Okay, the UAP disclosure amendment was watered down, reduced, and by some accounts “gutted.” You can review the language that has cleared conference committee here.
The original UAPDA was 63 pages. They reduced the committee approved version to several pages. The relevant sections that cleared committee appear to be:
Starting on page 2779 for ~1 page Starting in page 2803 for ~1 page
It’s critical to get people on record about exactly why.
Who did it? Why they did it? What can we do about it? This is a bill that by all accounts had massive support from both sides the aisle. How did it get so heavily modified?
To anyone who has access to conference committee members, I would encourage you to ask the following questions. If you get the opportunity, please share the answers here:
Which members of congress, specifically, pushed back against the UAPDA generally? Which members of congress, specifically, caused the specific changes to the UAPDA to its current state that cleared committee? What, specifically, were those members reasons stated for making those changes? Some of this does not make sense. If NHI are not real, and this bill only applied to NHI-derived technology, what were the logical reasons provided for these changes?
This is a massive political issue. Our subreddit is has two million members, presumably who are overwhelmingly pro-disclosure. By all accounts the UAPDA had massive bi-partisan support. The fact that a handful of members could so heavily modify such a popular amendment shows that the special interest group influence is overwhelming. We need people on the record, we need names, we need an accounting of what happened. Go get it.
Matt Laslo, Chris Sharp, Ross, all other journalists… if you’re reading this, please, get us some answers. To any other journalist, the same rings true to you — r/UFOs would love to bring you into the fold. As a subreddit with two million supporters we should try to hold these politicians accountable if they defy public interest. Let’s do it.
For reference, here are the relevant portions of the UAPDA that cleared the conference committee. Reminder – the original UAPDA was very rigorous and was 63 pages in length. They reduced it to two pages.
Page 2779 relevant portion:
The conferees agree that this prohibition on spending on unreported UAP programs could cover: (1) Recruiting, employing, training, equipping, and operations of, and providing security for, Government or contractor personnel with a primary, secondary, or contingency mission of capturing, recovering, and securing unidentified anomalous phenomena craft or pieces and components of such craft; (2) Analyzing such craft, or pieces or components thereof, including for the purpose of determining properties, material composition, method of manufacture, origin, characteristics, usage and application, performance, operational modalities, or reverse engineering of such craft or component technology; (3) Managing and providing security for protecting activities and information relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena from disclosure or compromise; (4) Actions relating to reverse engineering or replicating unidentified anomalous phenomena technology or performance based on analysis of materials or sensor and observational information associated with unidentified anomalous phenomena; (5) The development of propulsion technology, or aerospace craft that uses propulsion technology, systems, or subsystems that is based on or derived from or inspired by inspection, analysis, or reverse engineering of recovered unidentified anomalous phenomena craft or materials; and (6) Any aerospace craft that uses propulsion technology other than chemical propellants, solar power, and electric ion thrust.
Page 2803 relevant portion:
The conference agreement includes only the requirements to establish a government-wide UAP records collection; to transfer records to the collection; and to review the records for disclosure decisions under a set of authorized grounds for postponing disclosure. The agreement does not include the provisions that would establish an independent Review Board, a Review Board staff, eminent domain authority, or a controlled disclosure process. The conferees note that lack of sufficient reciprocal access between Department of Defense and intelligence community personnel has led to operational inefficiencies and unnecessary risk of disclosures of protected information. Therefore, the conferees direct the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to brief the congressional defense committees, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and congressional leadership on options to improve reciprocal access and coordination on similar issues.
The rest has been removed.
submitted by /u/showmeufos
[link] [comments]