“So come at me, bro, I guess,” she quipped. 
When asked whether they believe the federal government is “knowingly concealing evidence of UAPs to the public,” all four expert witnesses said yes. However, when asked about the nature of UAPs, there were some mixed opinions.
"Strong evidence that they're non-human, higher intelligence," claimed Dr Tim Gallaudet, a retired Rear Admiral in the US Navy who’s led efforts to destigmatize the subject of UAPs.
“Genuinely do not know,” commented Shellenberger.
“Don’t know, but we must find out,” said Michael Gold, a member of the NASA UAP Independent Study Team.
Gold later said: "I think probably the vast majority of UAP are drones, experimental aircraft, weather conditions [...] But there is a percentage that isn't."
Throughout the hearing, the expert witnesses and some of the representatives stressed the need for greater transparency and documentation of UAPs. 
Despite often being considered an interest of crackpots and conspiracy theorists, UAP sightings have been given renewed interest in recent years thanks to several publicized sightings. Although no blockbuster revelations have yet been made, the latest public hearing reflects this shifting attitude of UAPs within the US government. 
“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. That includes, of course, any knowledge of extraterrestrial life or technology of non-human origin,” Subcommittee Chairwoman Mace said in the opening remarks.
“If government-funded research on UAPs has NOT yielded any useful knowledge, we need to know that, too. Taxpayers deserve to know how much has been invested. They shouldn’t be kept in the dark to spare the Pentagon embarrassment,” she added.

The hearing also featured testimony from Michael Shellenberger, a journalist and founder of the media outlet Public, who has published a story alleging that the Pentagon is running a secret UFO program called “Immaculate Constellation”. He claimed he's been told that the program had “hundreds, maybe thousands” of images, videos, and files showing UAPs exist. 

Congresswoman Nancy Mace, the chair of the hearing, claimed she was told that even mentioning the name of the program could get you in a lot of trouble with the intelligence agencies, saying: "Rep. [Anna Paulina] Luna just told me, if I say 'Immaculate Constellation' I'll be on some list, maybe a FISA warrant.”

Abunch of startling and wild allegations were made in the latest US congressional committee on unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), or UFOs as they’re more commonly known. While the public hearing suggests that attitudes on the subject are starting to change in the US government, evidence for some of the bolder claims was lacking. 
The second public hearing on UAP – titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth” – took place on Capitol Hill on November 13. You can watch the whole event in the video below.
One of the most colorful testimonies came from Luis Elizondo, former head of the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. 
Reciting his written testimony, Elizondo alleged: "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 US is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of our adversaries."
"I believe we are in the midst of a multi-decade, secretive arms race — one funded by misallocated taxpayer dollars and hidden from our elected representatives and oversight bodies," he added.
Elizondo suggested that the US government has carried out secret UAP crash retrieval programs that seek to reverse engineer the obtained technology. However, he claimed that he couldn’t go into detail about specific crash retrievals because of documentation he had signed.
When asked whether the technology was being created by private companies or “non-human intelligence,” Elizondo alleged: “It may be both.”