This question refers to the the UAP amendment in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by the House in July.
Resolves to YES if the UAP amendment in the final bill, passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president, remains substantially intact as passed by the house. If it has been defanged (for example, no longer allows imminent domain to be declared) then this resolves to NO.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ796 | |
| 2 | Ṁ49 | |
| 3 | Ṁ7 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1 | |
| 5 | Ṁ0 |
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20231211/FY24%20NDAA%20Conference%20Report%20-%20%20FINAL.pdf
Pg. 2803:
"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 NDAA passed yesterday. Probably is safe to resolve now.
On the upside Grusch says he is going to write an op-ed about what first-hand knowledge he does possess.
As far as I can tell there are three key components in contention:
The review board
The subpoena power
Imminent domain
As long as two out of three are preserved, I consider it to not be “substantially defanged”.
If only the review board remains it is probably substantially defanged.
If only subpoena power or imminent domain remain, that will require more thought. I’m open to ideas.