Amendments and Outrage in Congress over Stripped Provisions

Amendments to the UAP Disclosure Act

The UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena) Disclosure Act faced significant alterations in Congress, causing outrage among representatives.

The legislation, included in the annual defense spending bill, initially aimed to compel the government to disclose records related to unknown technologies and non-human intelligence.

Critical Provisions Removed

However, Congress removed two crucial components from the Act. One was the exclusion of a review board tasked with assessing each case involving unidentified phenomena.

Additionally, the legislation no longer grants the federal government ‘imminent domain’ rights to seize non-human technology held by private entities like defense contractors.

Impact on Disclosure and Secrecy

The revised Act grants authority to the Pentagon and US intelligence agencies to independently decide which information regarding mysterious sightings gets revealed to the public and what remains undisclosed, prompting frustration among lawmakers. Representative Tim Burchett expressed deep dissatisfaction, stating that significant portions of the Act were stripped away.

Legislative Evolution and Disappointment

Originally passed by the Senate in July, the Act required full congressional approval to become part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2024. President Joe Biden is expected to sign it into law, mandating the disclosure of records not previously made public within 25 years, unless national security reasons necessitate their classification.

Altered Amendment and Disclosure Limitations

The amendment now provides a broad array of exemptions for withholding records. The government can opt to conceal information if it’s deemed a threat to national defense, pertains to national intelligence, reveals federal agents, or compromises intelligence collection methods.

Congressional Reaction and Disputed Decision

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized Republicans for hindering the legislation, expressing disappointment over the House’s refusal to cooperate in adopting the proposal for a review board.

This move effectively places the decision-making power regarding UAP records within entities historically associated with their non-disclosure, triggering concerns among lawmakers and the public alike.

Consequences and Ongoing Challenges

The Act’s original text outlined the creation of a review board responsible for investigating records and determining their relevance as UAPs to be disclosed. However, the final legislation lacked this provision, leaving the declassification largely in the hands of entities that have traditionally restricted such disclosures.

Congressional figures and whistleblowers have raised concerns about the lack of oversight and transparency in this altered process.

Breaking News

TDPel Media

This article was published on TDPel Media. Thanks for reading!

Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn