Rounds, Mike (R-SD)

ML: "Well, pretty simple terms, aren't they?"

MR: "Could be."

MR: "It could be."

MR: "Yeah."

ML: "So it's that broad."

MR: "Well, could be. It was not by accident, let's put it that way."

Rounds said he has seen “no evidence personally” that extraterrestrial craft are visiting the planet but said, “I know that there’s a lot of people that have questions about it.” 

“It’s just like with JFK and the [1963] assassination. We set up separate archive for that or central collection place for all that data, which I think gave the American people a sense of security that there was a location where it was being held. This is following that same approach,” 

Asked about whether he personally believes military personnel and sensors are encountering extraterrestrial visitors, Rounds said: “I don’t think you can discount the possibility just simply because of the size of the universe.” 

“I don’t think anybody should say that they know for certain either way,” he said. “If we simply refuse to acknowledge there’s even a remote possibility, then we’re probably not being honest.” 

“Some of the items we simply can’t explain,” he said of the Naval videos of UAPs.

Sen. Rounds engages in a colloquy with Sen. Schumer about the passage of the 2024 NDAA and the House stripping provisions from the UAP Disclosure Act:

Rounds: "Thank you and I thank my colleague, the Democrat leader, for the opportunity to speak to this particular issue today. This is an issue that I think has caught the attention of the American people and most certainly the lack of transparency on the matter, which is of real interest to a lot of the folks that have watched from the outside. It brings together, I think, a notable parallel in the withholding of information about items that are in the government's possession regarding, in this particular case, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. That same approach by government in terms of the possible withholding of information, brings more questions and more attention to the issue of the assassination.

We wanted to take that same approach with regard to how we could dispel myths, misinformation about UAPs, about unidentified flying objects, unidentified objects that simply have come to the attention of the American people. Congress did pass legislation 30 years ago requiring the review and release of all records relating to that historic tragedy, the assassination of John Kennedy, which has led to the release of a great deal of information. The UAP Disclosure Act was closely modeled on the JFK Records Act."

"Agree, sir. And I think probably the most significant shortcomings that I think we need to visit about as well, shortcomings of the conference committee agreement that are now being voted on, where the rejection, first of all, of a government-wide review board composed of expert citizens -- presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed -- to control the process of reviewing the records and recommending to the President what records should be released immediately or postponed, and a requirement as a transparency measure for the government to obtain any recovered UAP material or biological remains that may have been provided to private entities in the past and thereby hidden from Congress and the American people. We are lacking oversight opportunities and we are not fulfilling our responsibilities."

"I agree with my friend and colleague to those who think that the Citizen Review Board that would've been created in our UAP Disclosure Act - that it would be unprecedented and somehow would go too far. We note that the proposed Review Board was very closely modeled on the review board, established in the JFK Assassination Records Act of 1992, which has successfully guided the release of records to the American public on another very sensitive matter of high interest to the American people. And it does one more thing that we really need to recognize, and that is that there is, we believe information and data that has been collected by more than just the Department of Defense, but by other agencies of the federal government as well. And by allowing for an outside independent collection of these records, we can make progress in terms of dispelling myths and providing accurate information to the American people."

Matt Laslo: Who do you make the changes to your UAP amendment?"

Mike Rounds: "It's not what we wanted, but it's a step in the right direction and it brings attention to the need for additional transparency. I would really like to have the commission and if we can negotiate on the commission, that's fine in terms of who is on it, but I think an independent commission is still the best way to go."

ML: "Do you know who pulled the levers? Was it Chair Turner?"

MR: "I don't. I had talked to them and I know there's some concerns, but I don't know if the concerns were such that it would stop it. So I honestly don't know where the actual stop was at within the process."

ML: "Going forward, how do you plan-- or you could watch implementation, keep your eyes on AARO and then potentially tweak it next year's NDAA?"

MR: "Here's the deal, and AARO is a part of DOD. Well, this goes beyond DOD. This requires attention or cooperation by other agencies as well. And that's the reason why we want it separated out, is we want it to be all encompassing."

... But that's the reason why we want it to be all encompassing. And AARO is working, but AARO is just for DOD and while they're collecting items, they're not really disseminating items. And so we would like to have some transparency, but we also want to make darn sure that we protect our national security interests as well."

“We want a central location where all of this data could be kept,”

“Right now, the Department of Defense has some of it, the Department of Energy has some of it, other departments may very well too. There has not ever been anything put out before creating a centralized collection location.”

Matt Laslo: “Hey, are you working with Schumer and his team on amending your guys’ UAP amendment from NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] last year?”

Mike Rounds: “We’re still — not a lot of activity on right now.”

ML: “Yeah?”

MR: “Doesn’t mean there’s no activity, but it’s nothing that we’re specifically going in and sitting down and changing language yet.”

ML: “Would you like to see changes though?”

MR: “Umm, the reality is that we’ll have to work with the House to find out what their concerns are and we’ll have to address them.”

ML: “Do you fully know those concerns or where they are coming from? Was it Armed Services Committee or was it from House Intel [Committee]?”

MR: “Well, that’s a really good question.”

ML: “Yeah?”

Laslo laughs.

MR: “I think there are some individuals that had some concerns — and actually some of their concerns with regard to privacy and confidentiality are valid — but we’ll do our best to work with them and get something done.”

ML: “It hasn’t quite percolated up yet?”

MR: “No, it has not.”