Steve Bassett: this is a do over. There was great time pressure, and my initial response was based on partially inaccurate information. [See my earlier tweet.]
The Burchett amendment was a good faith effort to provide some simpler, direct language via a vis the very complicated Schumer amendment. It was not being set up to replace it.
The UAP Disclosure Act will stay in with significant changes. It is a very contentious process. The targets are the eminent domain section, the subpoena powers and the Presidential UAP Review Board.
The UAP Disclosure Act is a powerful bill, and we want it as is. But resistance from defense contractors and secret keepers will likely prevail. There will be changes. Of the three areas of contention, the one with the best chance to remain intact is the Presidential UAP Review Board. Focus on that.
Here is now the approach to take. Contact Republican and Democrat conferees with a softer message. You support the UAP Disclosure Act and want it passed with as few changes as possible. You strongly support the UAP Review Board.
Consider using cooler language. Whatever the final language in the UAP Disclosure Act, it will be a huge win for the Disclosure movement.
If you want to support the House version language put forward by Tim Burchett, do so. It will likely be adjusted as well to not conflict with the Senate version.
Below you will find the Twitter handles for the Republica and Democrat conferees. I’m still trying to obtain the list of Senate conferees.
[Latest tweet by Bassett): Another correction. It is not the White House Review Board. It is the UAP Review Board appointed by the President.
https://twitter.com/SteveBassett/status/1730686990994354616
submitted by /u/SharinganGlasses
[link] [comments]