Ryan Graves

HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE APPEARS POISED TO ALLOW VOTE ON REVISED BURLISON UAP DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT Congressman Eric Burlison (R-MO) has submitted a revised version ("version 2") of his "UAP disclosure" measure to the Rules Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, and it now appears that the committee is poised to allow consideration of the revised amendment when the House takes up its version of the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, H.R. 8800) within days. As of early on July 19, 2026, Burlison's "version 2" is now labeled as "Made in Order" on the Rules Committee website. Also, the Rules Committee is scheduled to meet on July 20 at 2 PM EDT to make revisions pertaining to floor procedures on H.R. 8800. The analysis that follows below is based on the premise that the information currently found on the Rules Committee website is accurate and will be implemented. When substantial additional information becomes available, I will post it in replies to this long post. The complete text of Burlison's version 2 (dated July 15, 2026) is accessible via the link in the first reply to this post. The main revisions found in "version 2" are deletions of references to oversight functions of the Armed Services and Intelligence committees of the House and Senate; the only committees named in version 2 are the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The purpose of these changes might be to reduce the number of sign-offs necessary for the 62-page amendment to be made in order; if so, these changes do not necessarily predict the congressional oversight architecture that would be part of any final version that might emerge from the future House-Senate NDAA conference committee. The various provisions of most interest to the "UAP disclosure" community are retained and still largely track the original Schumer-Rounds UAP Disclosure Act (UAPDA) first unveiled in July 2023. It would establish a temporary federal agency, consisting of a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed review board with professional staff, dedicated to locating records and materials related to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). The amendment contains multiple provisions that refer to "non-human intelligence," which the amendment defines as meaning "any sentient intelligent non-human lifeform regardless of nature or ultimate origin that may be presumed responsible for unidentified anomalous phenomena or of which the Federal Government has become aware." It also refers repeatedly to "technologies of unknown origin," defined to include devices "incorporating science and technology that lacks prosaic attribution or known means of human manufacture." Burlison's amendment also still contains a provision objected to by some UFO-oriented groups in past years and supported by others, mandating that the government assume control of "all recovered technologies of unknown origin and biological evidence of non-human intelligence that may be controlled by private persons or entities," through the exercise of the power of eminent domain. The Rules Committee is apparently engaged in making adjustments to its initial list of in-order amendments to H.R. 8800, approved on June 29, because the initial resolution ("the Rule") approved by the Rules Committee failed on the House floor on June 30 (198-224), due to opposition by a group of 13 Republicans who joined all voting Democrats in opposition. After the vote, both Burlison and Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) mentioned the initial exclusion of Burlison's UAP amendment as among the reasons for their nay votes. As I have explained in past posts, of the over 300 amendments that the Rules Committee has made in order to H.R. 8800, some will be accepted on the floor in batches ("en bloc") by voice vote, and others will be subject to separate roll call votes. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL) and other committee leaders will have much to say about which amendments are deemed appropriate for inclusion in en bloc packages. At a June 25 forum on Capitol Hill sponsored by The Disclosure Foundation, Burlison said he wanted the Rules Committee to make his amendment in order "so that when it [NDAA] comes to the floor, at least we get an opportunity to have a vote on the UAP Disclosure Act. And then you'll know who supports it and who doesn't." However, when any amendment is wrapped into an en bloc amendment, it then has a guaranteed ticket to make it at least as far as the House-Senate conference committee. In contrast, an amendment voted down on the floor of either chamber faces sharply diminished prospects in conference committee, even if the other chamber approves a similar proposal. The outcome of a separate roll call vote on an expansive UAP-related amendment would be highly uncertain at best. It should be kept in mind that no amendment explicitly referring to UAP or UFOs has ever been the subject of a stand-alone roll call vote on the floor of either chamber of Congress. (Approval of the UAPDA by the Senate in 2023 occurred as part of a negotiated amendment package, not a separate floor vote; the same is true of a series of UAP-related provisions that were enacted in recent years.) Moreover, no version of the UAP Disclosure Act has ever been the subject of a public hearing or a roll call vote in any committee of Congress. The Burlison proposal has been cosponsored by Reps. Eli Crane (R-AZ), Andre Carson (D-IN), Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), and Nick Begich (R-AK). A link to the complete text of Burlison's version 2 amendment appears in the first reply to this post. In the Senate, an initial attempt to begin floor debate on the Senate version of the NDAA (S. 4784) was blocked by Senate Democrats on July 14, largely due to disputes related to military funding levels and the war with Iran. It is not clear how soon the bill might move forward. NDAA is regarded as "must-pass" legislation; an annual defense authorization bill has been enacted for 65 consecutive fiscal years. As of July 19, senators have filed 870 proposed amendments to S. 4784, including SA 6344, the version of the UAPDA filed by Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Mike Rounds (R-SD) on June 24. A link to the complete text of the Schumer-Rounds amendment (SA 6344) appears in the second reply to this post. As I reported on June 26, SA 6344 contains one new provision not found in previous versions, stating that nothing in the amendment "shall be construed to create any new access to a special access program or a controlled access program." This new rule of construction appears to contradict other provisions; its addition may be intended to address objections that could prevent the proposal from being included in a negotiated amendment package and thereby making it to conference committee. An NDAA conference committee can revise language on any matter in virtually any way it sees fit, so long as its final massive product can muster a majority in both chambers and avoid a presidential veto. Replies with questions or comments are welcome if they deal directly with the substance of these legislative proposals, or the legislative processes being employed (although I cannot always reply rapidly). Discussion of other UAP matters or personalities does not belong in this thread; those who egregiously violate this advisory may be blocked.