when I spoke to you on the sidewalk of 181st Street, in front of Congressman Espaillat's office, and you told me that you agreed that natural immunity should be considered equivalent to vaccine immunity, I held out some hope that you would take leadership on this matter.

Brian Lehrer: Josh, let me ask you a medical science question first and then of course we'll get the Senator to respond, but my understanding and we're going to have a COVID-related expert on next. Maybe I'll get to ask her this question. My understanding is the immunity from having had COVID generally lasts a number of months. We are learning that the immunity from the vaccine in many or most cases depending on your age and other things last a number of months, and then Wayne's, why if that's the case would you so resist a vaccine mandate after a period of time?

Wayne: Let me answer that both scientifically and personally. I have had four positive antibody tests over the past 16 months. My immunity has lasted longer than nearly anybody on the planet who has had a vaccine. Now scientifically recent studies in Israel, in Qatar, and there are now more than 100 studies and I can send you the links to them that indicate that natural immunity is considered at least as equivalent as vaccine immunity. In fact, some believe that it is more durable, robust, and long-lasting.

Brian Lehrer: I'm not sure that's the scientific consensus but we will ask a scientist. I'm just not sure that it's factually accurate. It's also questionable what these commercially available antibody tests really measure. I'm just putting those other scientific points of view on that on the table, but Josh I hear you and Senator do you respond to him?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes. Thank you for calling in. I remember our conversation well so I am also very very concerned and worried about the lack of knowledge that we have about science and the issues of this immunity that we the common sense is, of course, you've had it. You may us to have some immunity but unfortunately, the cases that we keep hearing is that all these breakthrough cases, people have had it and are getting it twice.

Then with Omicron and Delta they're getting it again and the breakthrough cases I keep hearing. Again people have already had it and they're getting it again or they've been had a vaccine and they're getting it again. All I can tell you is what the scientists tell me. The scientists say wear masks, get vaccines, get your booster because it saves lives. All I can tell you is what the scientists tell me is, is what we know, is the safest protocol.

What you said Brian is also very thoughtful. The fact that we don't, we need far more research done because again what is the test that you're taking telling you in terms of what your immunity is? What do those antibodies tests tell you? Do you people with antibodies still get COVID? That's the question and I think the answer's probably yes. I think this COVID that we have been dealing with the fact that there are so many variants and that the variants have changed how infectious it is.

Omicron we now know that it is or infectious than Delta. It's a problem and so I would just trust the scientists and I am not one. I would just stick to anyone listening to just get vaccinated, get your booster, get your kids vaccinated, and wear masks and continue to do the protocols that the scientists and the doctors are telling us to do because they're the ones who know best and politicians certainly don't and that's the best I can offer because that's the best I can do.

Brian Lehrer: Our next guest in exactly two minutes is going to be an actual human virologist Dr. Brianne Barker. We will talk about this and many other things with her but one last thing for you Senator and on a lighter note I think it's a lighter note unless it becomes interplanetary war existential threat stuff, but for now maybe a lighter note I see the Senate did include your amendment to study identify unidentified aerial phenomena in the defense authorization builder.

Does that mean you think we've been visited by distant beings?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Finally you picked a non-controversial topic. Thank you, Brian.

[laughter]

This amendment is very exciting and one that I'm very very very excited about where working on. Unidentified aerial phenomenon or as the kids to call it UFOs. We in the defense committee, as well as the Intel committee, have been getting some reports over some years that are not very thorough and they're inadequate in my opinion about when service members particularly our pilots, our air force pilots, and our Naval pilots, have witnessed some aerial phenomenon that they have lots of sensors and detectors to actually document. Whether they're documenting through video, or heat sensors, or radar, they're able to document it.

Then we don't- we aren't able to actually identify it. We don't know what it is. We don't know if it's some light or usually we can identify these things as oh it's a weather balloon, or oh it's a drone or oh it's an aircraft. We can figure it out. Or it's just the way the light hit the water in this place here. We usually can figure it out but there's been instances in the past five years where we can't figure it out. The DOD publisher report publicly I think in June that said was something like 150 things they couldn't identify.

I am the chair of the personnel subcommittee and the one thing I really don't like is that when a service member comes forward and shows what they saw that they're denigrated in some way. That they're disbelieved in some way, or they're doubted or they're made fun of, or somehow their reputation is harmed. That's unacceptable to me. We ask our airmen to report anything they see that's out of the ordinary because we need to know where threats are especially from adversaries.

We want to know if there's Chinese technology or Russian technology that we're unaware of. We need to know what they're developing. We need to know everything. This is what we need to do to protect our country. I asked for this amendment and some very thoughtful people helped me write it and it creates a new section, a new area within the DOD that is going to collect and analyze the data into a central repository.

This office will supervise the development and execution of a real intelligence collection and analysis of these sightings and of this unidentified aerial phenomenon and will be able to better understand what are the technical and scientific characteristics to help us assess what they are, and to be able to put them in categories. This is likely technology from an adversary or it's truly unknown. We just need to know which buckets they go in and should be able to create a pathway for people to be able to report this information. There's also information that's publicly available.

There's information through FAA, there's information through the scientific community, and all of that information needs to be collected and garnered into one place. Then we can build a national framework to create priorities for analyzing and assessing and that's what it is. It's going to be fun. It's going to be interesting, and it's something that certainly my kids think is cool so I can and at least get a favorable mom award once in a while.

Brian Lehrer: I hear these things may be more likely from Shanghai than from Saturn but nevertheless a point of rare non-controversial consensus as you said. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, we always appreciate when you come on with us look forward to talking with you next month. Merry Christmas and happy new year.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Thank you. You be well, be safe and I'll see you soon. God bless.

 

Copyright © 2021 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.