Thanks Matt, I found that interview yesterday when I was combing through older posts! Creating a UAP panel within the Science committee makes sense to me if it's an investigation into UAPs themselves and their sightings. However, the UAP caucus is making the case that the withholding of information about possible UAP programs from Congress, and expending taxpayer money on these programs makes it an oversight matter. But (I think?) IC and DOD oversight would be the purview of the Intelligence and Armed Forces committees, a responsibility they would not be willing to give up to another committee. Add the fact that the Oversight committee is not entitled to security information from the IC and DOD, I foresee the UAP caucus getting caught in the middle with few options.
That's what Comer told us back in September - listen til the end part where he says he supports it but wants it under the Science Committee https://www.askapol.com/p/raw-audio-oversight-chair-comer-on?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2FComer%2520&utm_medium=reader2
Thanks Matt, I found that interview yesterday when I was combing through older posts! Creating a UAP panel within the Science committee makes sense to me if it's an investigation into UAPs themselves and their sightings. However, the UAP caucus is making the case that the withholding of information about possible UAP programs from Congress, and expending taxpayer money on these programs makes it an oversight matter. But (I think?) IC and DOD oversight would be the purview of the Intelligence and Armed Forces committees, a responsibility they would not be willing to give up to another committee. Add the fact that the Oversight committee is not entitled to security information from the IC and DOD, I foresee the UAP caucus getting caught in the middle with few options.