Rep. Jeffries on the COVID Relief That's Coming

[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. On today's show, we will talk to two astronauts live from the International Space Station. It's the first time we've ever done anything like this, the Brian Lehrer Show to space. That'll be at the end of the show in our last segment before noon. If you have an ask an astronaut question, tweet @BrianLehrer, and we'll see if we can ask your question when we get to that segment.

We'll also look at the administration of Coronavirus vaccines now beginning in nursing homes in our area, and just in time, not actually in time enough, as nursing homes are becoming Coronavirus hotspots again, even after all the attention that got paid to their vulnerability after the spring and to boot there's a one week delay now in New Jersey with respect to the vaccine in those facilities. We'll also do another call in today for the WNYC audio time capsule to be opened in 2030. Today, a time capsule calling in two parts. What's been the hardest part of the COVID lifestyle for you and what's one part that you might want to take with you once this all ends? That's coming up.

First, let's keep understanding what's in this Coronavirus relief bill and how it can help you and people you know. One thing to note that we didn't get to yesterday is that there are some non-Coronavirus relief measures in there too that are significant. According to The New York Times, there's a ban on surprise medical bills that happen when patients unexpectedly receive care from an out-of-network health provider.

Instead of sending those charges to patients, hospitals, and doctors, will now need to work with health insurers to settle the bills. This new law would also simplify the federal government's financial aid form known as FAFSA, one of an array of sweeping education policy changes tucked into the agreement says the Times, Democrats secured significant college affordability provisions such as the significant expansion of the federal Pell Grant program for low-income students and also reversing a decade's old ban on extending the grants to prisoners pursuing degrees behind bars.

The deal also forgiveness more than a billion dollars in federal loans for historically Black colleges and universities, HBCUs. The spending package also includes significant bipartisan deals to counter climate change and promote clean energy the Times reports, the first such legislation to pass Congress in nearly a decade. We'll talk about all that now. Also, the Democratic Party grappling with elections they lost as well as the big one they won, and Attorney General William Barr continuing to show that he has some kind of bottom line versus Trump.

He reinforced again yesterday that there is no evidence that the presidential election was stolen in a way that needs judicial-- I should say justice department action and he reinforced the apparent truth that the big cyber attack on our country is coming from Russia, even as President Trump, again, for some reason tries to pretend it wasn't Russia, when everybody else says that it was. Even as some members of Congress plan, who knows what, on January 6 to continue to disrupt the election certification process when Congress gets that in their lap.

With me now is the Chairman of the House Democratic caucus Brooklyn and Queens, Congressman, Hakeem Jeffries. He is also a prominent member of the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, always a pleasure. Welcome back to WNYC?

Hakeem Jeffries: Good morning, Brian. Great to be with you.

Brian: Listeners, your calls about any of these three things welcome here for congressman Jeffries. 646-435-7280. Anything about the Coronavirus relief bill. We did some of this yesterday with Congressman Swasey. We can continue it today with Congressman Jeffries, as you try to figure out how it applies to you, anything about Congress's role up next in certifying the election, anything about the state of the Democratic Party, and I'll throw in anything about the Russian cyberattack and William Barr developing a bottom line.

646-435-7280, 646-435-7280. Congressman, let's touch on some of those non-COVID provisions, things democrats wanted in the bill for the most part, are you happy about these and what should people know about these college affordability provisions?

Hakeem: With respect to the overall spending bill, a lot of Democratic priorities were included some even at the 11th hour. Speaker Pelosi and departing chairwoman of the appropriations committee Nita Lowey did a tremendous job along with Bobby Scott, who's the chair of the education and labor committee. With respect to the college affordability provisions.

The streamlined FAFSA application, which is the manner in which people apply for a federal loan and grant assistance, based on the calculations that have been provided to us will increase the eligibility for loan and grant assistance of applicants, particularly low to moderate-income ones, so that's a great development, given the skyrocketing cost of a college education.

We also for the first time in more than a decade will expand the amount of assistance available through Pell Grants, which is the primary vehicle by which the federal government provides assistance to college students, that does not require them to take out debt. So that was a significant victory for a long period of time Republicans have resisted expanding the federal government's footprint in terms of college affordability. We were able to achieve that in a meaningful way. Then, where there's an intersection between higher education and justice, one of the things that I'm particularly proud of is that we've reversed the ban on eligibility for Pell Grants, for people who are currently incarcerated.

That ban was first put into place in the 1994 crime bill as part of a misguided tough on crime provision. That effectively said, "We're not going to help currently incarcerated individuals better themselves and successfully transition into society," which has a devastating impact on individuals, families, communities, and the taxpayer, because 95% of people or so are going to come back home. You want them to be able to come back home in a position where they can be productive citizens, and so we were able to do that as well, in addition to the COVID-19 bill, providing billions of dollars in assistance for institutions of higher learning, primarily public colleges and universities.

Brain: How the politics change on Pell grants for people in prison? We've done segments on that periodically over the years. It always seemed like Republicans would just fall back on this talking point of, "Why should they get them when other people who are law-abiding can't afford to go to college?" I was shocked to see this in the bill. How did the politics on this flip?

Hakeem: When we were able to negotiate meaningful criminal justice reform in 2018, with the First Step Act that allocated hundreds of billions of dollars in programming to allow for vocational training, education, substance abuse, treatment, counseling, and other vocational provisions, that really laid the groundwork for us to take this next step because we effectively established in a bipartisan way Democrats and Republicans, progressives and conservatives, the left and the right, the ACLU and the Koch brothers, all points in between with a bill signed into law by President Trump, that allowing people to transition successfully into society is a win for everyone.

The next logical step, one of the reasons we called our legislation in 2018, the First Step Act is because we recognize, it just was a foundation to continue to build upon it. The next logical step was to deal with this Pell Grant issue among a whole host of other things that we hope to work on in the Biden Administration.

Brian: Let's take a phone call. Here is Daniel, a restauranter in Manhattan. Daniel, you're on WNYC with Congressman Hakeem Jeffries. Hi, there.

Daniel: Hello, Congressman. I'm an owner of a restaurant. As you know, we've been all hit very hard. I'm probably doing 25% of what I was doing before the pandemic. In this new skinny bill, what is for us, small business restauranters in forms of grants? I can't take another loan. I can't be over-leveraged and I won't take another loan. I'll go out of business before I take another loan. I need a grant or I'm out of business and I want to know if grants are included in this bill and if not, why sir?

Hakeem: Thank you so much for that question. Obviously, for hanging in there throughout this pandemic, and dealing with all of the adversity that you and many other small businesses have confronted through no fault of your own. What we fought for against great resistance primarily from Secretary Mnuchin and were unable to figure out why he was so dead set against providing even more robust assistance for restaurants, is an increase in the paycheck protection program of another $284 billion for first and second forgivable loans.

Those loans, as you know initially, are designated as such, but are convertible to grants because they're forgivable. What we did for restaurants was to expand the criteria by which the restaurant can convert the loan into a grant to make it highly likely than in almost every instance, a restaurant will be able to do so out of recognition that the restaurant industry has been hit particularly hard. Restaurant workers and small entrepreneurs have been hit particularly hard.

During the first round of the paycheck protection program the criteria largely related to restaurants and other small businesses retaining their employees, in order to convert the loan to a grant. That is still an important provision, but we've expanded other forgivable uses to relate to things like commercial rent and a more robust fashion utilities, and other expenses that are non-employee related. That was done specifically for restaurants, more needs to be done. Help is on the way with a Biden Administration.

Brian: How about in the relief bill the part that's the so-called Save Our Stages provisions to help Broadway theaters and music venues and, of course, some of those restaurants too and other performing arts organizations devastated by having to shut down for so long, such long term. It's supposed to help owners and employees, is it clear to you yet who can apply and how from the performing arts?

Hakeem: There was an additional $15 billion that was set aside in dedicated funding. As you've indicated, Brian, specifically, for live venues for independent movie theaters, and for cultural institutions. Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez of the Small Business Committee is the one primarily responsible for negotiating that additional funding source and making sure that it was specifically dedicated to these musical and cultural theatrical venues that we know have been hit hard.

What's important to remember is that this particular COVID-19 bill is envisioned as a down payment for the next few months to get us through mid to late March. We're going to have to do much more. In that context, the $15 billion in dedicated funding for these live venues and independent movie theaters and cultural institutions should be sufficient to help get us into the early part of next year.

Brian: Paisley in Bushwick, you're on WNYC with I think your member of Congress Hakeem Jeffries. Hello, Paisley.

Paisley: Hi. I'm calling about the cost of internet. I wonder what the Congress is doing to start to curb this because I think this affects pretty much every person in America at this point. My internet is the single biggest household bill I have. It's inching up to $100 a month and I have no alternative besides one company. I have a monopoly, I can't choose otherwise and I can't choose not to have it because my livelihood relies on it. I'm sure many other people in my neighborhood have children whose schooling now relies on it. The cost of internet is absolutely out of control in my opinion, it's astronomical. We don't have alternative choices. Like I said, I have one carrier that if that's the company that I can use.

Hakeem: Congressman, what would you say to Paisley and a lot of people who are nodding their heads out there right now hearing her question?

Hakeem: I feel your pain. That certainly is an issue that has to be confronted. I think there's a variety of different approaches that are going to be taken. There's the anti-trust aspect of this issue to make sure that there are at least three options available to every single American, whether you're in the inner city, or rural America, small-town America, X-urban America, or suburban America, though the problems generally are in urban America and rural America in terms of lack of access. There are steps that are being taken in the antitrust lane led by my friend from Rhode Island, Congressman, David Cicilline, who's the chair of the Antitrust Subcommittee looking at this issue.

Of course, here at home with respect to the provision of internet services, there's a city council component to it, and to a lesser extent, a state component. I think we're going to need to see more aggressive activity by the City Council as well as the state legislature in this area, given what we've seen during the pandemic because internet access is necessary, almost for every important facet of life, to telelearn, to telework, to receive telemedicine. The gaps in society that exists in terms of equitable treatment have been exacerbated by this pandemic and a lack of access.

Now, in terms of good news, our agreement does include $7 billion to increase access to broadband across the country. That's a significant and meaningful investment. The scale of the numbers that we're talking about in this package makes $7 billion sound inadequate and quaint, but it is incredibly meaningful and outside of the context of this pandemic would have been celebrated.

What also is included is what we're calling a new emergency broadband benefit, which will be administered by the FCC, where direct payments will be made to lower and moderate-income students, families, and unemployed workers to specifically help them afford their broadband and internet access. That's a federal benefit that has been established for the first time. I think hopefully we'll lay a foundation for the work that needs to be done moving forward, but it's a specific recognition that we need to help everyday Americans afford the cost of internet service, and this will be a direct payment to help do so.

Brian: Paisley, I hope some of that helps address your concern. We had a listener tweet that they heard that this Coronavirus relief bill also includes a provision tucked in that would make illegal streaming of a video a felony. Is that in there? Is that a thing? Do you know?

Hakeem: That's not in the COVID-19 relief package portion of the bill, but it is a provision in the broader spending agreement, which would make illegal streaming a felony. That largely relates to an issue that Congress has been debating for a long period of time where the nature of piracy has changed by bad actors, not individual Americans. This is not a provision that is designed to be enforced against our children or grandchildren, or individuals who may be accessing content illegally via the internet.

This is about the piracy actors who because of the change in technology, where it is currently a felony to illegally copy and reproduce copyrighted content. You can't walk into a movie theater, with a camcorder to the extent that's still a thing, Brian, or maybe your cell phone and record it and then reproduce it illegally, as it's used to be the case--

Brian: Streaming, meaning putting it out there but for the individual who might then take a look at that movie, they're not going to go to prison and charged with a felony?

Hakeem: That is correct because under normal circumstances, no one was being prosecuted when you perhaps bought a CD or a DVD on a street corner was sold in a barbershop, when this used to be the case where you knew this probably wasn't a legal copy, but was being sold to you under the price that you might buy it in a store. That was illegal, But it was those who were copying and reproducing that who were in violation of the law and subject to prosecution, but because the piracy has changed to now streaming, streaming hadn't been covered.

The companies that were engaging in this type of piracy via the internet were effectively being given a pass because the nature of piracy had changed, but congressional laws hadn't caught up to that. That is the genesis of this particular felony streaming provision.

Brian: My guest is the Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Brooklyn and Queens, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries. He's also a prominent member of the House Judiciary Committee, and we will get some things relevant to that as we go. Here's another question about the relief bill tweeted by a listener. Sarah in Brooklyn asks, "I read that there is an extra $100 a week unemployment aid for freelancers. Is that true? How do we make sure to get that?" Congressman, is that true?

Hakeem: That particular extra $100 per week for freelancers is not a provision that I am familiar with. I don't believe that that is correct. We did continue to include freelancers as an eligible category of recipients prior to the pandemic, freelances were not eligible to receive unemployment insurance. We recognized that that was a change in the law that needed to be made. That was done via the Cares Act.

That particular expanded eligibility was going to expire on December 26, which is one of the reasons why we needed to act as we did yesterday so that that eligibility could continue. The unemployment insurance enhancement will continue to be $300 per week for everyone. Now, in New York State, the average unemployment check is approximately $400. The $300 will be on top of that $400. We expect that the average New Yorker who's unemployed will be able to receive approximately $700 per week, some will receive more, some will receive less, but that will be the average.

We also extended out the eligibility for unemployment assistance for another 11 weeks. Initially, you are only eligible for unemployment for 26 weeks. In the Cares Act, we added an additional 13 weeks, which made it 39, I know I'm throwing out a lot of numbers. That was scheduled to expire this month as well. People would have been kicked off of the unemployment rolls, even though the pandemic and the recession is not over. We added an additional 11 weeks of eligibility, which takes us into March. As I mentioned, the first 100 days of Biden Administration, where we're going to need to do more.

Brian: Deborah in Chatham, you're on WNYC with Congressman Jeffries. Hi, Deborah?

Deborah: Yes, hello. Before I get to my question I want to respectfully disagree with the representative on the $100, for those of you who are freelancers, I'm a retired freelancer, check with your accountants and with your business sites for those states that were only giving unemployment based on W2s for those freelancers who are working on W2s and freelancing, and at this point, states that are willing, this bill allows the extra $100. Pay no attention to what you just heard if you're a freelancer and do some research on your own.

Brian: In other words, Deborah you're saying on that to clarify as much as possible that it's state by state?

Deborah: Clarify people in the states they're willing to work with that and whose freelancers worked at W2s and freelance that were only getting unemployment based on the W2, they can check out and see about if the states are willing to add the $100. If they are, there's some kind of subsidy. I don't know the details. I'm retired, but I do know that it exists and Congressman Jeffries with respect you are not correct.

My question is about a group that doesn't have anyone lobbying for them in Congress and as a retired fellow for Congressman Pascrell, the best congressman in Congress, I'm deeply interested in federal workers. Their newsletter, government executive eviscerates the house appropriators and leadership. The quote is they just don't get it. What's the point? Biden's going to be cut off at the knees when schedule F reclassifies up to 80% of career employees as at will and get a pink slip on the day before inauguration on January 19th.

This is not something that has to kick a can down the road, and the people that were spoken to in this article from government executive said, "They just don't get it. They didn't try hard enough." I'd like to know as a member of leadership, how on earth Representative Jeffries is willing to have the incoming administration of Biden kneecapped by career workers who we all need so much. Thank you. I'll take my question off the air.

Brian: Thank you for your call. Congressman, are you familiar with issue?

Hakeem: Thank you, Deborah. That was a lot of information. First of all, with respect to the freelancer issue, as I indicated, it wasn't a provision that I'm familiar with. You appear to be making reference to an accounting dynamic, which may make some people potentially eligible for the maximum amount that they could receive, not an additional $100 on top of the $300. I'm sorry if you heard my explanation differently.

With respect to the federal worker provision. Again, I can only speak for myself. I am a child of public employees. My mother worked for DC 37 City of New York for 45 years. My father worked for 30 years as a substance abuse counselor for the state in the midst of the heroin epidemic and the crack cocaine explosion, which hit our communities particularly hard. I don't think House Democrats would do anything to jam up federal employees.

Now, we are dealing with an administration that doesn't believe in government by and large and has been trying to demonize, downsize, and privatize the government. That is a conservative Republican philosophy. I'm not familiar with the particular analysis that you've laid out. I certainly don't think we're going to see the wholesale reduction of the Federal workforce in the remaining days of the Trump administration in a way that would cripple the Biden presidency.

Brian: You're in the House Judiciary Committee, and yesterday, Attorney General William Barr surprised some Republicans and Democrats alike when he explicitly distanced himself from things President Trump wants him to do as his final acts. Have the government seized every election machine in contested states to see if there was fraud and appoint a special counsel to investigate potential fraud?

Another one to investigate Hunter Biden, Barr said the regular Justice Department procedures are working and a special counsel isn't needed. What do you make of this attorney general who previously had been willing to stick his neck out for Trump in democratically questionable ways suddenly finding his bottom line?

Hakeem: It appears to me that Donald Trump's corrupt and erratic and undemocratic behavior has become even a bridge too far for William Barr, who has acted in many ways as his henchmen up until this very point. I think we're starting to see on Capitol Hill and in Washington that many of Trump's allies have moved on, not all of them, but certainly many within the administration have said enough. Many within the United States Senate have said enough. We still have more than 100 Yahoo's in the house who are totally out of control. That just is what it is, and we're going to have to deal with them as we move forward and their unpatriotic behavior, and we will because we're in the majority.

I think what's clear is that Joe Biden won this election. More than 80 million people voted for him. That is, of course, in American history. There's no evidence of voter fraud anywhere and Republican-appointed judges throughout the country have drawn that conclusion. The Republican governor of Georgia has drawn that conclusion. The Republican governor of Arizona has drawn that conclusion.

The FBI has drawn that conclusion. The Trump Justice Department has drawn that conclusion. Of course, Attorney General Barr has drawn that conclusion because Joe Biden won this election in clear and convincing fashion. I just think that many have moved on. That's a good thing. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold Barr and others accountable in terms of history for the behavior that they supported and ignored coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but it was an appropriate thing for the attorney general to say and I'm glad he said it.

Brian: Is it possible with Barr that he was never simply Trump's Roy Cohn, as Trump liked to say, but that Barr genuinely thought the Mueller investigation over Russia and the impeachment over Ukraine were political harassment of the president more than real potential crimes? That's a legitimate difference of opinion. Now he feels he has to publicly disagree with Trump's made-up claims of fraud and interest in using the Justice Department to extend the lie, and so Barr comes out as essentially a respectable actor, not a hack, and you just disagree on some particular major issues?

Hakeem: Well, Bill Barr's behavior with respect to the Mueller report was wildly inappropriate, and even Bob Mueller disagreed publicly with Barr's approach in the way that it was initially characterized. Now, there is some, I think, truth to the proposition, Brian, that Bill Barr believes in the unitary executive, which is a conservative theory, of course, whereby the presidency has maximum power relative to the legislature and the judiciary.

Now, the problem with that theory is that we only see it as right through the eyes of Conservatives when there's a Republican president. Where was that philosophy when they were accusing president Obama of overreaching with executive orders, including what he did with respect to the DREAMERS, which the courts have subsequently affirmed? Yes, it is the case that people like William Barr tend to believe in the power of the presidency relative to the people's House and the Senate. However, we only seem to see that theory manifest itself during Republican administrations.

We only seem to see, for instance, fiscal restraint and responsibility be a concern when there's a Democratic president, not when the Republicans are jamming down the throats of the American people a $2 trillion addition to the debt in the form of the GOP tax scam where 83% of the benefits went to the wealthiest 1%. I think what we would ask for from like people William Barr is philosophical consistency. If this is your worldview, you should have it when there are Democratic presidents and Republican presidents.

Brian: I'm glad you mentioned that thing about debt because I think this is a big thing to watch for in 2021 when Biden assumes office and there's a Democratic president again. Every time Democrats are in power, Republicans suddenly fall in love with austerity and become very, very concerned about the federal government's debt.

When Republicans themselves are in power, they're happy to borrow and cut taxes for people who can afford to pay and add more zeros to the annual deficit numbers. This was true under Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush, and then Donald Trump. Just noting that and agreeing with you about something to watch for 2020. Aaron in Rocklin County, you're on WNYC with Congressman Hakeem Jeffries. Hello, Aaron.

Aaron: Hey, good morning, Brian, good morning, Congressman Jeffries. How are you guys today?

Brian: All right, thank you.

Hakeem: Good morning, Aaron.

Aaron: Quick question. First off, I'd like to say that Bill is lined with millions of dollars for gender studies in Pakistan. If anything comes out of this, Trump showed the dysfunctionality of the federal government. My question is are we so quick to rush this idea that Russia hacked like we did in 2016 and the subsequent Mueller investigation that followed, which provided little to no evidence of anything wrong with Trump? Why is it that Congressman Swalwell can be colluding with the Chinese, meanwhile we're just so quick to blame Russia? I'll take my question off the air. Thanks.

Brian: Thank you for your phone call. There were a few factual inaccuracies in there. I don't know if you want to go there or I should dive into it, just a few corrections first, but Congressman--

Hakeem: Yes, you can dive into it, Brian.

Brian: Well, one is that the Mueller investigation did establish that Russia hacked the DNC computers. What it found with Trump and collusion was more ambiguous, but it certainly reaffirmed with a lot of evidence that Russia hacked that, with respect to Congressman Swalwell, as I understand it, he never colluded with China. When he was informed by our intelligence agencies that somebody who he was having a political relationship with was a Chinese spy, he immediately cooperated with them and they thanked him for that. Those are my corrections. What about his question on how you're so sure it's Russia this time?

Hakeem: Well, one of the things that Donald Trump engages in is false equivalency. Thank you for laying out the correct factual predicate. Aaron, I receive your question as one that's being authentically asked. To address the question, Brian, but also make the point in terms of the Mueller report, there were three specific conclusions related to Russia, that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping and systematic fashion, conclusion one. Conclusion two, that Russia interfered in the election for the express purpose of trying to artificially place Donald Trump in the White House, conclusion two.

Conclusion three is that the Trump campaign knowingly welcomed that assistance. With respect to collusion and the conspiracy aspects of the investigation, the laws were unclear, and so Team Mueller punted in that area inappropriately in the view of many of us, but that's for the history books.

In terms of the current attack, the Trump Administration itself has concluded that Russia launched a vicious, and comprehensive, and malignant cyberattack against America. That's Mike Pompeo, the Trump-appointed Secretary of State, that's Bill Barr, who yesterday agreed with Mike Pompeo's conclusion, that's the FBI that has concluded that it was Russia, that's every single national security agency that is part of this administration. The only person who continues to turn a blind eye to Russia's malignant behavior is Donald Trump, which leads many to wonder what does Vladimir Putin actually have on the current occupant of the White House, why does this behavior continue to the very end?

Brian: Let's end on your take on how serious this hack is because probably a lot of people's eyes glaze over and they think, "Okay, spy versus spy, we're spying on them all the time, they're spying on us, we're both spying on China, China's spying on everybody. So what? How does this affect me?" What's your answer to that?

Hakeem: Well, there are two types of attacks. There's the stealing of information in the traditional way. That's spying on each other. In the global community of espionage, that happens in multiple different directions. I'm not on the Intelligence Committee, so I haven't received the classified version of the briefing yet. I assume that will happen soon for the broader membership.

We believe that Russia in this instance may have planted malware in some of our systems with respect to commerce, energy, and the economy that could, if activated, disrupt banking, disrupt the flow of power and energy, and disrupt the food supply, depending on the extent of the malware that has been embedded within our systems.

Now, it hasn't been activated, but the view amongst some, and they're still looking into this- is that Russia may have the ability to turn on a switch and inflict serious damage on our way of life in the middle of a pandemic. That's why some, including Jason Crow, an army ranger, who was an impeachment manager but, of course, served multiple tours of duty in the Middle East, said that this was the functional equivalent of Pearl Harbor in terms of a cyber attack.

We believe that online is the new frontline. Russia has been defeated economically, they've been defeated militarily in the context of the Cold War, but they've turned their efforts into online warfare, and this is the greatest escalation we've seen since their attack on our democracy in 2016.

Brian: Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, representative from parts of Brooklyn and Queens, and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Thank you so much for covering so many topics with us. We always appreciate when you come on. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, I look forward to talking to you many times in 2021.

Hakeem: Thank you so much, Brian. Always great to be on. Happy holidays to you and your listeners.

 

Copyright © 2020 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.