[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                   UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA:
                           EXPOSING THE TRUTH

=======================================================================

                              JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, INFORMATION
                 TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT INNOVATION

                                AND THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
                    THE BORDER, AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS


                                 OF THE

               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           NOVEMBER 13, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-135

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
57-440 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                  
                           
                COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachesetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida


                                 ------                                

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                      Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
             Raj Bharwani, Senior Professional Staff Member
             Kaity Wolfe, Senior Professional Staff Member
         Grayson Westmoreland, Senior Professional Staff Member
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051


                                 ------                                

 Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government 
                               Innovation

                 Nancy Mace, South Carolina, Chairwoman
William Timmons, South Carolina      Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 
Tim Burchett, Tennessee                  Ranking Minority Member
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Ro Khanna, California
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Nick Langworthy, New York            Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Eric Burlison, Missouri              Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Vacancy                              Ayanna Pressley, Massachesetts
Vacancy                              Vacancy

   Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs

                  Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Chairman
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Robert Garcia, California, Ranking 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Minority Member
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Dan Goldman, New York
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Maxwell Frost, Florida
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Vacancy
Vacancy                              Vacancy
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Hearing held on November 13, 2024................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

Dr. Tim Gallaudet, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (RET.), Chief 
  Executive Officer, Ocean STL Consulting, LLC
Oral Statement...................................................     9

Mr. Luis Elizondo, Author, and Former Department of Defense 
  Official
Oral Statement...................................................    11

Mr. Michael Shellenberger, Founder of Public
Oral Statement...................................................    13
Mr. Michael Gold, Former NASA Associate Administrator of Space 
  Policy and Partnerships, Member of NASA UAP Independent Study 
  Team
Oral Statement...................................................    16

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * Mellon Hearing Letter; submitted by Rep. Mace.

  * Documents related to UAPs; submitted by Rep. Burchett.

  * Report, Pentagon, ``Immaculate Constellation''; submitted by 
  Rep. Mace.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Elizondo; submitted by Rep. 
  Burlison.

  * Questions for the Record: to Dr. Gallaudet; submitted by Rep. 
  Burlison.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Shellenberger; submitted by 
  Rep. Burlison.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Gold; submitted by Rep. 
  Burlison.

The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                   UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA:
                           EXPOSING THE TRUTH

                              ----------                              


                  Wednesday, November 13, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

 Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government 
                               Innovation

                           Jointly, with the

   Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:37 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nancy Mace 
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Mace, Grothman, Timmons, Burchett, 
Higgins, Luna, Biggs, Burlison, Perry, Garcia, Lynch, 
Moskowitz, Porter, and Frost.
    Also present: Representatives Boebert and Ogles.
    Ms. Mace. Good morning. This joint hearing of the 
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and 
Government Innovation, and the Subcommittee on National 
Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs will come to order.
    Good morning and welcome everyone.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time, and I recognize myself for the purpose of making an 
opening statement right now.
    Good morning and welcome to today's historic hearing, which 
I am co-chairing with Mr. Grothman whose subcommittee held an 
important hearing on this topic last year.
    I want to thank my colleagues and the Oversight Committee, 
including Mr. Burchett, Mr. Burlison, Mrs. Luna, Mr. Moskowitz, 
Mr. Garcia, for their relentless drive to get answers on UAPs. 
They have been steadfast in demanding transparency on the 
sightings reported by military pilots and armed forces. Their 
commitment to digging for the truth is exactly what this 
country needs to cut through the secrecy surrounding this 
issue.
    And many high-ranking individuals in the military and 
intelligence communities believe UAPs demand greater attention, 
and thus the purpose for this hearing today.
    Former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said on Bill 
Maher's program that, quote, ``There are phenomena that have 
been witnessed by multiple people that are just inexplicable by 
the science available to us.''
    Army Colonel Karl Nell, a member of the Federal Government 
UAP Task Force, said at a conference this past May that, 
``nonhuman intelligence exists, nonhuman intelligence has been 
interacting with humanity. This interaction is not new and has 
been ongoing, and they're unelected people in the government 
that are aware of that.''
    But UAPs remain a controversial topic. I am not going to 
name names, but there are certain individuals who did not want 
this hearing to happen because they feared what might be 
disclosed. But we stood firm. No amount of outside pressure 
would ever keep me from pursuing a subject to ground, come hell 
or high water.
    On that score, I want to thank our witnesses for being 
here. We have before us a panel of individuals accomplished in 
the military and civilian government in science and in 
journalism. Some of the testimony you will hear them deliver 
today does not reflect well on influential individuals and 
agencies within the U.S. Federal Government and, perhaps, some 
of our contractors.
    It is never easy to present such information publicly. So, 
I appreciate our witnesses voluntarily agreeing to being here 
today.
    This hearing is intended to help Congress and the American 
people to learn the extent of the programs and activities our 
government has engaged in with respect to UAPs and what 
knowledge it has yielded. This includes, of course, any 
knowledge of extraterrestrial life or technology of nonhuman 
origin.
    If government-funded research on UAPs has not yielded any 
useful knowledge, we also need to know those facts. Taxpayers 
deserve to know how much has been invested. How much has been 
spent? They should not be kept in the dark to spare the 
Pentagon a little bit of embarrassment.
    The reality is, despite their enormous taxpayer-funded 
budgets, the transparency of the Defense Department and the 
intelligence community have long been abysmal. The Pentagon has 
failed six consecutive audits. In fact, it has never actually 
passed one.
    Adding to this is a runaway, overclassification of 
documents and materials, and reluctance to declassify materials 
when appropriate, and, at times, an outright refusal to share 
critical information with Congress. In short, it is not a track 
record that instills trust.
    So, Congress has tried in recent years to lift the veil and 
find out if information about UAPs is being withheld not only 
from the American public but also from their elected 
Representatives in Congress. Part of the transparency effort 
was legislation created in the Pentagon, the All-domain Anomaly 
Resolution Office, or AARO, but the new office is struggling to 
get its footing.
    A recent statutorily required report from AARO intended to 
illuminate the government's historic assessment of UAPs was 
heavily criticized by those seeking UAP transparency. The 
report has stoked suspicions AARO is unable or, perhaps, 
unwilling to bring forward the truth about the government's 
activities concerning UAPs.
    I am disturbed that AARO itself lacks transparency. Even 
its budget is kept from the public. So, if there is no there 
``there'', then why are we spending money on it, and by how 
much? Why the secrecy if it is really no big deal and there is 
nothing there? Why hide it from the American people? Because I 
am not a mathematician, but I can tell you that does not add 
up.
    I expect some of our witnesses to share their views on that 
AARO report. We will also hear, from the witnesses today, 
allegations of UAP-related misinformation and disinformation by 
government officials of which they are personally aware and 
directly experienced.
    And we will hear testimony today concerning recent 
revelations about a purportedly secret UAP program whose 
existence and findings may have been improperly withheld from 
Congress. But, before we get to the witnesses, we are going to 
have a few more opening statements from our colleagues.
    And one thing I wanted to add at the end of my closing 
statement is there is a document that will be entered into the 
congressional record today. Mr. Tim Burchett from Tennessee has 
this document, and we just distributed it to every Member up 
here on the dais, this document. But this is going to be the 
original document from the Pentagon about Immaculate 
Constellation that Michael Shellenberger delivered to Congress 
today.
    So, thank you, Mr. Shellenberger, for this information. We 
are all reading it in real time now, and Mr. Burchett will 
enter it into the record, but 12 pages about this 
unacknowledged special access program that your government says 
does not exist.
    So, with that, I would acknowledge my colleague, Mr. 
Garcia.
    I want to say, first of all, to Mr. Connolly, who could not 
be here today, the Ranking Member on my Subcommittee on 
Cybersecurity, I want to say that I was greatly saddened to 
hear about the recent news of Mr. Connolly's cancer diagnosis. 
And I want to convey to him and to all of our colleagues, we 
wish our very best to you and a full and speedy recovery.
    And, with that, I would acknowledge Mr. Garcia for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairwoman. I 
want to thank the Chairwoman and the Chairman both for their 
continued support and really treating this discussion and these 
hearings in a way that is bipartisan.
    I think one thing that is very important for all of us that 
are interested in the conversation around UAPs, is that this is 
an area that both Republicans and Democrats, while we may 
disagree in a lot of other spaces, this is an area where 
bipartisanship is really important. And, in fact, I would add 
it is critical that we all continue to work together in a way 
that moves forward with the truth and important disclosure.
    So, we are here to have a bipartisan and serious 
conversation, I believe, about our national security. We should 
always ground these conversations in facts, evidence, and the 
data in front of us.
    I want to note that we have our witnesses here, and I want 
to thank you all for being here, and note that also amongst you 
are folks that also served us in our military, and I know that 
for many of you this is a very difficult process. But I am very 
grateful to have you with us today, and thank you for joining 
us.
    I also want to note that today's hearing builds on a quite, 
I think, also historic public hearing that we had many months 
ago that Mr. Grothman and others help lead in this very same 
hearing room where I believe we began a really important public 
conversation about UAPs. And so, I want to thank him for that, 
and I especially want to thank Chairwoman Mace for her 
continued advocacy on this topic.
    I also want to start with some facts. We know that there 
are objects or phenomena observed in our airspace, as our 
witnesses will testify, and also, possibly, in our oceans. In 
many cases, we do not know what they are, and, of course, this 
is why we are discussing UAPs.
    Now, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, AARO, has 
reported hundreds of UAPs that remain, quote, ``uncharacterized 
and unattributed'' and which, quote, ``appear to have 
demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance 
capabilities and require further analysis.'' This is our own 
AARO office.
    Now, we should not prejudge what they might be. I am 
certainly not going to. We need evidence. But we are detecting 
things, and we know that we do not understand them, and this is 
worth investigating.
    The American people have legitimate questions, and I 
believe it is critical that Congress should help address them. 
This is about the truth, and science and facts.
    Now, transparency and faith in our institutions is vital in 
a good democracy. Now, I am proud to say this hearing will 
build on that important bipartisan work, and I want to thank 
everyone from being involved, including Members of our 
Committee.
    Now, in our last hearing in July, we heard testimony that a 
significant number of pilots of major airlines have witnessed 
UAPs as well, but have no real confidential way of reporting 
them to the government. We heard that commercial pilots, when 
encountering UAPs, may be hesitant to speak openly due to 
stigma or fear of retaliation.
    We also know that AARO has reported that, and I want to 
quote, that ``most reports still reflect a bias toward 
restricted military airspace, a result of reporting from 
military personnel, and sensors presence in such areas.'' And 
so, the lack of ability for civilian pilots raises real safety 
concerns and limits our ability to understand UAPs. This is a 
particular piece of this conversation that I am very interested 
in.
    Now, our last hearing inspired us to introduce the Safe 
Airspace for Americans Act, joined by Chairman Grothman, 
Chairwoman Mace, and a bipartisan group of cosponsors. I see 
some of our leaders from Safe Airspace for Americans Act here. 
And that would create a safe reporting for the UAP process, 
which we want to continue to do.
    Now, Members of both parties and senior officials in 
multiple administrations have now taken an interest in this 
issue. Mainstream media, in many cases, are beginning to take 
more of an interest in this issue, and we should all be proud 
to carry that work and build confidence for the American 
people.
    I believe we can always be more transparent. To me, this 
hearing and others are simply about the truth and getting to 
the facts of what these UAPs actually are.
    It is very important that we show that Democrats and 
Republicans in Congress can work together to cut through 
misinformation and look for a serious and thoughtful way to 
have the discussion in public.
    Many of us have also called for additional public hearings 
to discuss UAPs. This should be a topic that continues on 
throughout the Congress so we can gather more information, 
data, and work with the relevant agencies to gather more 
information.
    Finally, I just want to add that those that are here on 
this dais, many of us have participated also in classified 
briefings as well, and we have also gained a lot of important, 
I think, and interesting information, at least I personally 
have.
    And so, with that information, we want to continue today's 
hearing, and I thank all of our witnesses for being here.
    And, with that, I would like to yield back.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    I would now like to recognize Mr. Grothman for a 5-minute 
introduction.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Good morning. I would like to thank our witnesses for being 
here one more time. This is a topic I have been interested in 
since eighth grade.
    I would like to thank Ms. Mace for working with me on this 
topic and for making this a joint Subcommittee hearing.
    Last year, the Subcommittee on National Security, the 
Border, and Foreign Affairs held a historic hearing to 
understand the potential national security risk of unidentified 
anomalous phenomena, or UAPs. We heard from former Navy 
Commander David Fravor, who shared firsthand experience with a 
UAP engaged while on duty in the Pacific.
    We learned from David Grusch, a former member of the 
intelligence community, who revealed the supposed existence of 
secret government programs hidden from congressional oversight.
    Additionally, former military pilot Ryan Graves informed us 
of the limited ways in which the military and commercial pilots 
can report UAP sightings.
    Since that last hearing, I have led several briefings with 
government agencies to deepen my understanding with these 
issues. First, the Department of Defense Inspector General's 
Office informed us that the Department of Defense does not have 
the streamlined process for servicemembers to report UAP 
activity. Since then, the Joint Chiefs have implemented 
standards for UAP reporting across the services.
    The intelligence community Inspector General informed us 
that whistleblowers often fear retaliation for reporting 
mismanagement of highly sensitive government projects or 
information.
    Finally, AARO has expressed to the committee that, like any 
other Federal Government agency, it has faced challenges in its 
establishment, specifically, in hiring staff to manage UAP 
historical records and coordinating with other Federal 
agencies.
    While these agencies have been helpful to us in 
understanding the challenges that come from collecting UAP 
data, none of them have been able to substantiate the claims 
made at this hearing last year by David Grusch, despite our 
Committee Members endlessly questioning these agencies inside 
and outside of the SCIF.
    I hope our witnesses today will be able to provide evidence 
and content that is worthwhile to our pursuits of illuminating 
government waste and increasing transparency.
    To help alleviate some of the roadblocks, I am supportive 
of measures that were included in last year's National Defense 
Authorization Act to increase transparency and improve 
recordkeeping measures when it comes to UAPs, but I believe 
there is still more work to go.
    I co-led the Safe Airspace for Americans Act with Ranking 
Member Garcia, which requires the Federal Aviation 
Administration to develop procedures to collect UAP data from 
civilian aviators. I look forward to working with Members of 
Congress to see if this legislation and other UAP legislation 
crosses the finish line.
    I am deeply alarmed by the reporting of the massive drone 
swarm that flew over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia last 
December. Langley is the home of the First Fighter Wing, which 
maintains half of the F-22s in the U.S. Air Force inventory. 
Reports of this incident indicate these drones were roughly 20 
feet long, flying more than 100 miles an hour in an altitude of 
over 3,000 feet, yet the origin of these drones and their 
operators remains a mystery.
    This incident and other sightings near sensitive military 
installations highlights the complexity of the UAP challenge 
facing our Intelligence, Defense, and Homeland Security 
Committees.
    Whether these phenomena are a result of foreign adversaries 
developing advanced technologies, or something else entirely, 
we must take them seriously, investigate them thoroughly, and 
assess their implications on national defense.
    The repeated UAP sightings around sensitive military sites 
underscores the need for innovative defensive strategies beyond 
traditional measures. They also highlight the urgent need for 
updated policies to address emerging threats, as well as more 
effective interagency cooperation and intelligence sharing.
    However, none of this is going to be possible without 
transparency. For far too long, critical information about UAPs 
has been either classified or ignored, leaving the American 
public and Congressmen without clarity needed to make informed 
decisions.
    Declassifying reports and fostering a more open dialog 
about UAPs will not only increase the public trust but also 
encourage collaboration between government, the scientific 
community, and our allies. Quite frankly, there has been things 
that have been kept secret that is, I think, old enough that 
there is no reason it should not be released regardless of any 
so-called, you know, private information.
    A transparent approach will allow us to share insights, 
identify patterns, and development new strategic defenses. As 
we continue to investigate these phenomena, we must do so with 
the mindset of protecting our country, advancing scientific 
discovery, and upholding the trust of the American people, who 
right now I do not think have trust. It is just obvious. I do 
not have trust.
    We cannot shy away from the unknown, especially when the 
stakes are so high.
    I look forward to discussing these matters with the 
witnesses today. I am hopeful we can learn from the testimony 
and come out of this hearing with actionable ideas to advance 
UAP transparency. Actually, the idea is just to say, in my 
mind, go back 15 years, and everything has to be released.
    I am hopeful that we can learn from their testimony and 
come out of this hearing.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    I will now recognize Mr. Moskowitz for a 5-minute 
introduction.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    Good morning, everyone. I first want to thank the Chairs 
and Ranking Members for holding the hearing today on this topic 
and, again, having a second hearing.
    I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward today to 
share your expertise on UAPs and the need to build trust 
through transparency.
    But, first, I want to mention you might be wondering why 
Chairman Comer has allowed me to be a Ranking Member today, but 
it is really only because our dear friend, Gerry Connolly, is 
not here. As Chairwoman Mace mentioned, he was diagnosed with 
esophageal cancer. And all of us on this Committee know Gerry, 
and he is a fighter, and we are praying for him and hoping for 
his speedy recovery.
    So, today's hearing marks this Committee's second meeting 
dedicated to UAP transparency. I was pleased, as I know all of 
us are, on the bipartisanship that existed in last year's 
hearing and, even though we cannot talk about what happens in 
the classified settings, but bipartisanship that has existed in 
those settings with the questions Members have asked.
    Last year's hearing was a great example of open dialog 
about UAPs, and we must remain committed to sharing information 
with the American people. And I think you see that commitment 
based on the people here and the commitment across the 
political spectrum.
    I personally have worked with multiple Members of this 
Committee, but I want to particularly thank Congressman 
Burchett, Mace, Luna, and Garcia for working on bipartisan 
pieces of legislation.
    In recent years, Congress has taken numerous bipartisan 
steps toward greater transparency. In 2022, in the NDAA, we 
created the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office to investigate 
unidentified flying objects. Following, AARO, along with ODNI, 
released an unclassified report on UAP sightings.
    Of the 366 sightings included in the report, 171 remain 
uncharacterized with some of these appearing to have 
demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance 
capabilities. That is a nice way of saying we do not want to 
tell you what they are.
    In March, AARO revealed a report on the historical record 
of U.S. Government involvement with UAPs, which covered 
investigatory efforts going back from 1945 to the present day.
    Earlier this year, I joined Congressman Burchett to 
introduce the UAP Transparency Act, which would require the 
declassification of all documents related to UAPs, with many 
other Members of this Committee.
    In Fiscal Year 2024, the NDA required the National Archives 
and Records Administration to establish the unidentified 
anonymous phenomena records collection. This collection will 
include digital copies of all unidentified UAP records that can 
be publicly disclosed.
    This commitment in transparency is vitally important, and 
unnecessary overclassification has led to a void of 
information, which has allowed theories over the decades to 
foster.
    When the American people and Members of Congress ask, ``Are 
reports of UAPs credible?'' we are met with stonewalling, we 
are met with responses of, ``I cannot tell you,'' and, in fact, 
we are met with people not wanting us to have hearings; we are 
met with people not wanting us to ask you questions. In fact, 
many of us were told not to ask some of you certain questions 
on certain topics.
    In the time of heightened distrust of our government 
institutions, I believe more transparency is not only needed 
but is possible. And, obviously, we can respect national 
security limits, but we also have to provide our constituents 
with the information and oversight that they have tasked us 
for. As part of this, government agencies must maintain open 
lines of communication with Members of Congress.
    And there are regular questions that Americans have. What 
are UAPs? Are they real? Are they ours? How has this technology 
been developed? How do they get funded? Right?
    And now we have seen--this has gone from a long time ago 
where you could discredit people because it is some guy living 
in a Winnebago. You are able to see people now. These are 
pilots. These are military. These are folks with serious 
backgrounds. This has changed the face of this because now we 
have video.
    People will have questions. We know there are advanced 
technology programs. Almost 15 years ago, one of those came out 
of area 51 to go after Osama bin Laden. And the only reason we 
know about that is because one of those helicopters was downed.
    Americans have questions about whistleblowers who have come 
forward to talk about retribution.
    And so, I want to thank everyone for being involved today 
on trying to get more transparency. This has been bipartisan, 
bicameral. And, as we get into a new administration, the 
President-elect has talked about opportunities to declassify 
information on UAPs, and I hope he lives up to that promise.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. OK. Thank you, Mr. Moskowitz.
    And I would now--Committee staff asked me to go ahead, and 
I will do it, to enter into the Congressional Record this 12-
page document that Michael Shellenberger brought today that 
describes the Immaculate Constellation government program. So, 
we will do that now. Every Member up here has a copy of it.
    The first section talks about the unacknowledged special 
access program called Immaculate Constellation, and the second 
section about USG imagery intelligence.
    And Representative Luna just told me, if I say, 
``Immaculate Constellation,'' I will be on some list. Maybe a 
FISA warrant. So, come at me bro, I guess.
    But, without objection, entered into the record.
    All right. So, next we will introduce our witnesses for 
today's hearing. Thank you so much for being here.
    Our first witness is retired Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, 
who retired from the U.S. Navy and is now the Chief Executive 
Officer at Ocean STL Consulting.
    Our second witness is Mr. Luis Elizondo, a former 
Department of Defense official and author of a recent 
bestseller book about UAPs.
    Our third witness is Mr. Michael Shellenberger, founder of 
the newsletter, Public, and author of a recent journalistic 
piece about special access programs, including one widely 
identified as Immaculate Constellation.
    I swear the staff wants me on a list.
    OK. And our last witness today is Mr. Michael Gold, a 
former NASA official who was also a member of the NASA UAP 
independent study team.
    Welcome, everyone. We are pleased to have you today.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please 
stand and raise your right hands.
    This is where it gets real.
    Do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony you are 
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God?
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Ms. Mace. Let the record show that the witnesses all 
answered in the affirmative.
    We appreciate all of you being here today and look forward 
to your testimony.
    Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written 
statements, and they will appear in full in the hearing record.
    You guys may be seated.
    Please limit your oral statements to 5 minutes.
    As a reminder, please press the button in front of you so 
the microphone is turned on so that everyone in the room, 
Members included, can hear you.
    When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will 
turn green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When 
the red light comes on, your 5 minutes has expired, and we 
would ask that you please wrap it up.
    So, I will first recognize Rear Admiral Gallaudet to please 
begin your opening remarks.

                   STATEMENT OF TIM GALLAUDET, PH.D.

                     REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY (RET.)

           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OCEAN STL CONSULTING, LLC

    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Chairwoman Mace, Chairman 
Grothman, Ranking Members Connolly and Garcia, and Members of 
the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today 
regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAP.
    Confirmation that UAPs are real came to me in January 2015, 
when I was serving as the Commander of the Naval Meteorology 
and Oceanography Command. At the time, my personnel were 
participating in a predeployment naval exercise off the U.S. 
East Coast. It included the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier 
Strike Group, and this exercise was overseen by the United 
States Fleet Forces Command, led by a four-star admiral who, at 
the time, was also my superior officer.
    During this exercise, I received an email on the Navy's 
secure network from the operations officer of U.S. Fleet Forces 
Command. The email was addressed to all the subordinate 
commanders, and the subject line read, in all capital letters, 
``URGENT SAFETY OF FLIGHT ISSUE.''
    The text of the email was brief but alarming with words to 
the effect, ``If any of you know what these are, tell me ASAP. 
We are having multiple near midair collisions, and if we do not 
resolve this soon, we are going to have to shut down the 
exercise.''
    Attached to the email is what is now known as the Go Fast 
video captured on the forward-looking infrared sensor of one of 
the Navy F/A-18 aircraft participating in the exercise. The now 
declassified video showed an unidentified object exhibiting 
flight and structural characteristics unlike anything in our 
arsenal.
    The implication of the email was clear. The author was 
asking whether any of the recipients were aware of classified 
technology demonstrations that could explain these objects.
    Because the DoD policy is to rigorously deconflict such 
demonstrations with live exercises, I was confident this was 
not the case.
    The very next day, that email disappeared from my account 
and those of the other recipients without explanation. 
Moreover, the Commander of Fleet Forces Command and the 
operations officer never discussed the subject even during 
weekly meetings specifically designed to address issues 
affecting exercises like the one in which the Theodore 
Roosevelt Strike Group was participating.
    This lack of follow-up was very concerning to me. As the 
Navy's chief meteorologist at the time, I was responsible for 
reducing safety of flight risks, yet it appeared to me that no 
one at the flag officer level was addressing the safety risk 
posed by UAPs. Instead, pilots were left to mitigate these 
threats on their own without guidance or support.
    I concluded that the UAP information must have been 
classified within a special access program managed by an 
intelligence agency. That is, a compartmented program that even 
senior officials, including myself, were not read into.
    Last year's UAP hearing before this Oversight Committee 
confirmed that UAP-related information is being withheld from 
senior officials and Members of Congress.
    And, just this week, I learned from former DoD official 
Chris Mellon that satellite imagery of UAP from a few years ago 
still has not been shared with Congress.
    Equally concerning, last year's UAP hearing also revealed 
that elements of the government are engaged in a disinformation 
campaign, to include personal attacks designed to discredit UAP 
whistleblowers.
    Having never signed a nondisclosure agreement regarding 
UAPs and now, as a private citizen, I have become an advocate 
for greater UAP transparency from the government. The continued 
overclassification surrounding UAPs has not only hindered our 
ability to effectively address these phenomena but has also 
eroded trust in our institutions.
    While I applaud previous bipartisan legislation passed by 
Congress concerning UAPs, a more comprehensive approach is 
needed to address the broader implication of UAP on public 
safety and national security, as well as the socioeconomic 
opportunities that open UAP research could unlock.
    Therefore, I recommend Congress take the following action, 
which I believe will receive bipartisan support: First, 
establish robust oversight of the executive branch's management 
of UAP information by directing key officials, beginning with 
the Director of the DoD's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, 
to provide comprehensive briefings on what the government knows 
about UAP and does not know.
    Two, enact the provisions of the UAP Disclosure Act to 
establish a UAP records review board to ensure independent 
oversight, transparency, and accountability in the government's 
handling of UAP information.
    And, three, strengthen the UAP Disclosure Act and future 
reauthorizations with provisions that mandate a whole-of-
government approach to addressing UAP.
    In closing, I will share my personal reasons for speaking 
out on this topic. First, as a former science agency leader, 
having led the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, I 
have always sought the truth in human knowledge and thought.
    Now that we know UAP are interacting with humanity, and 
these include unidentified submerged objects in the ocean, we 
should not turn a blind eye but, instead, boldly face this new 
reality and learn from it.
    Additionally, at a time when leaders in government leave 
much to be desired, I feel obligated to share moral leadership 
on this issue of UAP disclosure by validating the credibility 
of the courageous men and women who have come out as witnesses 
and whistleblowers to expose the truth.
    My speaking out has encouraged others to do the same, and 
it is my hope over time that a number of your constituents will 
want to know the truth about UAP, and this number will increase 
to such an extent that the congressional action I just 
recommended will become inevitable.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    I will now recognize Mr. Elizondo for his opening 
statement.

                       STATEMENT OF LUIS ELIZONDO

                                 AUTHOR

                 FORMER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICIAL

    Mr. Elizondo. Greetings, Chairwoman Mace, Chairman 
Grothman, Ranking Members Connolly and Garcia, and Members of 
the Committee. It is my honor and privilege to testify before 
you on the issue of unidentified anomalous phenomena, formerly 
known as UFOs.
    On behalf of our brave men and women in uniform, and across 
the intelligence community, as well as my fellow Americans who 
have awaited this day, thank you for your leadership on this 
important matter.
    Let me be clear. UAP are real. Advanced technologies not 
made by our government or any other government are monitoring 
sensitive military installations around the globe. Furthermore, 
the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of 
our adversaries.
    I believe we are in the midst of a multidecade secretive 
arms race, one funded by misallocated taxpayer dollars and 
hidden from our elected Representatives and oversight bodies.
    For many years, I was entrusted with protecting some of our 
Nation's most sensitive programs. In my last position, I 
managed a special access program on behalf of the White House 
and the National Security Council. As such, I appreciate the 
need to protect certain sensitive intelligence and military 
information. I consider my oath to protect secrets as sacred, 
and I will always put the safety of the American people first.
    With that said, I also understand the consequences of 
excessive secrecy and stovepiping. Nowhere was this more 
apparent than in the aftermath of 9/11, which many of us 
remember all too well.
    I believe that America's greatness depends on three 
elements: A, a watchful Congress; B, a responsive executive 
branch; and C, an informed public.
    Over the last decade and a half, I learned that certain UAP 
programs were and are operating without any of these elements. 
Although, much of my government work on the UAP subject still 
remains classified, excessive secrecy has led to grave misdeeds 
against loyal civil servants, military personnel, and the 
public, all to hide the fact that we are not alone in the 
cosmos.
    A small cadre within our own government involved in the UAP 
topic has created a culture of suppression and intimidation 
that I have personally been victim to, along with many of my 
former colleagues. This includes unwarranted criminal 
investigations, harassment, and efforts to destroy one's 
credibility.
    Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the 
Pentagon's very own public affairs office openly employs a 
professional psychological operations officer as the singular 
point of contact for any UAP-related inquiries from citizens 
and the media. This is unacceptable.
    Many of my former colleagues and I have provided classified 
testimony to both the Department of Defense and the 
intelligence community Inspector General, and many of us have 
subsequently been targeted by this cabal with threats to our 
careers, our security clearances, and even our lives. This is 
not hyperbole but a genuine fact, and this is wrong.
    To fix these problems, I propose three principal actions. 
First, Congress and the President should create a single point 
of contact responsible for a whole-of-government approach to 
the UAP issue. Currently, the White House, CIA, NASA, the 
Pentagon, Department of Energy, and others play a role, but no 
one seems to be in charge, leading to unchecked power and 
corruption.
    Second, we need a national UAP strategy that will promote 
transparency and help restore the American public's trust at a 
time when the public's trust is at an all-time low. This 
strategy should include a whole-of-government approach, 
including the academic and scientific communities, the private 
sector, and our international partners and allies.
    Third, Congress should create a protected environment so 
whistleblowers desperate to do the right thing can come forward 
without fear. As it currently stands, these whistleblowers 
suffer because of stigma, a code of silence, and concerns about 
retaliation.
    These whistleblowers should be encouraged to come forward 
in ways that protect them against any forms of retaliation. 
Policies and procedures should ensure that protection.
    And, for those who refuse to cooperate, it is up to the 
Members of this Committee and other lawyer makers to wield 
their subpoena power against hostile witnesses and prevent 
additional government funding to those UAP efforts that remain 
hidden from congressional oversight.
    In closing, we, as Americans, have never been afraid of a 
challenge. In fact, we thrive on them. Whether it is 
eradicating polio or going to the moon, we do not run from a 
challenge. We take it head on.
    To the incoming administration in Congress, I say to you we 
need immediate public transparency, and this hearing is an 
important step on that journey. If we approach the UAP topic in 
the same way as we, as Americans, have met other challenges, we 
can restore our faith in our government institutions.
    Together, we can usher in a new era of accountable 
government and scientific discovery. I believe that we, as 
Americans, can handle the truth, and I also believe the world 
deserves the truth.
    Thank you, esteemed Members of Congress, for your time 
today. It is profoundly appreciated by many.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    I ask unanimous consent for Representatives Ogles of 
Tennessee and Boebert of Colorado to be waved onto the 
Subcommittee for today's joint Subcommittee hearing for the 
purpose of asking questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I would now like to recognize Mr. Shellenberger for his 
introductory remarks.

                   STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER

                                FOUNDER

                                 PUBLIC

    Mr. Shellenberger. Chairwoman Mace, Chairman Grothman, 
Ranking Member Connolly, Ranking Member Garcia, Members of the 
Subcommittees, thank you for inviting my testimony.
    One of Congress' most important responsibilities is 
oversight of the executive branch, in general, and the military 
and intelligence community in particular. Unfortunately, there 
is a growing body of evidence that the U.S. Government is not 
being transparent about what it knows about unidentified 
anomalous phenomena and that elements within the military and 
the IC are in violation of their constitutional duty to notify 
Congress of their operations.
    President-elect Donald Trump and former President Barrack 
Obama have both said that the government has information about 
UAPs that it has not released.
    There are other explanations for UAPs, that they represent 
a new form of life or nonhuman life. Current dominant 
alternative theories, including those put forward by AARO, are 
that UAPs are some kind of natural phenomenon we do not yet 
understand, like ball lighting or plasma. They could also be 
part of some new U.S. or foreign government weapons program, 
such as drones, aircraft, balloons, CGI hoaxes, or birds.
    Whatever UAPs are, Congress must be informed, as must the 
people of the United States. We have a right to know what UAPs 
are, no matter what they are.
    However, we now have existing and former U.S. Government 
officials who have told Congress that AARO and the Pentagon 
have broken the law by not revealing a significant body of 
information about UAPs, including military intelligence data 
bases that have evidence of their existence as physical craft.
    One of those individuals is a current or former U.S. 
Government official acting as a UAP whistleblower. This person 
has written a report. This is the report that says the 
executive branch has been managing UAP/NHI issues without 
congressional knowledge, oversight, or authorization for some 
time, quite possibly decades.
    Furthermore, these individuals have revealed the name of an 
active and highly secretive DoD unacknowledged special access 
program, or USAP. The source of that document told Public, me, 
that the USAP is a strategic intelligence program that is part 
of the U.S. military family of longstanding, highly sensitive 
programs dealing with various aspects of the UAP problem.
    The new UAP whistleblower claims that the U.S. military and 
IC data base includes videos and images taken using infrared, 
forward-looking infrared, full motion video, and still 
photography.
    The report that was just shared with Congress says 
Immaculate Constellation serves as a central or parent USAP 
that consolidates observations of UAPs by both tasked and 
untasked collection platforms.
    Immaculate Constellation includes high-quality imagery 
intelligence and measurement and signature intelligence of 
UAPs, the whistleblower's report adds. The sources of this 
intelligence are a blend of directed and incidental collection 
capacities, capabilities, position in low Earth orbit, the 
upper atmosphere, as well as military and civilian aviation 
altitudes and maritime environments.
    The report to Congress details in detail various UAPs, 
including spheres/orbs, discs/saucers, ovals, triangles, 
boomerang/arrowhead, and irregular/organic. The report 
describes various incidents found in the human intelligence 
data bases.
    One involved orbs surrounding and forcing an F-22 out of 
its patrol area. In another incident, the crew of a Navy 
aircraft carrier watched a small orange/red sphere rapidly 
descend from a high altitude of 100 to 200 yards directly above 
the flight deck of the CVN aircraft carrier.
    And, since my reporting on this Immaculate Constellation 
last month, another source came forward who told me that they 
saw a roughly 13-minute long, high-definition, full-color video 
of a white orb UAP coming out of the ocean approximately 20 
miles off the coast of Kuwait. It was filmed from a helicopter.
    Then, halfway through the video, the person said the orb is 
joined by another orb that briefly comes into the frame from 
the left before rapidly moving again out of the frame. The 
person discovered the video on SIPR, the Secure Internet 
Protocol Router Network, which the DoD uses to transmit 
classified information.
    A leading UAP researcher who utilizes the Freedom of 
Information Act to find out what the government knows, John 
Greenewald, told me last year that the U.S. Government had been 
increasingly denying his request for UAP information. He has 
been doing FOIA requests for 27 years and has an archive of 3 
million pages.
    The government has for decades denied any interest in UFOs. 
He told me that the documents that he has assembled showed that 
behind the scenes, it was a completely different story.
    Contrary to the hopes of many advocates of transparency, 
the government has been restricting more information since the 
leak of three UAP videos in 2017. The DoD organization, AARO, 
has been labeling many documents with a B7 exemption, which 
Greenewald says does not make any sense. They are stating that 
anything AARO does is involved in a law enforcement 
investigation, which allows AARO to not release it.
    Greenewald says that DoD has denied the existence of UAP 
and AATIP-related records on multiple occasions, only to 
acknowledge them after an appeal was filed. He added that the 
Naval Air Systems Command in March 2022 stated they found no 
additional UAP videos. It seems strange that they had three and 
only those three, but other requests have been filed by The 
Black Vault--that is John Greenewald's group--to seek out more 
places UAPs might be hiding.
    Then, in September 2022, the Navy admitted that the UAP-
related videos and photographs existed but denied the request 
in full for their release saying that the requested videos 
contain sensitive information that are classified and exempt 
from disclosure.
    The DoD will ``deny things on a Monday and then admit to it 
on a Friday,'' said Greenewald. He said the government can and 
does release videos that protect secret methods of capturing 
it. They fall back on the sensitive platform excuse a lot, he 
said. However, the on-screen information can be blurred and 
scrubbed. The metadata can be removed.
    I will show you this example here. This is a presentation 
from the UAP task force. This is completely absurd. It is nuts, 
this level of censorship, of redaction on a document. It shows 
the redaction of how many reports they have collected for how 
many years. Two of the three potential explanations are blacked 
out.
    The Pentagon, the intelligence community is treating us 
like children. It is time for us to know the truth about this. 
I think that we can handle it.
    Thank you very much.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    I would now like to recognize Mr. Gold for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GOLD

                  FORMER NASA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

                     SPACE POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS

                                  AND

               MEMBER OF NASA UAP INDEPENDENT STUDY TEAM

    Mr. Gold. Thank you, Chairman Mace, Chairman Grothman, 
Ranking Members Connolly and Garcia, Representative Moskowitz, 
and distinguished Members of both Subcommittees. I am grateful 
to all of you, as well as your intrepid staff, for the 
opportunity to testify and would like to begin by discussing 
courage.
    Courage is what it takes to tackle this topic, and courage, 
in the face of adversity, is what I see in front of me, beside 
me, and behind me.
    Per my introduction, I am currently the Chief Growth 
Officer at Redwire Space and have had several leadership 
positions at NASA. That being said, I want to be clear that I 
am speaking exclusively on my own behalf and not for Redwire, 
NASA, or any other organization.
    However, I am here today to speak out for science. Science 
requires data, which should be collected without bias or 
prejudice. Yet, whenever the topic of UAP arises, those who 
wish to explore the phenomenon are often confronted with 
resistance and ridicule.
    For example, members of the NASA UAP independent study 
team, particularly those in academia, were mocked and even 
threatened for simply having the temerity to engage in the 
study of UAP.
    Our best tool for unlocking the mystery of UAP is science, 
but we cannot conduct a proper inquiry if the stigma is so 
overwhelming that just daring to be part of a NASA research 
team elicits such a vitriolic response.
    Therefore, one of most important actions that can be taken 
relative to exposing the truth of UAP is to combat the stigma, 
and this is where I believe that NASA can be imminently 
helpful.
    The NASA brand is synonymous with hope, optimism, and 
credibility. If you were to take a walk down to National Mall, 
you would immediately see the NASA logo on T-shirts, hats, and 
bumper stickers. Few Federal agencies enjoy this kind of 
popularity. I have never seen anyone wearing an Office of 
Personnel Management T-shirt, which is why NASA could play such 
an influential role.
    Specifically, NASA could, with relatively little cost and 
effort, host symposia on UAP or even just participate in 
existing panels examining the topic. NASA personnel stepping 
forward and participating in such discussions would make a 
powerful statement to the scientific community that UAP should 
be taken seriously and researched accordingly.
    In regard to research, NASA has vast archives, much of 
which may contain important UAP data. Again, for relatively 
little cost and effort, NASA could create an AI or ML algorithm 
that could search the agency's archives for anomalous 
phenomena.
    I suspect that such an effort would not only result in 
information that will help us to understand UAP but could 
result in data that will assist in other areas of scientific 
inquiry, such as anomalous weather or meteorite activity. 
Beyond its existing archives, NASA could act as a clearinghouse 
for civilian and commercial UAP data.
    During my work on the UAP independent study team, it 
quickly became evident that there is no clear or well-
publicized process for civilian pilots to report UAP sightings. 
The stigma associated with UAP hampers the number of pilots 
that would report such phenomena, but even for those who 
overcome the stigma, I believe the current FAA guidance is 
largely unknown and poorly understood.
    In order to effectively collect UAP data, the independent 
study team recommended the use of NASA's aviation safety 
reporting system, or ASRS. The system, which is administered by 
NASA and funded by the FAA, provides a confidential means for 
reporting of safety violations in a voluntary and nonpunitive 
manner.
    Over 47 years, the ASRS has collected nearly 2 million 
reports. ASRS is the perfect tool to collect UAP data, which 
could then be collated by NASA and shared with the public at-
large.
    Leveraging ASRS could create a treasure trove of UAP data, 
potentially hundreds of thousands of reports supporting this 
hearing's goal of exposing the truth.
    I am grateful to our two co-Chairs and other Members who 
have already incorporated this idea into proposed legislation. 
At this hearing, as others have demonstrated, the UAP issue is 
justifiably dominated by national security and defense. 
However, I would urge the Subcommittees to keep in mind the 
numerous ways that NASA and the FAA, as well as commercial 
activities in the air, in space, and in the water can generate 
a massive amount of invaluable data on anomalous phenomena.
    I cannot help but be excited by the potential for such an 
endeavor since scientific discovery is driven by anomalies. It 
is the existence and study of anomalies that led to the theory 
of relativity, quantum mechanics, and nearly all of humanity's 
scientific breakthroughs.
    This is why the study of UAPs should be embraced since, 
whatever is occurring, the chance to garner new knowledge, 
should never be ignored. We must be thorough in collecting 
information, fearless in making conclusions, and open to 
following the data no matter how mundane or extraordinary the 
results may be.
    I began this testimony by praising the joint Subcommittee 
Members for their courage, and I will end by echoing that 
sentiment. As the saying goes, the truth is out there. We just 
need to be bold enough and brave enough to face it.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you. Thank you all.
    I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
    I have a lot of questions, and I have a lot of witnesses. 
So, I would just ask, if it is ``yes'' or ``no'', to please 
just tell me ``yes'' or ``no''. If it requires more than that, 
be very succinct because I would like to go down the line and 
ask as many questions as possible.
    So, for the Admiral this morning first, former DoD official 
Chris Mellon reached out to about satellite imagery from 2017 
that depicts a UAP. What were the dates in 2017 when this 
occurred?
    Dr. Gallaudet. I cannot share with you the details, ma'am, 
but I can do it in a closed setting, and I could also tell you 
the agency that wrote a report on it.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    So, who has the imagery?
    Dr. Gallaudet. I can tell you that in a closed setting.
    Ms. Mace. Can you describe what was depicted in the 
satellite imagery, just a description?
    Dr. Gallaudet. It was a UAP, ma'am.
    Ms. Mace. That is it? No other description?
    Dr. Gallaudet. The term that the analyst used, they call it 
the button. It was a disc-shaped object.
    Ms. Mace. OK. Where was it?
    Dr. Gallaudet. I cannot tell you that, ma'am.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    All right. Mr. Elizondo, you state in your testimony that, 
quote, ``Advanced technologies not by our government or any 
other government are monitoring sensitive military 
installations around the globe,'' end quote.
    If these technologies are not made by any government, who 
is making them? Private companies? Or are you implying they are 
crafted by a nonhuman intelligence?
    Mr. Elizondo. Well, ma'am, that is precisely why we are 
here. The problem is that, temporally speaking, over decades, 
not just the last 10 years, before--to put this in 
perspective----
    Ms. Mace. Are these private companies you are implying, or 
is this nonhuman intelligence?
    Mr. Elizondo. It may be both.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    Mr. Elizondo. When it comes to Blue Force Technologies, I 
would not be able to discuss----
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    Are you read into secret UAP crash retrieval programs?
    Mr. Elizondo. We would have to have a conversation in a 
closed session, ma'am. I signed documentation 3 years ago that 
restricts my ability to discuss specifically crash retrievals.
    I submitted for my book, through the DOPSR process, which 
took a year for it to be reviewed, and what is in the book is 
what I was told I am allowed to talk about.
    Ms. Mace. Has the government conducted secret UAP crash 
retrieval programs? Yes or no?
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    Were they designed to identify and reverse engineer alien 
craft? Yes or no?
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Does the U.S. Government have any reverse--OK. 
You have already answered that question about retrieval 
programs.
    Do any U.S. contractors have the same?
    Mr. Elizondo. I would prefer to address that in a closed 
session, ma'am.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    In your book, you mentioned government employees who have 
been injured by UAPs placed on leave and receiving government 
compensation for their injuries. Is that correct?
    Mr. Elizondo. That is correct.
    Ms. Mace. How can the government deny we have recovered 
craft if they are paying people because they have been injured 
by recovered craft?
    Mr. Elizondo. Ma'am, that is a great question. That is why 
I think we are here again, because I have seen the 
documentation by the U.S. Government for several of these 
individuals who have sustained injuries as a result of a UAP 
incident.
    Ms. Mace. That is a crazy idea, right? The hypocrisy and 
the logic.
    OK. Mr. Shellenberger, I am going to say it again to be 
very clear. Immaculate Constellation. What is its mission, and 
how are they funded?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Its mission is to--as I stated, its 
mission is to--it is an unacknowledged special access program. 
Its mission is to document UAPs.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    And do you, for your story and your report, do you have 
more than one credible source, sourcing?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I do.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    Mr. Shellenberger. I do.
    Ms. Mace. And then why do you believe your sources to be 
credible? How do you judge the veracity of the documentation 
you have been provided about this program?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I checked the sources, and they are who 
they say they are. They are current or former government 
officials. I should also--I want to also add that I did not 
specify that they were Defense Department employees. I did not 
specify the agency nor the gender.
    Ms. Mace. Would they have included non-government 
employees, people that are not employed by the government?
    Mr. Shellenberger. These are--I am comfortable saying that 
these are government or previously government employees.
    Ms. Mace. Any of them currently employed by a private 
contractor or private contractors?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I would rather not say.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    What is the key takeaway, in just a few seconds, about the 
Immaculate Constellation document you provided us today?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I think that what the American people 
need to know is that the U.S. military and intelligence 
community are sitting on a huge amount of visual and other 
information, still photos, video photos, other censor 
information, and they have for a very long time, and it is not 
those fuzzy photos and videos that we have been given, there is 
very clear----
    Ms. Mace. High res?
    Mr. Shellenberger. High resolution.
    Ms. Mace. How many visuals, graphics, videos, photos?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I mean, I have been told hundreds, you 
know, maybe thousands.
    I mean, I also wanted to say, because there was some 
conversation around concern around the reviewing of these 
materials revealing the source collections, but some of these 
are shot from helicopters using normal videos of oceans. I just 
think that is absurd that somehow you are going to be revealing 
some secret U.S. technology by revealing that you photographed 
orbs off the coast of Kuwait.
    Ms. Mace. OK. Thank you.
    I have 8 seconds.
    Mr. Gold, did the NASA independent study team get briefed 
on what you call AAWSAP? Very quickly.
    Mr. Gold. I flagged the Advanced Airspace Weapon Systems 
Applications Program to our Chair and our DFO. We did not get 
briefed. But I believe it is definitely worth looking into. 
That was probably the largest UAP review effort ever and I 
think produced a lot of interest data--including revealing 
Nimitz. I do not know if my fellow witness might want to--he 
did yeoman's work on it--might want to comment.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    All right. I am going to turn to Mr. Moskowitz, who will be 
recognized for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    So, Mr. Gold, you gave a whole diatribe for a couple of 
minutes about UAPs, science, data collection, stigma. A lot of 
non-believers in all of this would just ask a very simple 
question. Why? Why is it so hard, right? Like, why are people, 
any time they ask, why are they always thwarted? Why are they 
always judged? Why do they always have misinformation spread? 
Why is there always retribution? Why is it always met with 
inure? What is the why? If it does not exist, why is it such a 
problem?
    Mr. Gold. I think if you go through the history of science, 
Representative, it is always difficult for breakthroughs and 
new information regardless of whether it is UAP or any other 
kind of discovery.
    In science, we are supposed to be open, but when you break 
with the orthodoxy of what is believed, whether it is Galileo 
saying that the Earth does not rotate or the Earth rotates 
around the sun or the sun does not rotate around the Earth, it 
is always challenging for new beliefs. And the more 
extraordinary those discoveries, the more extraordinary those 
new beliefs, it is very difficult.
    So, I think this is natural. There is natural conservatism 
when it comes to science, but this issue in particular has been 
very difficult where, again, even to attempt to study it 
becomes problematic.
    But every hearing like this, every news report, every video 
documentary--I was privileged to be part of something Dan 
Farrow was putting together. I think many of us have 
interviewed for it, documenting 30 different government 
officials, every brick in the wall will help get us closer to 
getting to the truth.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Elizondo--do I have that correct?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I am a recovering lawyer, so I am going to 
put my hat on for a second. You said you signed a document. 
Love that. Who gave that to you?
    Mr. Elizondo. The U.S. Government, sir.
    Mr. Moskowitz. OK. Do you have a copy of it?
    Mr. Elizondo. It is stored in the SCIF right now. I do not 
have possession of it. The U.S. Government does.
    Mr. Moskowitz. What department of the U.S. Government gave 
you this document?
    Mr. Elizondo. I will say the Department of Defense. 
Unfortunately, I cannot say in this forum much more than that.
    Mr. Moskowitz. You specifically said the document said you 
cannot talk about crash retrieval. Well, you know, you cannot 
talk about fight club if there is no fight club.
    Mr. Elizondo. Correct.
    Mr. Moskowitz. OK. I am just making an observation.
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Moskowitz. So, that document that you signed that you 
said exists specifically said you cannot talk about crash 
retrieval?
    Mr. Elizondo. Correct, sir. It was a limitation on what I--
because already I had been speaking publicly about the topic, 
and so the document said, ``You can continue saying X, Y, Z, 
but you cannot discuss the topic of crash retrieval.''
    Mr. Moskowitz. Give me the atmosphere of signing this 
document. You are in a room by yourself?
    Mr. Elizondo. I am in a SCIF with a security officer, sir.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Just one on one? Anybody else?
    Mr. Elizondo. There may have been an assistant as well. It 
was in a SCIF within a Department of Defense facility.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Give me your background real quick.
    Mr. Elizondo. My background is I went to school to study 
microbiology and immunology. I entered into the U.S. Army, and 
after a very short stint in military intelligence, I became a 
counterintelligence special agent as a civilian. Later on, I 
became a special agent in charge, running investigations and 
counter terrorism and counter espionage primarily with some 
experience in counter insurgency and counter narcotics.
    And then, in 2009 timeframe, when I came back to the 
Pentagon after a tour with the Director of National 
Intelligence, I quickly became part of a program that was 
originally called AAWSAP. That evolved into the program now 
called AATIP, which is where those videos that we now see, the 
GOFAST, the GIMBAL, the FLIR, that was part of our effort, sir.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Right. So, you are not some conspiracy 
theorist. You actually have a legitimate background.
    Mr. Elizondo. Well, sir, I am certainly not a conspiracy 
theorist. I am fact-based, just a fact----
    Mr. Moskowitz. So, when you are in this room--I want to 
paint the picture for everybody. You are in this room. You are 
by yourself. You are in the SCIF. You are handed a document. 
How long is the document?
    Mr. Elizondo. It is about a page front and back. So, 
basically, you have some things they call trigraphs, which I 
cannot, again, talk----
    Mr. Moskowitz. How long were you given to sign the 
document?
    Mr. Elizondo. As long as I needed, sir.
    Mr. Moskowitz. And what if you did not sign it?
    Mr. Elizondo. Well, I suspect there would be repercussions. 
I would not have access to certain information.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Were you allowed to conduct--ask a lawyer or 
you were not allowed to talk--you were not allowed to ask for a 
lawyer to review the document?
    Mr. Elizondo. It was an option, but they probably would not 
have allowed me to because the document itself was pretty 
explicit about you have to be--you are putting me in an 
interesting--let me try to thread the needle here.
    There are certain documents that we have in the U.S. 
Government that allow people to have access to certain 
programs, whether it is a specialized--I am being very generic 
here--whether it is a special access program or controlled 
access program, SAP, CAP, whatnot.
    Mr. Moskowitz. How many people have to sign that document?
    Mr. Elizondo. It depends how many people are going to get 
access to the information, sir.
    Mr. Moskowitz. OK.
    Last question. Doctor, real quick, can you tell us about 
the Omaha incident in greater detail? I have read your 
background, right. Some people would label you as a member of 
the deep state since you worked in government for a long period 
of time.
    But can you tell us more about that incident? You have 
written a lot about that.
    Dr. Gallaudet. I wrote a lot about incidents like it, 
Congressman, but that specific incident involved the USS Omaha, 
the tour combat ship of the U.S. Navy operating off of Southern 
California. I do not remember the exact date. It was within the 
last decade, but what the watch standers on the bridge observed 
was a UAP. Again, something that was aloft but had no 
observable exhaust or control surfaces. So, it was something 
that could not be explained.
    And then they saw it enter the water from the atmosphere 
and going through the air/sea interface and so, thus, 
exhibiting transmedium travel.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    I will now recognize Mr. Grothman for 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes, we will start with Mr. Gallaudet. During 
a previous UAP hearing, Navy Commander David Fravor discussed 
the Tic Tac object engaged in 2004. Are you familiar with the 
incident, the Tic Tac incident?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. That is almost 20 years ago, right?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. It has been said there are more videos, 
documents, and reports related to this incident. Do you believe 
the information regarding the Tic Tac incident should be 
available to all Members of Congress?
    In your expertise, what reason would the Department of 
Defense possibly have for not releasing information that is 
over 20 years old?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congressman.
    I do not think there is any good reason to withhold 
information and important data, especially of a national 
security concern, from Congress.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, what would they say?
    Dr. Gallaudet. I will speculate, sir, that they do not want 
to share that kind of information because it reveals weaknesses 
in our ability to monitor and protect our airspace.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    In your written testimony, you claim last year's UAP 
hearing before this Oversight Committee confirmed that UAP-
related information is--well, it is not only being withheld, 
but that elements of the government are engaging in a 
disinformation campaign, to include personal attacks designed 
to discredit UAP whistleblowers.
    Could you elaborate on that statement a little?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
    Earlier this year, I met with the DoD's All-domain Anomaly 
Resolution Office, and what I thought would be a 90-minute 
meeting just to meet with leadership turned out to be an hours-
long influence operation on me, where I was--they attempted to 
convince me of the validity of the very flawed and error-ridden 
historical records report.
    In addition, they tried to have me question very valid UAP 
reports like the Tic Tac incident, even coming to a--stating 
possibly that the Tic Tac was American technology. And then, of 
course, if you ask David Fravor or Alex Dietrich, the two 
witnesses, they were convinced it was otherwise.
    And then--and they also cast discredit on various UAP 
whistleblowers and witnesses to----
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Mr. Gallaudet [continuing]. Question their validity and 
credibility as witnesses.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    We will go to Mr. Elizondo. I hope I got that right or at 
least not that wrong.
    Mr. Elizondo. Close enough, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. You are familiar with the recent drone 
incursion over Langley Air Force Base?
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. The owners of the drones remain unclear. The 
U.S. military has not been able to give us in Congress an 
answer.
    Given your experience with the Department of Defense and 
the intelligence community, how frequently are UAP sightings 
over military installations?
    And, second, I suppose hypothetically you could have 
incursions over just, say, regular airports. Is it obvious 
these incursions are more likely over military facilities than 
just a random airport out there?
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir, there is definitely enough data to 
suggest that there is certainly some sort of relationship 
between sensitive U.S. military installations, also some of our 
nuclear equities, and also some of our Department of Energy 
sites.
    There is a long historical record that some of your 
colleagues may have, documentation that demonstrates this. This 
is not a new trend; this has been going on for decades. And 
that information has been obfuscated, unfortunately, from folks 
like you and this Committee.
    And I think that is problematic because, ultimately, at the 
end of the day, we have a significant situation here. We have 
something that can enter into U.S. airspace, completely with no 
attribution----
    Mr. Grothman. And how long has this been going on?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, decades. And there is information that 
will hopefully be entered into the record at some point.
    Mr. Grothman. Can you think of any possible reason why they 
cannot release any information they have on something, say, 15 
or 20 years old?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, if I could echo my colleague here, 
Admiral Gallaudet, I think one of the big issues that we have 
in the intelligence community and Department of Defense is we 
do not want to broadcast any potential vulnerabilities or 
weaknesses in our national defense systems or in our 
intelligence collection platforms.
    Therefore, when you have a conversation where you address a 
problem for which there is no solution, it makes that a very 
uncomfortable conversation to have.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    We will switch to Mr. Shellenberger.
    The primary reason you are here today is because you 
published an article on the news publication that you own--
called Public, right?--alleging that a new, unnamed government 
whistleblower has come forward asserting that a highly 
classified program exists dedicated to recovery and reverse 
engineering of UAP technologies.
    Can you give us what specific evidence you have or that 
your source provided you to substantiate the claims about the 
existence of the Immaculate Constellation program?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Well, you have the report in front of 
you now, so you can see it for yourself. But I checked the 
report, and I did not find it based on existing cases; it was 
new cases for me. At least, I had not found anybody--so that 
solved--that answered for me that it was not obviously circular 
reporting, which is one of the big concerns in this space.
    I also had the name of the program confirmed by more than 
one additional source. So--yes. And then, of course, I checked 
to make sure that the source was who they claimed to be.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Mr. Shellenberger. I should also say that when I said 
before it was this data base, it is a much broader program than 
that. It also includes human intelligence and then, as you 
mentioned, the retrieval and the----
    Mr. Grothman. Any knowledge of what country these things 
originated in?
    Mr. Shellenberger. No. No, I have no idea.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Ms. Mace. OK. I will now recognize Mr. Burchett for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Burchett. Thanks, Chairlady.
    I request unanimous consent to enter into the record 
documents provided to us regarding legacy UAP programs and 
psychological operations, Lue Elizondo.
    Ms. Mace. So, ordered.
    Mr. Burchett. I also want to thank my buddy Jeremy Corbell 
for providing these documents and access to some 
whistleblowers.
    Mr. Elizondo, what is the last position--your last position 
with the Federal Government?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, I was the Director of National Programs 
Special Management Staff, managing a White House special access 
program on behalf of the National Security Council.
    Mr. Burchett. How would you characterize UAPs?
    Mr. Elizondo. An enigma, sir, and a frustration.
    We are talking about technologies that can outperform 
anything we have in our inventory. And if this was an 
adversarial technology, this would be an intelligence failure 
eclipsing that of 9/11 by an order of magnitude.
    Mr. Burchett. Are there classified Department of Defense 
materials related to UAPs that you believe could be safely 
disclosed to the public without compromising national security?
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir, I do. I would never, ever try to 
endorse providing some sort of information that could 
compromise what we call a ``blue force'' technology or 
capability, but I do believe there is a lot of information 
regarding this topic--and I have been very vocal about it--that 
should be shared not only with the public but, most 
importantly, with Members of Congress.
    Mr. Burchett. Are you familiar with my friend David Grusch?
    Mr. Elizondo. Absolutely, sir. I had the privilege and 
honor of working with him myself several years ago at U.S. 
Space Force.
    Mr. Burchett. Last year, as you know, he testified that the 
U.S. has run a multi-decade UAP crash, retrieval, and reverse 
engineering program.
    Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Burchett. Are there UAP programs operating without--
without--proper congressional oversight?
    Mr. Elizondo. One hundred percent.
    Mr. Burchett. What are they?
    Mr. Elizondo. Unfortunately, sir, I would have to have that 
conversation in a closed session.
    Mr. Burchett. I know you said that, and a lot of people are 
frustrated with those kind of answers, but we are asking those 
kind of questions so you all know what the heck we're up 
against.
    You also mentioned in your opening statement that the 
Pentagon's Public Affairs Office employs a psychological 
operations officer as the singular point of contact for UAP-
related inquiries.
    Why the heck would they do that?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, that is a great question. I would ask 
the Pentagon.
    There is a long history here of that individual providing 
misleading and false information to the public through various 
news outlets and media outlets in order to discredit this 
topic. I have personally been victim to it.
    We have the documentation to substantiate where this 
information has been absolutely inaccurate that has been 
provided time and time again. And it turns out that that 
individual was also working with former leadership of AARO at 
the time as well.
    Mr. Burchett. And we punish them by giving them 
multimillion dollars more than they ask for every year.
    Admiral Gallaudet, you mentioned in your opening statement 
an email you received from the operations officer of the Fleet 
Forces Command regarding unknown objects almost colliding with 
U.S. military planes.
    Did anyone respond with knowledge of what the objects were?
    Dr. Gallaudet. I have received no response, sir.
    Mr. Burchett. Did the operation--did the exercise get 
canceled?
    Dr. Gallaudet. The exercise did not get canceled.
    Mr. Burchett. Why do you think the Commander of Fleet 
Forces operations officer never discussed the incident again?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Sir, I am speculating, because I did not 
have an exchange with him, but I believed it to be part of a 
special access program, the information and the video, which we 
know now it was. And he realized he could not share that openly 
with the recipients of the email, and, therefore, the email was 
pulled from everybody's account.
    Mr. Burchett. Again, tell us what happened to the email 
from the Commander of Fleet Forces.
    Dr. Gallaudet. The day after I received it and all the 
other recipients received it--which were all the subordinate 
commanders of U.S. Fleet Forces, so one-and two-star admirals, 
including strike group commanders--the email was wiped or 
deleted from our accounts----
    Mr. Burchett. OK.
    Mr. Gallaudet [continuing]. And then no one talked about 
it.
    Mr. Burchett. All right.
    Have you specifically had any experience with submersible 
objects?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Sir, I have not--no personal experience, but 
I have had witnesses on submarines come to me and say they have 
seen on sonar data----
    Mr. Burchett. Correct.
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. How would you characterize those, and how 
did they move?
    Dr. Gallaudet. The one instance that I was--that was 
revealed to me was in the 1980's on a nuclear-powered 
submarine, a ballistic missile submarine, that the object 
exhibited the characteristics of a Russian torpedo in terms of 
its speed of movement and closing rate with the submarine. And 
then it slowed and followed the submarine slowly in its wake 
for a period of minutes and then rapidly exited the scene.
    Mr. Burchett. OK.
    Dr. Gallaudet. And nothing that we know of technology-wise 
could replicate that.
    Mr. Burchett. And the speed of these objects was faster 
than anything that we have or anybody else has that would be 
manned. Is that correct?
    Dr. Gallaudet. It was on the order of a----
    Mr. Burchett. Underwater.
    Dr. Gallaudet [continuing]. Torpedo, so----
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir. But as it exited, it did----
    Mr. Burchett. Well, I do not exactly know how fast a 
torpedo is, but I expect it does better than my old outboard 
Scott-Atwater, so I will take that as a yes.
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Burchett. OK.
    Have you any experience with the All-domain Anomaly 
Resolution Office, AARO?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congressman. As I mentioned previously, 
I have met with them.
    Mr. Burchett. OK.
    You heard Mr. Elizondo describe psychological operations 
for those contacting the Department of Defense about UAPs. You 
mentioned a similar influence operation by AARO.
    Why are Federal agencies invested in running information 
operations about UAPs if they do not exist?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
    But I will make a statement on AARO's behalf. They have new 
leadership. The office has reached out to me to meet again, and 
I take that as a good-faith effort. And we will see where that 
goes.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
    Chairlady, I have run over. Thank you.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Tennessee.
    I would now like to recognize Mr. Higgins.
    Mr. Burchett. That is a first for me.
    Ms. Mace. You are the king of Tennessee.
    Mr. Higgins, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Elizondo, Mr. Shellenberger notes in his--in the report 
that we have been given for this hearing--I believe, Mr. 
Shellenberger--let me shift--you are author of this report?
    Mr. Elizondo. I am sorry, sir, I am not the author of----
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Shellenberger, were you the author of this 
report? There is----
    Mr. Shellenberger. No, I was not.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. No name on it.
    Mr. Shellenberger. No.
    Mr. Higgins. Do you know the author?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I do.
    Mr. Higgins. You do. And how would you estimate that madam 
or gentleman, the author?
    Mr. Shellenberger. The person is a current or former U.S. 
Government employee.
    Mr. Higgins. And it states here that it is the public 
version of the author's report.
    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins. So, where might one find the non-public 
version of the author's report?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I do not know the answer to that.
    Mr. Higgins. Would that be with the Department of Defense?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I do not know.
    Mr. Higgins. But you do know the author.
    Mr. Shellenberger. I do.
    Mr. Higgins. Do you know what the author's sources were?
    Mr. Shellenberger. The author's sources are described in 
the report--these data bases, the Immaculate Constellation 
program----
    Mr. Higgins. All right. But you expressed some confidence 
in the sources----
    Mr. Shellenberger. I would.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Earlier in testimony.
    Mr. Shellenberger. I do.
    Mr. Higgins. You expressed confidence. So, do you know 
those sources?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I do.
    Mr. Higgins. Are they within the Department of Defense?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I cannot say.
    Mr. Higgins. You cannot say or you will not say?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I will not say.
    Mr. Higgins. OK. Why not?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Because I protect my sources, and I 
think the----
    Mr. Higgins. But you are not naming them. It is a big 
department. Many of us on my side of the aisle would say it is 
far too big.
    So, you are talking about the Department of Defense, 
sources from within the Department of Defense?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I am uncomf--I am not willing to 
reduce----
    Mr. Higgins. OK.
    Mr. Shellenberger [continuing]. The potential universe of 
my--where my sources might be.
    Mr. Higgins. OK.
    Moving on, in this report, Mr. Elizondo, for reference, 
several types of allegedly alien craft or possibly alien craft 
or unknown AARO phenomena, what we used to call UFOs, are 
described--spheres and orbs, disks and saucers, oval or Tic 
Tac, triangular shape, boomerang and arrowhead, and irregular 
or organic.
    Mr. Elizondo, does that summarize to you the types of craft 
that we are discussing today?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, that is the general morphology, 
historical speaking, of many UAPs----
    Mr. Higgins. OK. So, those descriptions are very different 
craft. Is it your assessment that they would come of different 
origins?
    Mr. Elizondo. It is possible, but this also could be a 
matter of utility.
    And let me just state for the record, I never read the 
report that--or the article that Mr. Shellenberger put out. The 
reason is----
    Mr. Higgins. That is a good point. We are just referencing 
it----
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. For descriptive purposes for the 
American people.
    Mr. Shellenberger, in this report, it is striking to me 
that, regarding the descriptions of experiences with these 
various craft, several of them include biological effects and 
several do not.
    Are you familiar with what I am talking about?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins. OK. So, spheres and orbs, triangular craft, 
and irregular or organic craft include some descriptions of 
biological effects, including feelings of unease, electronic 
device malfunctions, long-term psychological effects such as 
anxiety or insomnia have been noted, feeling of being watched, 
a shared awareness with the triangle craft. And under the 
irregular and organic craft, biological effects include 
physical sensations of warmth or cold and unexplained smells 
and psychological distress.
    So, these are very specific descriptions of the reactions 
of human beings which allegedly have been noted from a study 
here, a report. All of those experiences would have been 
described by the sources that the author used?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I am not sure I understand your 
question, sir.
    Mr. Higgins. This is a very broad description of biological 
effects, and it is striking to me that they are present with 
relation to some types of craft----
    Mr. Shellenberger. Right.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. But absent in others. This would 
require a great deal of research and study. Can you explain 
that?
    Mr. Shellenberger. My understanding is that this is--the 
data base is very large. It includes both the images, the 
videos, the still images, as well as the human intelligence, 
the reports, the raw data from individuals having these 
experiences.
    So, in answer to your question, yes, I mean, I think we are 
looking at a very large amount of data collected over many 
decades.
    Mr. Higgins. And that data is held by the Department of 
Defense?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Well, I will say that, after I 
published, I was told that this program--that the USAP was 
actually managed by the Department of Defense but held at the 
White House.
    Mr. Higgins. Roger that.
    Mr. Shellenberger. But that is a single source, and I do 
not have multiple sources to verify that.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir. I did my best to trick an 
answer out of you, but--I was partially successful.
    Madam Chair, I yield.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    I would now recognize Mr. Frost for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    In addition to serving on this Committee, the Oversight 
Committee, I also serve on the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee, where we often discuss how essential data and 
evidence are used in science and used at departments such as 
NASA. During a hearing, NASA Administrator Nelson affirmed the 
importance of NASA in helping us to understand UAP.
    Mr. Gold, if the government does not have the data it needs 
on UAP because, say, someone who saw something is concerned 
about stigma, public backlash, et cetera, or maybe there is 
just not good systems in place, how are we supposed to 
ultimately figure out what is going on?
    Mr. Gold. Yes. Thank you for the question.
    And let me compliment Administrator Nelson, that there 
would not have been a UAP Independent Study Team if it was not 
for his leadership and courage.
    We are talking about data and where we can get data from. 
As I described, NASA has whole archives of data, much of which, 
I believe, will likely have information that will help inform 
UAP; we need only look. And, again, in an era with AI and ML, 
we can relatively quickly and easily go through it. So, I think 
it is something that we should encourage NASA to do.
    However, per Chairman Grothman's comment about UAP focusing 
on national security sites, I believe there is something, sir, 
that you may have heard of called ``sensor bias,'' that because 
we have got more cameras, more monitoring of national security, 
we do not know how extensive UAP activity may be over civilian 
areas.
    Now, this is to the second part of your question, where we 
are not collecting the data. We are not collecting sufficient 
data from pilots. We are not collecting sufficient data from 
civilian and commercial activities. And this is, again, where 
ASRS, I think, could substantially change that, get the data 
out there, and allow us to do good science.
    Mr. Frost. Yes. Thank you.
    I mean, on the data, you know, I am a really big proponent 
of transparency, but obviously there is always a little bit of 
balance that we have to have in government on transparency as 
well. I mean, last year, NASA appointed a Director of UAP 
Research and Response, to the recommendation by the Independent 
Study Team.
    In the final report, there's a quote: ``Despite numerous 
accounts and visuals, the absence of consistent, detailed, and 
curated observations means we do not presently have the body of 
data needed to make definite and scientific conclusions about 
UAP.''
    Can you just talk really quickly about that balance of 
security and transparency?
    Mr. Gold. So, I can say, having served at NASA, it is the 
most transparent organization I have ever been in. When we 
would have conversations with executive leadership, things 
would leak out almost instantly. So, I can assure you, 
intentionally or not, NASA is very transparent. I do not know 
if many of you have worked with engineers or scientists; they 
love to talk.
    So, I believe that NASA is a paradigm of transparency, but 
we must have the ability and the data to be able to be 
transparent with.
    Mr. Frost. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Gold. And if we are not gathering that, if we are not 
looking at it, then we cannot bring NASA into the game and get 
to that good science that you need.
    Mr. Frost. You know, it was about a year ago, I was touring 
a facility with a pretty senior government official. We went by 
a certain hangar, and they said, ``Yes, that is--you know, a 
company leases that out. We do not really know what is going on 
in there. We have no way of knowing what is going on in 
there.'' And there was a few of those, in fact, while we were 
driving around this facility.
    To what extent do you think that some of the UAP out there 
comes from off-the-books or unauthorized experimental aircraft?
    Mr. Gold. I mean, I think probably the vast majority of UAP 
are drones, experimental aircraft, weather conditions. Which 
is, again, why I say, if we reviewed the data, I think we are 
going to discover a lot about things we were not even thinking 
about. But there is a percentage that is not. And looking into 
those anomalies is how discoveries will be made.
    And relative to science, Congressman, if I can say, when 
NASA studies black holes, when NASA studies galaxies, we have 
instruments that are tailored to do so. With UAP, we are using 
cockpit gun cameras or cell phones. We could never do good 
science with that.
    And let me tell you, the NASA budget is under pressure. We 
need to make sure that the Artemis program is funded fully. We 
need to beat China to the Moon and maintain our presence in low 
Earth orbit. So, NASA would need more money to do this.
    But I think tailored instruments that would look at UAP, in 
the same way that we have tailored instruments to look at 
astronomical data, is important to gathering valuable and 
uniform information.
    If we were studying black holes by using fighter cockpit 
cameras, we probably would not know that much about black 
holes.
    Mr. Frost. Huh. A hundred percent.
    Well, I think it is important that Federal leaders take the 
necessary steps to ensure that UAP does not pose threats to the 
American public as well and that we have the necessary budgets 
to collect this data so we can actually see what is going on.
    And I am fully supportive of funding the Artemis mission. I 
think it is very important. Also, a personal note: The pilot is 
a frat brother of mine. He is a member of the Phi Beta Sigma 
Fraternity, Incorporated. And so, I would love to see my 
fraternity make it to the Moon.
    Mr. Gold. But Redwire is building the cameras for Artemis, 
so we will take some pictures of your frat brother and get them 
to you.
    Mr. Frost. There we go. Thank you so much.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    I will now recognize Mrs. Luna for 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Mrs. Luna. Mr. Elizondo, to your knowledge, can you name 
the country and around timeframe that the first back-engineered 
UAP program started?
    Mr. Elizondo. Ma'am, unfortunately, I would not be able to 
have that conversation in public.
    Mrs. Luna. Can anyone on the panel name that?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I cannot.
    Mrs. Luna. None of you? OK.
    This next question is for Mr. Gallaudet.
    To your knowledge, have any USOs ever outpaced our 
submarines?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. Luna. At what magnitude?
    Dr. Gallaudet. I do not have the exact speed, but, again, a 
witness came to me--a credible former submarine officer who 
observed it on sonar data. And this was in the 1980s in the 
North Atlantic during a storm. And it outpaced his submarine by 
orders of magnitude.
    Mrs. Luna. Are you aware of any hotspots that currently 
exist off our shores in North America?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Not with sufficiently credible data, ma'am.
    Mrs. Luna. OK. We have heard reports of there potentially 
being hotspots, maybe entry and exit points. Have you heard of 
any of that?
    Dr. Gallaudet. I have not, ma'am, but my colleague here, 
Mr. Elizondo, does discuss some USO activity that he has 
observed in certain DoD data bases.
    Mrs. Luna. Mr. Elizondo, in regard to these aircraft being 
piloted by whatever they might be--nonhuman biologics--would 
you agree that it is likely that they are being piloted by some 
mind-body connection?
    Mr. Elizondo. Ma'am, I think it is safe to presume here 
that they are being intelligently controlled, because they in 
some cases seem to anticipate our maneuvers, and in other cases 
they seem to--and I came across an email where the word 
``stalked'' was used, in a--it was a very secure email between 
Navy officers discussing their ships being pursued by a UAP.
    Mrs. Luna. In our previous panel, we had Grusch, and he had 
testified to say that some of these were interdimensional 
beings. Can you speak on that at all?
    Mr. Elizondo. Ma'am, I am not qualified, certainly as a 
scientist or otherwise, to speculate points of origin.
    I look at everything from a scientific perspective. So, if 
you look at, for example, instantaneous acceleration, which was 
one of the observables of the program that I belonged to, 
AATIP, the human body can withstand about 9 g-forces for a 
short period of time before you suffer negative biological 
consequences--blackouts and ultimately red-outs and even death.
    In comparison, our best technology, the F-16, which is one 
of--it is an older platform but one of our most highly 
maneuverable aircraft, manned aircraft, made by General 
Dynamics, can perform at about 17 or 18 g-forces before you 
start having structural failure, meaning that the airframe 
begins to disintegrate while you are flying.
    The vehicles we are talking about are performing in excess 
of 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 Gs.
    Mrs. Luna. So, are you--I guess, would it be safe to infer 
that they are living craft?
    Mr. Elizondo. You know, I am not prepared at this point to 
state for the record is something alive or not, because even 
that definition--sorry, there was a time in science where we 
thought that life required oxygen, and we now know that is not 
true. There are anaerobic bacteria that thrive in environments 
that lack oxygen.
    And, also, same with photosynthesis. When I was in college, 
I was told everything is derived from photosynthesis as a form 
of energy. In reality, that is not true. There are things that 
live off of chemosynthesis.
    So, we are constantly having to reevaluate our 
understanding of what the definition of ``life'' is.
    Mrs. Luna. Uh-huh.
    Do any of you ever come across reports from people that 
claim to have firsthand experiences with these entities, 
whatever they might be, or these aircraft and then, as a 
result, whether or not they are religious, find that these 
things will automatically disappear?
    Anyone? This is open to any of you on the panel. So, just 
real quick, because I am running out of time.
    Lue?
    Mr. Elizondo. Ma'am, I have always been a nuts-and-bolts 
kind of guy. When I was at AATIP, I was focusing more on the 
performance characteristics and less on the potential 
occupants.
    Mrs. Luna. OK.
    The reason I ask is because it seems like, just based on 
our conversations, that we have had people that say that there 
are good and bad of whatever these things are.
    And so, my concern from a national security perspective is, 
A, is that true? B, are you guys hearing reports of that?
    And, C, I think moving forward in regard to technology--Mr. 
Gold, if you can answer this real quickly--some of these 
aircraft, it seems that they are operating off of energy that 
we do not currently have.
    But just yes or no, in your opinion, if we were able to 
obtain that, would that impact humanity for the better or 
negative?
    Mr. Gold. It would certainly save us some money on funding 
on Artemis.
    And----
    Mrs. Luna. Definitely.
    Mr. Gold [continuing]. This is a national security issue, 
that if there is such technology out there, we are not the only 
country that might have access to it. We do not want to be on 
the wrong end of technological surprise.
    Mrs. Luna. OK.
    Thank you guys for your time.
    Ms. Mace. All right. Thank you.
    I will now recognize Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
    And I apologize for stepping out. My Governor is here, 
upstairs. So, I am going, trying to get in between meetings, so 
apologize for that.
    I want to just start by just asking everyone on the panel, 
our witnesses--and I had a chance to read all the testimony 
before. But just to set the agenda, just if you can go down 
real briefly, do you believe, just for the record, that the 
Federal Government, any part of the Federal Government, is 
knowingly concealing evidence about UAPs from the public?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Elizondo. One hundred percent.
    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
    Mr. Gold. Yes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
    I also want to just go down the line--and I know many of 
you have already said this, but I just--for the record, again, 
just briefly: What do you believe UAPs could be or are?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Strong evidence that they are nonhuman 
higher intelligence.
    Mr. Elizondo. I echo my colleague's comment, sir.
    Mr. Shellenberger. Genuinely do not know.
    Mr. Gold. Do not know, but we must find out.
    Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you. I appreciate those answers, 
gentlemen. I think this is obviously another remarkable hearing 
with just really important information, so I thank all of you 
for answering the questions.
    Admiral, I just want to go back to one thing. Now, last 
year, our Subcommittee heard from two retired Navy pilots, 
Lieutenant Ryan Graves and Commander David Fravor, regarding 
UAPs. Actually, I think Ryan is here in the audience, and been 
a great person to get to know and to have conversations with. 
He, of course, has been involved in the Safe Airspace for 
Americans Act, with Chairman Graves, with Chairwoman Mace, for 
UAP reporting by civilian aviation personnel.
    Can you discuss briefly why it is important for civilian 
pilots to be able to report UAPs and why these legal 
protections are critical for our national security?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congressman. Thank you. And I did 
invite Ryan Graves as my guest, as I am on his advisory board 
for the Americans for Safe Aerospace.
    And that legislation, that you supported and introduced, I 
fully support as well. And I think it is important that more 
civilian pilots, commercial pilots report so we can better 
understand and learn and do research on UAP, as well as remove 
the stigma so more citizens report on what they observe.
    And, also, it will only contribute to aviation safety when 
we have a better understanding of where these UAP are, how they 
operate, and at what frequency and what capability level.
    So, it is important for aviation safety, and it will be 
important for moving science and research forward.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
    And I want to just reiterate to my colleagues, I mean, this 
is a very bipartisan piece of legislation, and we have just got 
to continue to get this through the Congress.
    And it is incredibly important that civilian pilots have 
the opportunity to safely report the UAPs that they are seeing 
or encountering in the air. And I cannot express how critical 
this piece is, of what I believe is a larger collection of 
evidence and facts, actually happen.
    We have been approached by pilots, I have talked to folks 
that have been engaged with our office and others, and there is 
still enormous stigma, and essentially we do not have a system 
where folks are feeling free to be able to report what they are 
seeing. And so, I just want to reiterate that advocacy.
    Mr. Gold, in your testimony, you discuss NASA's Aviation 
Safety Reporting System, a confidential, nonpunitive reporting 
mechanism.
    In the Safe Airspace for Americans Act, we explicitly allow 
for civilian reporting, of course, of UAPs.
    Can you explain why the NASA task force recommended the use 
of the Aviation Safety Reporting System?
    Mr. Gold. The Aviation Safety Reporting System is an 
existing system that is trusted, that has taken hundreds of 
thousands, now millions, of cases. And, again, recognizing 
budgetary constraints, this seems like the perfect way to be 
able to gain more data.
    And when it comes to the stigma, sir, it is something that 
pilots are used to reporting on, that crew is used to reporting 
on.
    So, it is a great way to get data, to overcome the stigma, 
without spending really that much more additional money since 
the system exists.
    Thank you so much for your support of that. Thank you for 
what Ryan Graves does. This is a commonsense means to expose 
the truth of UAP for the purpose of this hearing.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
    And I just want to also add: Now, earlier this year, as 
part of the House defense authorization bill, the NDAA, I had 
filed an amendment to include the UAP Disclosure Act, which 
would create a UAP Records Review Board with exercise of 
eminent domain over UAP-related material, modeled actually on 
the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, which is widely 
known. Now, the amendment was blocked, but thankfully the 
Senate included the amendment by Senators Rounds and Schumer 
for the UAP Disclosure Act.
    So, I just again want to say that we should be pushing and 
ensuring the UAP Disclosure Act, which is bipartisan in its 
support, should move forward.
    And if I can just briefly also--particularly, Admiral, can 
you just briefly, as I close my time, explain why the UAP 
Disclosure Act would be critical for us and our national 
security?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congressman.
    Yes, I believe the UAP Disclosure Act is important for 
national security; as well as advancing potential socioeconomic 
benefits resulting from UAP research; as well as public safety, 
as we referred to previously, regarding aviation.
    And this act will allow for greater transparency and open 
research. And that is why I am also a member of the UAP 
Discloser Fund as an advisor and the Sol Foundation as a senior 
strategic advisor, which is advocating the same.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. All right. Thank you.
    I would like to recognize Mr. Biggs for 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding 
this Committee.
    Thank you to the witnesses.
    Admiral, the video that is called the ``Go Fast'' video, 
the email that you have talked about being deleted, I just want 
to briefly cover this.
    You said that the email--the author was asking whether any 
of the recipients were aware of the classified technology 
demonstrations that could explain the objects that were 
observed. And then you said the email disappears; then you guys 
have a series of meetings; the Commander of Fleet Forces and 
his operations officer never discussed the incident again.
    Is that accurate?
    Dr. Gallaudet. That is accurate, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. And even during weekly meetings, it was never 
discussed again.
    My question for you is--you were in those meetings. Did you 
personally hear that nothing was going on about that?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir, I was in those meetings. And----
    Mr. Biggs. Did you make inquiries about that?
    Dr. Gallaudet. No, I did not, sir, because I inferred, 
since I had been read in to other special access programs, that 
this UAP video was part of one that I was not read in to, or 
any of the recipients or the author of the email, and that an 
intelligence agency basically pulled it back and instructed the 
author of the email, ``Hey, this is--you just conducted what 
they call 'spillage' into a lower classification level.'' And 
when that is done, the procedures are basically to remove any 
of the communications.
    Mr. Biggs. You are going to silo it.
    So, Mr. Elizondo, you said in your report and your 
testimony today, ``Government work on UAP subjects still 
remains classified. Excessive secrecy has led to grave misdeeds 
against loyal civil servants, military personnel, and the 
public--all to hide the fact that we are not alone in the 
cosmos.''
    Fair?
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. All right.
    And all of you--and, Mr. Shellenberger--by the way, I have 
read several of your books, Mr. Shellenberger. Excellent stuff.
    Mr. Shellenberger. Thank you.
    Mr. Biggs. What I would say, too, is: You were asked about 
the veracity of the author of this report. Are you comfortable 
with the veracity?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. OK.
    And then--and I will get to you in a second, Mr. Gold. We 
will talk about Kuhnian and Lakatosian scientific advancement 
and our obviating that through these processes. But we will get 
to that in a sec.
    Because what I want to really get to is, the ultimate 
question really becomes this: For what purpose is the Federal 
Government overclassifying--because that is what they are 
doing; they are overclassifying--and forbidding the public from 
getting access to this?
    And if you know, if you have an explanation, I am curious. 
Because I know what I have been told. I just want to know from 
your perspective, why do they overclassify?
    Mr. Elizondo, you look like you are finger-on-the-button, 
ready to go.
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir. Forgive me.
    I think there are several reasons. I think at the time when 
this first--this reality became evident to the U.S. Government, 
we were in the middle of a cold war with then-Soviet Union, and 
we did not want to tip our hands to what our knowledge base was 
on this topic. We did not want to broadcast that to the 
community.
    Mr. Biggs. The cold war is long over.
    Mr. Elizondo. It is, sir. It is, sir.
    There is also, then, the philosophical argument that the 
Department of Defense and the intelligence community is 
solution-oriented, and when you do not have answers, it is a 
really tough spot to be in.
    Mr. Biggs. It is easier to be quiet and suppress if you do 
not have the answer.
    Mr. Elizondo. Indeed, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. OK.
    Mr. Elizondo. In fact, there is a very real example when we 
built the U-2 spy plane and flew it over then-Russia and were 
taking reconnaissance. And when we first started flying the 
aircraft, it flew so high and so fast we thought they were not 
tracking us. In reality, they were tracking every flight.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes.
    Mr. Elizondo. It wasn't until the Russians could develop 
the SA-2 surface-to-air missile and successfully shoot them 
down----
    Mr. Biggs. And I would suggest to you also, along with 
Lakatos and Kuhn, you also have a problem with Kenneth Arrow's 
path dependence and increasing returns. That is one reason why 
they will not disclose it, is it is too painful to admit.
    But I just want to read a couple things from Mr. 
Shellenberger's--what he gave to us today, because I think this 
is interesting stuff, and I just want to convey this to you.
    ``On USG networks, there exists infrared footage of and 
imagery of a grouping of vessels engaged in SIGINT and MASINT 
collection at night in a specific area of the Pacific Ocean. In 
this footage, which was in close proximity to the vessels, a 
large equilateral-triangle UAP suddenly appears directly over 
the ships. Three bright points are seen at each bottom corner 
of the UAP, which is observed to slowly rotate on its 
horizontal access.'' And he goes on to describe that.
    And I just want to read one more. And I am doing this 
because I think it is interesting; this stuff is interesting as 
anything. So, let us get this one here, right here.
    ``While performing a routine Airspace Surveillance and 
Control Mission in the Eastern Air Defense Sector, an F-22 
fighter observed multiple UAP contacts at mission altitude. 
Moving to intercept, the F-22 pilot noted multiple metallic 
orbs, slightly smaller than a sedan, hovering in place. Upon 
vectoring toward the UAPs, a smaller formation of the metallic 
orbs accelerated at rapid speed toward the F-22, which was 
unable to establish radar locks on the presumed-hostile UAPs. 
The F-22 broke trajectory and attempted to evade but was 
intercepted and boxed in by approximately three to six UAPs.''
    And then I will leave that there, because I just have no 
more time left. I--well, she is not looking. So, let us just 
get into--let us get into part of this----
    Mr. Gold. I thought I would be saved by the bell.
    Mr. Biggs. No, no. Let us talk about Kuhnian, Lakatosian 
type of scientific development. And the problem that we have 
here is, you have institutional blockage of what would be 
normal development of scientific ideas.
    And if you want to expand on that, Mr. Gold?
    Ms. Mace. We are over time, so be very fast, please.
    Mr. Gold. I will just say, I am a recovering attorney, so 
please take it easy on me on the science. But all breakthroughs 
have been heretical at first, and that is the challenge that we 
face, particularly with something as extraordinary as this, 
which is why gathering the data is so important.
    And I will just end by saying, by the way, the 
overclassification of material is in no way limited to UAP. 
That is occurring throughout the government, as well as the 
inability to get people classifications in a timely and 
efficient measure and then to have those classifications be 
broad enough to be useful. So, this is a larger issue that I 
hope that Congress will remedy.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    Ms. Mace. I have been generous.
    All right, Mr. Burlison, I will recognize you for 5 minutes 
of questions, please.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Elizondo, I--or, does any branch of the U.S. Government 
or defense contractors possess technology?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, there is documentation, that I believe 
was submitted for the record, that was approved for release by 
the U.S. Pentagon, by the Department of Defense Office of 
Prepublication and Security Review. And it states that one of 
the reasons why my predecessor program, AAWSAP, was trying to 
collect material of unknown origin and----
    Mr. Burlison. And was it successfully collected?
    Mr. Elizondo. It was not. What happened is that there was 
an aerospace contract company that requested to divest itself 
of the material----
    Mr. Burlison. OK.
    Mr. Elizondo [continuing]. That was collected in the 1950s. 
Unfortunately, that did not actually occur.
    Mr. Burlison. So, let us dive into that. That is the 
Bigelow Aerospace, correct?
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Burlison. So, there was a journalist, Christopher 
Sharp, who said that there was a transfer between Lockheed 
Martin, Bigelow Aerospace, and the CIA allegedly blocked this.
    Can you describe that?
    Mr. Elizondo. What I can say is that it was blocked. Why it 
was blocked, I can only surmise. I was part of some 
conversations later on with some of those contract personnel 
where they had told all of us that is accurate.
    What we required was a memo from the Secretary of the Air 
Force in order to make that complete, and that never occurred. 
And so, when Secretary Mattis became Secretary of Defense, I 
decided it would be appropriate for me to try to receive a memo 
from him, as SecDef, as Secretary of Defense, if we could not 
get a memo from the Secretary of the Air Force to transfer that 
material.
    Mr. Burlison. So, if that material exists today, who is in 
possession?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, I would not be able to have that 
conversation in an open hearing. We would probably have to have 
that in closed.
    Mr. Burlison. OK. My question to you then is, if we were in 
a secure setting, if we were in a SCIF, would you be able to 
provide or get access to something, whether it is visuals or 
material that we could put our hands on, or biologics, that 
would convince me, that would show me that we have nonhuman 
origins?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, that decision would not be mine. That 
would be to the gatekeepers still in the U.S. Government.
    Mr. Burlison. And who would we--so, if you were in our 
shoes, where would you go from here? How would you get that 
information? How would--where is--you know, a lot of times we 
just don't know who to ask, because we do not know where to go 
next.
    So, if you were in our shoes, where would you go?
    Mr. Elizondo. Well, I prefer to answer that question in a 
closed session. However, we established AARO for that very 
purpose. And, unfortunately, under its previous leadership, it 
failed. So, one would hope that they would have the authorities 
necessary to do that. Let us hope that this new iteration of 
leadership will be successful.
    Mr. Burlison. In the discussions, it is simply about 
material? Or is there discussion about--it was previously 
testified that there was biologics that were collected. Are you 
aware of any of that?
    Mr. Elizondo. I am, sir, aware of the reporting that 
biologics have been recovered. Again, my focus was more nuts 
and bolts, looking at the physical aspects of these phenomenon, 
how they interacted around military equities and nuclear 
equities.
    So, I am certainly not a medical expert. I would not be 
able to probably provide you a whole lot of value in that, 
simply because I do not have the expertise.
    Mr. Burlison. But was anything described as that we have 
possession of bodies?
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Burlison. Is it multiple types of creatures? Or----
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, I could not answer that. I can tell you 
anecdotally that it was discussed quite a bit when I was at the 
Pentagon. The problem is, the supposed collection of these 
biological samples occurred before my time, in fact before I 
was even born.
    Mr. Burlison. And was this part of the Lockheed Martin 
discussion? Or was this completely--the biologics--was it 
completely separate?
    Mr. Elizondo. Separate yet related.
    Mr. Burlison. OK.
    Has anyone made contact?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, I am sorry, could you specify----
    Mr. Burlison. Has there been any, to your knowledge, any 
communication with a nonhuman life form?
    Mr. Elizondo. So, the term ``communication'' is a bit of a 
trick word, because there is verbal communication like we are 
having now; the problem is, you also have nonverbal 
communication.
    And so, I would say definitively yes, but from a 
nonverbal--meaning, when a Russian reconnaissance aircraft 
comes into U.S. airspace, we scramble two F-22s, and we are 
certainly communicating intent and capability.
    I think the same goes with this. We have these things that 
are being observed over controlled U.S. airspace, and they are 
not really doing a good job of hiding themselves. They are 
making it pretty obvious they have the ability to even 
interfere with our nuclear equities and our nuclear readiness.
    Mr. Burlison. Is the U.S. Government and our contractors, 
are they pulling, you know, technology from this? Are they 
reverse-engineering this?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, as I previously stated--and please 
forgive me--I am not authorized to discuss specifics about 
crash retrievals. Again, I signed documentation with the U.S. 
Government.
    What I can say was, after a very thorough review process by 
the Pentagon, what I wrote about. And that was my limit, 
unfortunately, that I was given.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    I would now like to recognize Mr. Timmons for 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Elizondo, you just said something interesting. You 
said, they do not seem to be hiding. They do not seem to be 
hiding. The UAP sightings are becoming increasingly brash, if 
you will.
    And, you know, we have been hearing about these for years, 
but they have generally been isolated and not as consistent and 
over critical military installations.
    Would you say that's fair? Is this becoming increasingly--
is it happening more and more?
    Mr. Elizondo. Great question, sir. Let me see if I can 
answer this for you.
    Certainly, there seems to be some indication that they are 
being provocative, meaning that they are in some cases 
literally splitting aircraft formations right down the middle. 
So, that is an air safety issue.
    The question is, is the frequency increasing? And, really, 
the response is, it depends. Yes, it is possible that there is 
an increase in frequency, but it is also possible that there is 
heightened awareness now, and there is also more pervasiveness 
of technology out there that is collecting this information and 
that can record this information.
    So, we are not quite sure yet if it is actually an increase 
in numbers of these events or is it that we have better 
equipment now to record these things and we have a better 
ability, if you will, to analyze these things and----
    Mr. Timmons. And that is my next question. It seems that a 
lot of these sightings occur near military installations. Do 
you think that these UAPs are intentionally targeting military 
installations, or do you think that we have increased abilities 
to monitor surrounding military installations?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, it may be both.
    Part of my concern is, we have something in the Department 
of Defense and the intelligence community called IPB, initial 
preparations of the battlespace. And we use equities like ISR--
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance--and other types 
of equities and technologies to prep the battlespace.
    And, certainly, you know, if I was wearing my national 
security hat, even if there was a two-percent chance that there 
was some sort of hostile intent here, that is two percent 
higher than we really can accept.
    And so, we must figure out--there is a calculus, 
capabilities versus intent, in order to identify if something 
is a national security threat. We have seen some of the 
capabilities, yet we have no idea on the intent. And so, this 
is why this discussion is somewhat, I think, problematic from a 
governmental perspective, because we have no idea.
    Mr. Timmons. Sure. Thank you.
    Mr. Shellenberger, you are particularly familiar with the 
Langley Air Force Base incident a year ago? Are you familiar?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Just from what I read in the news.
    Mr. Timmons. Just from what you have read?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
    Mr. Timmons. I would imagine a large percentage of the 
American population became aware of that with the Wall Street 
Journal article. Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
    Mr. Timmons. And were you aware of that incident prior to 
the Wall Street Journal article?
    Mr. Shellenberger. No.
    Mr. Timmons. To the rest of the panel, was the Wall Street 
Journal article the first time that y'all were made aware of 
what was essentially an over-2-week UAP frenzy over Langley Air 
Force Base? Were y'all aware of this prior to the Wall Street 
Journal article? Anybody. A show of hands.
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Timmons. Yes, Dr. Gallaudet. Could you give me your--
how did you become aware of it?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Well, a colleague of mine, who I referenced 
previously, Chris Mellon, he wrote an extensive article about 
this, that there were other incursions of drones over Langley 
before this, as well as many, many military installations over 
the last five decades.
    Mr. Timmons. And it is my understanding that there has been 
an ever-increasing-in-number and--I am trying to think how to 
say this, because I wear two different hats. I am still in the 
Air Force.
    So, I mean, it seems that they are becoming increasingly 
brash. And the question that we really have to figure out is, 
is it China or is it nonhuman? And I think that is the biggest 
question the American people want to know.
    If it is China, it is scary because they have a lot of 
technology that we cannot explain. And if it is nonhuman, that 
is scary because we do not know the intent.
    Would you say that's fair?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congressman.
    And, in fact, I really believe that we should use this 
hearing as a catalyst to improve and bolster our air defense 
capabilities and our maritime domain awareness capabilities, 
because obviously there are holes in it, whether it be UAP of 
non-HI direction, or NHI direction, or, as you say, sir, China 
or any other adversary.
    Mr. Timmons. Are y'all aware of any task force at the 
Pentagon or in the national security apparatus that is trying 
to assess the answer to that question?
    Dr. Gallaudet. At the current moment, sir, no, but that is 
a great point.
    From 2020 to 2022, there was a UAP task force in the DoD 
succeeding where Mr. Elizondo worked, led by Jay Stratton, who 
had the first comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to 
UAP, which involved pathways to declassification and to 
increased transparency, as well as assessing the national 
security risk of UAP.
    This was a really well-established approach, and we have 
all advocated that something like it return.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
    I am running out of time. The last thing is that we need 
authorities. Law enforcement, military do not have authorities 
to actually engage, and we need to--Congress needs to act to 
give those authorities to local law enforcement and the 
military so they have clear guidelines on how to assess these 
issues going forward.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    I would like to recognize Ms. Boebert for 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Now that we have all been cautioned in this Committee 
hearing that the mention of Pentagon's Immaculate Constellation 
program could put us on a list--well, I already find myself on 
many lists, I am sure, so--I speak my mind often, so why not 
just keep going with it? May as well just go all out and say 
it: The Earth is flat, birds are government drones, and we have 
never set foot on the Moon. And Joe Biden received 81 million 
votes in the 2020 election.
    So, let us just see how many lists we could get on here 
today.
    But, Mr. Shellenberger, I wanted to ask you: I think I 
understand from this hearing that you would agree that 
classifying information like this is not in the best interests 
of the people. Is that correct?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes, I mean, with the caveat that of 
course, you know, I would support classification necessary to 
protect secrets essential to national security. But I think it 
is pretty obvious that there is overclassification.
    Ms. Boebert. Over-classification, yes.
    And so, in most instances, if they cannot tell us what, do 
you think at some point they will at least tell us why?
    Mr. Shellenberger. You know, President-elect Trump has 
repeatedly committed to greater transparency both on the UAP 
issue, on JFK files, on----
    Ms. Boebert. Yes.
    Mr. Shellenberger [continuing]. COVID origins and many 
other things. So, I think that we need to make sure that the 
next administration is held accountable for that.
    Ms. Boebert. Agreed.
    And this is for all four of you. Yes or no, please. I have 
many questions I want to get to.
    Are there any known instances of recovered materials or 
technologies that are not of human origin and may be connected 
to any advanced bioscience defense programs within the USG?
    Dr. Gallaudet. I do not know.
    Mr. Elizondo. I would not be able to answer that, ma'am.
    Mr. Shellenberger. I do not know.
    Mr. Gold. I do not know.
    Ms. Boebert. OK.
    So, there are rumors that have come up to the Hill of a 
secretive project within the Department of Defense involving 
the manipulation of human genetics with what is described as 
``nonhuman genetic material'' potentially for the enhancement 
of human capabilities--hybrids.
    Are any of you familiar with that, yes or no?
    Dr. Gallaudet. No, ma'am.
    Mr. Elizondo. I am not, ma'am.
    Mr. Shellenberger. I am not.
    Mr. Gold. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Boebert. OK.
    I would like to know, with Immaculate Constellation, how 
does this relate to UAP activities, Mr. Shellenberger, in 
oceanic environments? Are there any instances where the Navy or 
other maritime forces have encountered UAPs that could not be 
explained by known technology or natural phenomena?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes, the Immaculate Constellation covers 
both terrestrial and oceanic, and there is actually a number of 
cases described in the report that occur in the ocean.
    Ms. Boebert. And do you believe that there is a concerted 
effort by the Pentagon to keep Congress out of the loop 
regarding these UAP activities specifically in our waters?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
    Ms. Boebert. I think it is about five percent of our ocean 
that has actually been studied in detail by man, and we have 
studied more of space than we have of our own oceans.
    And so, are there any accounts of UAPs emerging from or 
submerging into our water, which could indicate a base or 
presence beneath the ocean's surface?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I do not know about a base, but, you 
know, as I mentioned, I had a different source entirely 
describe this pretty extraordinary footage that exists of 
orbs--of an orb coming out of the ocean and being met by 
another orb.
    Ms. Boebert. Some would say that there is multiple hotspots 
where we see frequent activity.
    So, in your investigations, have you come across any data 
or visual evidence like sonar readings or underwater footage of 
these UAPs?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I have not beyond what is in the report.
    Ms. Boebert. You have written about UAPs not only in the 
air but in underwater. Are there any specifics on what you have 
learned about the UAP activity in our oceans? Particularly, 
have you spoken with sources who have provided any evidence or 
eyewitness accounts of these UAPs interacting with our Naval 
forces or being detected by our underwater surveillance 
systems?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Nothing beyond what is in the report and 
then the specific case that I mentioned with the orbs.
    Ms. Boebert. So, this report says it all; there is no other 
information that we are aware of regarding the activity within 
our waters?
    Mr. Shellenberger. I have other sources that have told me--
that have shared a significant amount of information, but they 
are not comfortable with me sharing it at this point.
    Ms. Boebert. OK.
    Are there any technological capabilities observed in these 
oceanic UAPs that seem to defy our current understanding of 
physics or our engineering capabilities?
    Mr. Shellenberger. It seems like they all do.
    Ms. Boebert. Yes. I would agree with that.
    And my time is up, but I do appreciate your bravery, your 
courage for coming here and speaking today.
    And it seems like there is still some questions that we 
need answers to, and we will not relent until we get those to 
the American people.
    Thank you all.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    I move to allow myself and the Ranking Member 5 additional 
minutes for questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Elizondo, were you read in to the Immaculate 
Constellation program?
    Mr. Elizondo. Ma'am, I would not be authorized to confirm 
nor deny the existence of any ongoing or past program, 
especially as it relates to a special access program, either by 
name or trigraph.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    And then, does the U.S. Government or private contractors, 
do they work with other foreign countries--China, for example--
to exchange data, quote, ``from a source,'' that intelligence 
data, about UAP?
    Mr. Elizondo. Let me see if I can answer that a little bit 
more generally, ma'am, if I may.
    Ms. Mace. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Elizondo. We do have foreign materiel exploitation 
programs. That is something that is widely known, and that term 
itself is unclassified. How exactly that works becomes a bit 
sensitive. It is a discussion we could certainly have in a 
closed session if you would like.
    We do work with international partners and allies quite 
often, not just in military exercises and workups but in other 
intelligence efforts as well.
    Ms. Mace. In terms of material, that is given to private 
contractors, is certain material given to certain contractors 
because of their experience? So, for example, if it is related 
to submerged and undersea propulsion, would it go to a general 
contractor like General Dynamics?
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, ma'am, absolutely correct. Different 
contractors have different levels of expertise----
    Ms. Mace. What is Lockheed's expertise?
    Mr. Elizondo. Aerospace, ma'am.
    Ms. Mace. And in the UAP space? That is all that--they 
would not do submerged?
    Mr. Elizondo. No, I did not say that ma'am.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    Mr. Elizondo. Lockheed Martin and others do quite a bit of 
work both in our atmosphere, in space, and even underwater. 
There are certain efforts to--it is a tough question you are 
asking. You are putting me on the spot here.
    Ms. Mace. I'm asking--I'm looking for the answer.
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, ma'am. No, they are involved in a lot. I 
would rather let Lockheed Martin explain the different domains 
that they are involved with. I am----
    Ms. Mace. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Elizondo [continuing]. Probably not authorized to 
discuss that. But they are involved in a lot of different areas 
and domains.
    Ms. Mace. Admiral, flight safety risks for our pilots, 
based on what you have experienced and seen in your career?
    Dr. Gallaudet. They are extensive.
    In the one exercise I referred to where I received the 
email that was then deleted was, the pilots--and this is worth 
bringing out. There are debunkers out there who have said the 
``Go Fast'' video was just a balloon. That was only one video 
that was released. There were dozens of these encounters that 
pilots, friends of Ryan Graves, who is in this room right here, 
witnessed and caused significant safety concerns.
    And to almost call out an exercise and shut it down, which 
is very compressed and the carrier is getting ready for 
deployment and the pilots have to get certified to land on a 
carrier, it is extreme, to say the least.
    Ms. Mace. All right.
    I have two last questions.
    Real quickly, Mr. Shellenberger, how do we get more 
whistleblowers to come forward?
    Mr. Shellenberger. Well, this hearing, you know, is very 
important. And, obviously, you know, I cannot encourage 
whistleblowers to obtain information, but I can guarantee that 
I will protect them and go to prison to protect their 
identities----
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    Mr. Shellenberger [continuing]. If they come to me.
    Ms. Mace. Yes, sir.
    OK, my last question. The first hearing we had on this, I 
had never been briefed on UAPs or what they were--biologics, 
nonhuman, et cetera.
    How would you define, each of you--my last question--how 
would you define nonhuman biologics, nonhuman intelligence? 
What are we actually talking about?
    Admiral? And we will go down the line.
    Dr. Gallaudet. I do not think it is a stretch, when you 
look at the diversity of life on this planet and the size of 
this universe, to think that there would be more diverse, 
higher-order, nonhuman intelligence throughout the universe, 
and that is probably what is visiting us.
    Mr. Elizondo. I would take the scientific approach. The 
definition would be the ability to react to a stimulus in a 
manner that requires an intellectual thought process.
    Mr. Shellenberger. I just do not know.
    Mr. Gold. I think we must be modest in our assumptions, 
that we are looking for intelligence. That could be biological; 
it might not.
    Ms. Mace. ``Nonbiological.'' ``Nonbiological 
intelligence.'' What does that mean, though?
    Mr. Gold. Artificial intelligence, ML, machines.
    We assume that all intelligence would be like us, and every 
time we look out into the universe, we are humbled relative to 
what we do not know in terms of the forms of intelligence and 
what it may take.
    I can assure you I probably cannot answer your question, 
but I think the ultimate answer is going to surprise us all.
    Ms. Mace. And then Mr. Garcia has a few closing marks.
    Mr. Garcia. And I know we are about to hit votes here, so I 
will be brief.
    Just, I want to thank you all for being here. I want to 
thank Chairwoman Mace, especially, for holding this important 
bipartisan hearing. And I want to thank all the Committee 
Members that are interested in this topic.
    I think our commitment to all of you and to all the folks 
that have contacted us and certainly to the advocates and the 
pilots is that we need to continue investigating UAPs. I think 
the country owes--the country is owed explanations. And to 
ensure that the safety of national security is always 
protected, this is a conversation and questioning that must 
continue. So, I am very grateful to all of you.
    And I also just want to just add, just personally, I think 
it is really important, for me, two things guide my questioning 
and my observations on UAPs. One is, we should always be guided 
by facts, science, and data, and stay serious on those issues. 
And the second thing is, I think that we should not limit our 
imagination and our thoughts and our curiosity on what UAPs 
could actually be. And I think those two things, for me, are 
really important.
    And I am grateful for all of you to be here.
    So, with that, I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    And we have Mr. Ogles who is on the way. He is going to be 
here any second; is that correct?
    Check. And he will be the last Member with questions that 
we have today. And then we are going to--we have votes. So, we 
want to thank you all for being here.
    I want to thank Mr. Garcia and folks on both sides of the 
aisle for being here today and being patient. We have a lot 
more questions, and I hope that this will open the door to more 
hearings in the future.
    I obviously would like to know how much taxpayers are 
spending on this. You have the right to know. But, also, if we 
are spending money on something that does not exist, why are we 
spending the money? And if it does exist, why are we hiding it 
from the public?
    And, of course, our national security is a huge issue, 
because if there is technology that could harm us or allies 
that are in the hands of our adversaries, we obviously want to 
stay ahead of that to the best of our ability to ensure that 
that technology is not in the hands of someone who could use it 
against us or our allies anywhere in the world.
    So, Mr. Ogles, you are just in time, babe. I will recognize 
you for 5 minutes of questioning before we head on out today.
    Mr. Ogles. Well, thank you all for being here.
    And, Madam Chairwoman, I am out of breath because I 
sprinted to get here. But this is an important hearing. I think 
we all know that there is something going on.
    Mr. Elizondo, based on your knowledge of UAP sightings, do 
you believe it is fair to say that they are especially common 
near nuclear sites?
    Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman, I absolutely am 
convinced of that, as are my colleagues inside the government.
    Mr. Ogles. And the reason why I pose that question--and 
this has been one of my talking points from the beginning--is, 
you know, Oak Ridge is in Tennessee. The so-called weather 
balloon that drifted, that we now know was controlled, it 
passed near Oak Ridge. It obviously is a sensitive site, both 
of interest to our adversaries and to whatever else this is.
    Because we know that at military installations, at 
sensitive locations such as nuclear facilities, that we are 
seeing this take place. So, the question is, what is it?
    Do you believe they have caused irregular activity? And why 
might they be interested in those sites?
    Mr. Elizondo. Sir, in some cases, actually, regular 
activity. You would be surprised. There is actually 
documentation right now that has been submitted. It is not just 
Oak Ridge. It is Savannah River Site, SRS. It is also Los 
Alamos. A lot of our sensitive R&D locations appear to be under 
some sort of surveillance and monitoring.
    Why? Well, because a lot of innovation comes out of those 
areas. A lot of new technologies, a lot of, if you will, 
disruptive technologies that we use for our national defense 
originates out of those locations, and advanced concepts and 
physics as well. So, if I was doing any type of reconnaissance, 
even on a foreign adversary, that is a great target to start 
with.
    Mr. Ogles. Sure. And, again, this has been one of my 
talking points. I do have questions, what role might the 
Department of Energy or its subsidiaries or affiliates have in 
this type of technology or possessing this type of technology, 
whether it' is ours or others?
    Mr. Gallaudet, I think your testimony has been pretty 
clear, but would you please reiterate: Do you believe UAPs pose 
a threat to pilots?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir, absolutely. They were threatening 
Navy pilots during the exercise that my people were involved 
with in 2015, and it is my understanding that they are risking 
pilot safety, commercial and military, today.
    Mr. Ogles. Well, considering--and I understand that there 
is a need, in some cases, to keep certain technologies secret. 
But you believe that it is posing a threat to our personnel, 
correct?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Ogles. So, I think it is reasonable to conclude that if 
there is a threat to our personnel who are serving our country 
faithfully, that there be oversight.
    Dr. Gallaudet. One hundred percent, Congressman.
    And, in fact, that is the one thing that we have not talked 
about enough during this hearing, the fact that the government, 
the executive branch, not sharing with Congress what it knows 
about UAP infringes on your legislative and oversight 
responsibilities to such an extent that it is very concerning. 
I mean, what else are we--if you look at national security or 
intelligence or foreign affairs or appropriations, you all have 
oversight and legislative responsibility regarding those. This 
UAP issue may be the greatest issue of our time, and it is 
being hid from you.
    Mr. Ogles. Well, I mean, and to your point, I think we have 
seen over the decades that we have certain adversaries, like 
China, like Russia, that, technologically speaking, are not as 
advanced as us, that they lack some of the lethality that we 
have, and that we have seen that they have gone after our 
technologies and in some cases succeeded, in particular with 
missile technology.
    And so, again, my concern: Whether this technology emanates 
from us or otherworldly, that we know that we possess it. And 
where is the accountability? Where are the stopgaps? What are 
the guarantees that if this were to fall in enemy hands that it 
is not immediately weaponized against us?
    And I will say this. It is clear from my experience and 
what I have seen that there is something out there. The 
question is, is it ours, is it someone else's, or is it 
otherworldly?
    And, Madam Chairwoman, I would posit that, as the 
legislative body, as the regulatory body, we must know. And 
anyone who prevents us from gaining access to that information, 
I would consider that criminality. Because we have U.S. 
personnel who may very well be in harm's way, we have 
technology that ultimately may threaten our very existence.
    With that, Madam Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence, 
and I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Ogles.
    And with that and without objection, all Members will have 
5 legislative days within which to submit materials and to 
submit additional written questions for the witnesses, which 
will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]