[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. It is not every day that a president or any politician describes an issue as dramatically as dividing all that came before from everything that followed or that stopped time, but that's what President Biden did yesterday in his speech in Atlanta about voting rights and the filibuster.

President Joe Biden: In our lives and the life of our nation, there are moments so stark that they divide all that came before from everything that followed. They stop time. They rip away the trivial from the essential and they force us to confront hard truths about ourselves, about our institutions, and about our democracy. In the words of Scripture, they remind us to "hate evil, love good, and establish justice in the gate."

Brian: We'll play a few more clips as we go today. Here are two more for now. This one is specifically about Donald Trump.

President Biden: The goal of the former president and his allies is to disenfranchise anyone who votes against them. Simple as that.

Brian: This one puts that one in historical context as Biden sees this moment.

President Biden: I ask every elected official in America, how do you want to be remembered? At consequential moments in history, they present a choice. Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?

Brian: Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis, President Biden from yesterday's speech. We've got more of that yet to play. The President is putting the pressure on right now to try to convince either Joe Manchin or a few Republicans to help enact the new voting rights law by Martin Luther King Day next Monday. With us now is Democratic Congressman Mondaire Jones. His district includes all of Rockland County and part of Central and Northern Westchester. You can think of him as the congressman from the Tappan Zee Bridge and the communities on either side.

Congressman Jones is a freshman in his first term, grew up in Section 8 housing in Spring Valley in Rockland, attended the East Ramapo public schools and, eventually, Harvard Law School. He has also worked for the US Justice Department and has been calling on President Biden to endorse ending the filibuster for voting rights legislation, which is what Biden finally did clearly yesterday, though not clearly enough for some voting rights activists who boycotted the speech. We'll get into all that. Congressman Jones, always good to have you on. Welcome back to WNYC.

Congressman Mondaire Jones: Likewise, Brian. It's a pleasure as always. Happy New Year.

Brian: Happy New Year to you. Tell us what you've been calling on President Biden to do and, if your view, he did it yesterday in that speech.

Congressman Jones: Well, we are at a precipice as it concerns American democracy and what used to be non-controversial. Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and other voting rights legislation is now opposed unanimously by my Republican colleagues in Congress. What we have to do, especially given the slim majorities that we have in Congress right now as the only major political party and supportive American democracy today, is to make changes to the filibuster.

I was the first member of Congress early last year to call on the President to take a public position in support of reforming the filibuster for no other reason, then at least for the purpose of passing voting rights legislation. He very forcefully did that yesterday. I thought his speech was eloquent and I thought it was impassioned and, more importantly, I thought it was the right thing to do given the unprecedented crisis facing our democracy today.

Brian: I saw that several Georgia-based voting rights groups, and, of course, the speech was in Georgia, boycotted the speech because they said despite strong language, it would be basically just to photo-op without a clear plan to get at least the John Lewis voting rights bill passed. There are also two others. Did you hear a clear plan?

Congressman Jones: I think we heard the President for the first time explicitly endorse changes to the filibuster for the purpose of passing voting rights legislation. I certainly understand and empathize with the frustration of the activist community. I've worked very closely with them in getting the President to this point. I understand the frustration that it took so long to get him to this point. I think that we would've benefited from an earlier endorsement from the White House, but here we are and we are approaching the Martin Luther King holiday.

We have got to do what it takes, given the limited opportunity that we have to protect the right to vote, which faces its greatest test since Jim Crow. We saw, I think, the opening act on January 6th of last year through this perpetuation, this push of the big lie of mass voter fraud, which, of course, my Republican colleagues can never actually substantiate and was never, in fact, meant to be substantiated. It was always meant as a pretext to enact the kind of racist voter suppression that we see in places like Georgia and Florida, Texas, and Arizona, where I will be this weekend.

Brian: Let me follow up on that. If I had one of those Georgia activists here, I would ask them this, which is, can there even be a clear plan to get new voting rights legislation by Martin Luther King Day or anytime else in the near future? Ultimately, if they don't have the votes in the Senate, which as of now they don't, they don't have the votes.

Congressman Jones: Well, the reason why I wanted the President to take a public position on this is because he has to use his bully pulpit and the resources available to him, particularly in negotiation with the remaining two democratic holdouts on the question of voting rights and whether we will make an exception to the filibuster for voting rights. This is what he is doing. He is elevating this issue in the public consciousness. He is applying public pressure.

It is already the case that folks in Arizona and West Virginia are supportive of common sense voting rights legislation, which as I mentioned, used to be non-controversial until, unfortunately, a few years ago. I think he's doing precisely what he needs to be doing. Again, we can have a discussion about whether he should have done it sooner than yesterday, but here we are. We've got to take advantage of this opportunity and continue to work very closely with the White House and, of course, members of Congress and Majority Leader Schumer, who's been doing great work and calling for a vote on this by the MLK holiday this upcoming Monday.

Brian: Schumer says that he's calling for a vote by Monday even if it's going to fail to put everyone on the record. Is that how you understand his strategy? If so, do you think it has value if, in fact, it does fail?

Congressman Jones: I think that's not the end of the strategy. There's reporting that nine Democratic senators who span the ideological spectrum within the party are meeting with Joe Manchin today to make a case. There are a lot of moving pieces. I mentioned to you, I'm going to be in Arizona this upcoming weekend rallying and organizing alongside the family of Martin Luther King and groups like Indivisible and so many others to make sure that the people of Arizona understand that their senator, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, is a remaining obstacle to saving American democracy.

This is an all-hands-on-deck moment. I know that the American people are frustrated that this is the most common thing that comes up in my conversation with my constituents in New York is, what's happening to democracy? Why is it on the decline? Isn't there something that the Senate can do to save it before it's too late, before the party that incited an insurrection at the Capitol disenfranchises their way back into power and goes on not to certify the next presidential election if they disagree ideologically with the outcome of that election?

Brian: Listeners, we welcome your reactions to President Biden's speech yesterday or any questions for Congressman Mondaire Jones of Westchester and Rockland, 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or tweet @BrianLehrer. I want to play a clip of Biden from years ago when he was a senator, explicitly defending the filibuster as a force for good in this country. This is from 2005. Here it is.

President Biden: At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it's about compromise and moderation. That's why the founders put unlimited debate in. That's what it's about, engendering compromise and moderation.

Brian: Compromise and moderation, but here is Biden yesterday calling for an end to the filibuster for voting rights legislation, explaining a little of why he's changed. I think we're going to have that clip in a minute about why Biden changed. We don't have it at the moment. He said it used to be used for compromise and moderation. Now, it's just being used to block progress, but does that hang together for you? Because Republicans are saying Biden has changed his position because it's now to his party's advantage? In 2005, they didn't have the Senate.

Congressman Jones: Well, let me make a few observations, Brian. First, in 2006, the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized unanimously by the Senate, 98-0. When does that ever happen? In the House, it was reauthorized nearly unanimously. I think I had just graduated high school and I marched in Washington, DC, with the NAACP to get the Voting Rights Act reauthorized, but so much has changed over the past 15 or so years. We have seen one major political party completely opposed voting rights.

Not a single one of my Republican colleagues voted for the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in the middle of last year and not a single Republican in Congress supports the Freedom to Vote Act, which really is a compromised bill. It's a scaled-down version of For the People Act, also known as HR1, but still required to prevent things like election subversion, this new phenomenon where non-partisan election officials are being replaced by partisan hacks who are pledging not to certify elections whose ideological outcomes they disagree with, amongst so many other things.

It's a different time. Of course, you're also talking to someone who was never a fan of the filibuster. This is a relic of the Jim Crow era. It is of accidental origins. It's nowhere in the Constitution and it blocks what most Americans want, which is majoritarian government. We've seen it weaponized against civil rights legislation during the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century. We are seeing it being done precisely for that purpose today as we seek to restore and to protect the right to vote, which, as I mentioned, faces its greatest assault, its greatest test since the Jim Crow era.

Brian: Let's take a phone call. Here's Dan in Flatbush. Dan, you're on WNYC with Congressman Mondaire Jones. Hello.

Dan: Hey, good morning. My question is, why isn't Biden using his power to push any legislation through executive order? That's a power that the President has and, yes, the Republicans are going for a counter-majoritarian strategy, but like we're in power right now. "We," meaning the Democrats. Why not just push this through an executive order?

Congressman Jones: It's a great question and there's a lot that the President can do through executive action. The progressive caucus has come up with a long list of priorities. As you may know, I'm in leadership. I've been calling on the President to deal with the issue of student debt, but the fact is the voting rights legislation that we are pushing overwhelmingly cannot be done by executive action. It takes an act of the federal legislature to accomplish and for good reason. We don't live in an autocracy for the time being where the president can do whatever he or she wants.

Whether it's automatic voter registration or same-day voter registration, whether it's national standards for early voting and voting by mail, whether it's dealing with the issue of election subversion, which I referred to earlier, or whether it's creating or restoring what was a preclearance provision in the Voting Right Act before the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, gutted it in 2013 in a decision called Shelby v. Holder. These are things that require legislative action that the President cannot do on his own, unfortunately.

Brian: We're going to take a brief break here, but when we come back, I want to ask you a follow-up question about what you just said. I'm going to ask you to put on your Harvard Law School grad hat and your former US Justice Department official hat and talk about these new voting laws in Georgia and Texas, and whether they can be challenged in federal court as discriminatory if they really are discriminatory even without that preclearance provision that the Supreme Court threw out. Listeners, we'll take some more calls for Congressman Mondaire Jones as well, 212-433-WNYC, or tweet your question @BrianLehrer. So much more to do. Stay with us.

[music]

President Biden: The filibuster has been used to generate compromise in the past and promote some bipartisanship, but it’s also been used to obstruct-- including and especially obstruct civil rights and voting rights.

Brian: There's that clip of President Biden talking about his change of perspective on the filibuster and how he thinks it's being used today compared to in the past as we continue to talk about his dramatic speech yesterday. More clips to come during the program and talk to Mondaire Jones, freshman Democrat from Westchester and Rockland in New York, either side of the Mario Cuomo Tappan Zee Bridge, you might say, and a Harvard Law School grad and former US Justice Department official and take your calls.

Congressman, as I said before the break, I'm going to ask you to put on your Harvard Law School grad and former US Justice Department official hat and tell us, can the new voting laws be challenged in federal court as discriminatory even without the automatic requirement for preclearance by the Justice Department, which is what the Supreme Court overturned in 2013?

Congressman Jones: Well, let me just start by providing some context for how we got to this point. The original Voting Rights Act 1965 up until 2013 when it was gutted by Chief Justice Roberts in the conservative majority on the court used to require states and local jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory behavior in the voting context to undergo what's called preclearance. They would have to get approval. Literally, their behavior had been so bad that they had to get approval before any proposed new laws went into effect. That was gutted in 2013.

What remained really was Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which says that a state or a local jurisdiction cannot enact a voting law that has a disparate burden on communities of color. What the Supreme Court did now, and even more conservative majority than the one that struck down the preclearance provisions in 2013 on July 1st of last year in a decision called Brnovich v. DNC, it's a case out of Arizona, gutted even further what it meant to have a disparate impact on communities of color. This is a court that has serially weakened the Voting Rights Act.

In fact, in response to that Brnovich decision, Ruben Gallego and I authored what's called the Inclusive Elections Act, which would restore Section 2 to its original meaning and give it its full strength. Yes, you can challenge these laws in court, but the Supreme Court in decision after decision has made it very difficult to prove the discrimination that plaintiffs used to be able to prove, which is why we need a full restoration of the Voting Rights Act in the form of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. We also need to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, which contains a lot of the things that I previously mentioned.

Brian: We'll get into a few of the specific provisions of those bills, but Republicans argue this whole push is just for partisan electoral advantage by the Democrats. Otherwise, you wouldn't be doing it. Let me ask you to critique the Georgia voting rights law. I shouldn't say "voting rights law," the new voting law, which Democrats certainly see as a voting suppression law that caused the President to give his speech in Georgia in the first place yesterday.

The Republican governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, who did hold the line against Donald Trump's lie about the election being stolen in his state when Trump was trying to flip it, now says the new Georgia law makes voting easier but cheating harder. I'm curious if you have a take on the Georgia law specifically, which has been such a focal point that Major League Baseball moved the All-Star Game out of Atlanta and out of the state last year and, again, one of the reasons Biden gave his speech yesterday in Atlanta.

Congressman Jones: I have to address this. It is just not the case that this is being done for partisan electoral advantage. If that were true, why is it that Republicans in 2006 voted to reauthorize the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, as I mentioned, unanim-- excuse me, the original Voting Rights Act unanimously in the Senate and nearly unanimously in the House? What has changed is that the party has become more extreme.

There is no evidence of mass voter fraud. That is well-established. The Republican judges have tossed out those claims, including judges appointed by Donald Trump himself. I just want to be very clear about that. This is not about making it more secure. This is about disenfranchising people of color and lower-income individuals. Of course, persons with disabilities also tend to be adversely impacted when you enact these laws as well.

The Georgia law has probably gotten the most attention. It's terrible for a variety of reasons. I think that, most famously, you can't even give out water or food to people who are waiting in line for hours. This and so much more is meant to make it incredibly difficult. By "more," I mean closing down polling locations, so having people drive in some instance is hundreds of miles if you look at some of these laws in the different states, ending or reducing the period for early voting and voting by mail.

In Florida, you've got modern-day poll taxes. I kid you not. Literal poll taxes for people who formerly were incarcerated and, in theory, have their rights to vote restored to them but who have to pay a fee in order to be able to access the ballot. This is the kind of stuff that used to be prohibited by the Voting Rights Act. Because of the way that this Voting Rights Act today has been gutted by the hyperpartisan, now, 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which is hostile to democracy itself and which has never struck down a voting rights law as unconstitutional.

This is where we are. This is a crisis of democracy. We have got to do what we can as Democrats while we still have the ability to protect the right to vote. In a democracy, there should be no fear of eligible citizens just expressing their views at the ballot box and let the winner to take office, but you shouldn't try to distort the outcome by disenfranchising entire swabs of the American electorate.

Brian: It's interesting that Kemp as governor of Georgia stood by the validity of the presidential election results there, but now says they need to make voting harder in order to make sure there's no cheating. That's just an interesting contradiction that I think is worth pointing out. Let's take another phone call. Anne in Long Branch, you're on WNYC with Congressman Mondaire Jones. Hello, Anne.

Anne: Hi, I wanted to know if the extreme gerrymandering is addressed by the two voting rights bills currently in Congress. If not, why not and can they be addressed? I really didn't get an answer from your guest as to whether the Supreme Court will strike these two voting rights bills again even if they were passed. What's going to prevent them from striking them? Thanks.

Brian: Thank you. Go ahead, Congressman. On the gerrymandering, I'm curious. Your thoughts on that.

Congressman Jones: The gerrymandering is out of control in this country and the Freedom to Vote Act would end partisan gerrymandering as we know it. It contains a provision that would make sure that districts are drawn fairly. By the way, the result of fairly drawn districts will be that QAnon conspiracy theorists are far less likely to coast to victory in general election contests simply because they've prevailed in their Republican primaries.

That is a distortion of our democracy. The result will be that you'll get fewer people in Congress who are calling for violence against other elected officials and really lying about vaccines and masks and, otherwise, just not representing the people in their respective districts. I appreciate that the partisan gerrymandering issue is being addressed in the Freedom to Vote Act, which, again, Joe Manchin has co-sponsored in which we now have to get over the finish line. With respect to the Supreme Court, I have been more critical of this court than any member of Congress.

I do not take for granted that the Supreme Court would, as it is currently constituted with a 6-3 majority, uphold the John Lewis Voting Rights Act because it was Justice Roberts who struck down the last preclearance provision. Now, what he said in his opinion in Shelby in 2013 was that the preclearance provision was outdated. What we've done as a Congress is we've updated it, including with evidence of modern-day voter suppression. It should be something that the court will uphold, but I do not take for granted that it will. The Freedom to Vote Act, I think, is far more likely to be met with a positive reception by the court.

When you look at things like automatic and same-day voter registration, as I mentioned, early voting standards and vote-by-mail standards, the opt-in campaign finance reforms that the states would be able to do, dealing with the issue of election subversion so that, moving forward, if you're going to remove a non-partisan election official, it has to be for cause. These are things that are very squarely pursuant to the election's flaws and the Constitution, which Congress can invoke. This is something that I think would be far more likely to be upheld, but both are constitutional to be very clear.

Brian: That's the one, the Freedom to Vote Act. It's not the John Lewis bill, but the Freedom to Vote Act is the one that Joe Manchin is supporting, right?

Congressman Jones: That's correct and Joe Manchin has also expressed support for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. We need to pass both of these bills. It's not either/or. It's both, "and."

Brian: The Republicans say the Freedom to Vote Act does too much to nationalize election rules when, traditionally, they are up to the states. It would, besides the things that you listed, I believe, guarantee a right to a mail-in vote, make election day a holiday, so a day-off from work to make it easier to vote in-person, have same-day registration, which a lot of states do not have, including New York, restoring the right of felons to vote after they've served their sentences, which some states do and some states do not.

To Democrats, these all sound like very reasonable protections. To Republicans, these all sound like things that tend to bring more Democrats to the polls in-person or by mail. What do you say back to the Republicans who say, "Look, like these things or not, voting rules like these have always been up to the states"?

Congressman Jones: Well, we heard states' rights arguments during the Jim Crow era, which has seen a resurgence in recent years. I think it's very clear that states like Georgia and Florida and Texas and Arizona and in other states where this is being attempted are states whose leadership cannot be trusted, whose leadership is trying to remain in power through disenfranchisement which, in addition to being un-American, is not something that happens in a true democracy.

Let me just say this. We haven't had a democracy for the entirety of this country. We first had a democracy when the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. That is when multiracial democracy began. Since the Voting Rights Act was gutted in 2013, that is what has allowed this new wave of racist voter suppression to go into effect. The Supreme Court has been an accomplice. Now, we've got to restore the right to vote. We've got to ensure that we perfect this union and that we have a true multiracial democracy before it is too late.

Brian: Bryan in Randolph, New Jersey, pushing back on some of the things you've been saying. Brian, you're on WNYC. Thank you so much for calling in.

Bryan: Hi. Good morning, Brian. Thanks for taking my call. Good morning, Congressman.

Congressman Jones: Good morning.

Bryan: Listen, I support democratic policies. I really do. My concern though is that with every election since I can remember and I can remember back to participating in 2000, I guess, every election, the fate of democracy is on the line. It's the end of democracy. It's going to end with the election of our lifetimes. It comes from both sides, but it's just not true. It's sensationalism. It's exaggeration. This is democracy.

To have a Congressman talk about the Supreme Court as if it's an accomplice, that sounds undemocratic to me. If sometimes we don't get our way, sometimes generations don't get our way, that's what democracy means. I'm not really against the plan to revise the filibuster, but I just wish the rhetoric-- and I blame the media, I guess, as well. It's not just Democrats, but somebody has to be an adult and speak the truth.

Democracy is ugly. It's messy and people lose. I just think the messaging behind this and the messaging from the Democrats for the past 22 years has been such a fatalistic, pessimistic-- It doesn't inspire hope or faith. It doesn't make me want to run to the voting box or support Democratic candidates. It makes me afraid of this country. It makes me want to leave. I'm tired of it. That's all I had to say. Thank you for taking my call. I wish you all well. I'll take whatever comments you want to make off the line. Thank you, everyone.

Brian: Bryan, thank you very much. I'm going to take one more like that, that I think makes a similar point. Hossan in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hello, Hossan. Am I saying your name right?

Hossan: Yes, you pronounced right. Brian, good morning. This is my fourth call to you. Thank you very much for taking my phone call. I haven't been gone through your screener for almost two years. I am suggesting to your congressperson with all due respect, I'm agreeing with the last caller. Nebraska used to be blue. Missouri used to be blue. Mississippi used to be purple. Instead of going to Arizona, go to Nebraska, go to Missouri, go to Mississippi.

Farmers love Democrats because we help them. The last caller was right. Democrats, always, they talk about note. New York is not the United States, sir. New Jersey is not the United States. People in Nebraska, they have other rules. People in Arizona, they have other needs. We live in the United States. We live in a society that is republic and we have to trust this republic. We have to stand behind this republic rather than saying "Oh, Supreme Court is 6-3."

Actually, Justice Robert is the best chief justice has ever been. Yes, he may not work in our favor sometimes, but we have to look where we are wrong. How did we lose Nebraska? How did we lose Missouri? How did we lose Mississippi? We should concentrate on those things rather than going to the battleground like Florida. Florida is running by idiot that is a graduate from Harvard and Yale. I don't know whether Harvard and Yale anymore are giving good degrees.

He is a governor that graduated from the same school that your guest has been graduated. Brian, I am so upset at all sides, which I'm a Socialist Democrat like the congressperson. Tired of their nonsense, tired of insulting our Supreme Court. The reason we lost it, because we didn't spend time in Nebraska. We didn't time spend in Missouri. We always talk about our backyard. We forget leaving the United States. God bless you. God bless your screener. God bless congressperson. Be safe and be healthy during this pandemic and we can do the comment later.

Brian: Thank you very much for your call. Well, you heard those two, Congressman. What do you say?

Congressman Jones: Well, Brian, I'm not a Socialist Democrat and I don't think your last guest was either. Let me just say this. I agree with the sentiments that God should bless this country because we are facing the greatest test since Jim Crow as a democracy. What I did not hear from either of your two guests is addressing the issue of the voter suppression that has been rampant over the past year and has been aided by the striking down of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. It is simply not the case that every election over the past two decades or 22 years has been about the fate of democracy itself. This is something that has come about because of Donald Trump taking over the Republican Party.

Brian: Let me follow up on that for one second and then we're going to be out of time. The first, to that point that I guess both the call has made and the first caller was saying, "Oh, every election," The Washington Post had a poll recently and some history of their own poll that showed that most Democrats-- most Republicans, sorry, believe what we can say, as a matter of fact, was a big lie by President Donald Trump that the election of Biden was not legitimate.

It recalled the fact that after the election of Trump in 2016, about 70% of Democrats surveyed by The Post said that the election of Donald Trump was not legitimate, the defeat of Hillary Clinton. People, after George Bush became president and was trying to take more executive power, said democracy is at stake through his autocratic use of executive power, things like that. What do you say back to that caller and looking at The Washington Post poll, in particular, the Democrats feeling after the 2016 election result? Is it a false equivalency? If so--

Congressman Jones: It is absolutely.

Brian: Make that case, and then we're out of time.

Congressman Jones: It is absolutely a false equivalency. I think it distracts even from the fact that today, one major political party is literally removing people from their roles as elections administrators because they cannot be trusted to not certify elections, whose ideological outcomes that they disagree with. The Democratic Party has never done that. The Democratic Party in the modern era has never tried to suppress the right to vote of people.

That's just not something that we've seen in the 21st century. The both sides-ism, the false equivalencies, are frustrating to listen to to be candid and I think do a great disservice. I understand that people will watch Fox News and other right-wing media. They will come to the conclusion that both sides shoulder equivalent blame, but the fact is there's only one major political party today subverting free and fair elections, inciting violence at the Capitol that nearly took my life and the lives of hundreds of other members of Congress and staff.

That did take the lives of Capitol police officers. Of course, there's only one major political party that unanimously voted against the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Neither of the two people who called in to comment have addressed that. I think it's very important to keep our eyes on the prize, which is saving American democracy. We can have a talk about the other things that the Democratic Party needs to do.

I've been no shrinking violet as it concerns my critique of some of the behavior that I've seen with respect to economic policies and other things. We have got to get back to the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt where we build an economy that works for everybody. Don't confuse that for the fact that every single Republican in Congress is working mightily to undermine American democracy right now.

Brian: Congressman Mondaire Jones, Democrat from Westchester and Rockland. Thank you as always. We look forward to continuing to talk.

Congressman Jones: Thank you.

 

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.