Well they held their closed hearing yesterday and, unless
someone leaks the information, we will never know what ‘sensitive information’
was presented to the Sub-Committee by DOD and DHS that merited the testimony
being presented behind closed doors. I will have to admit that according to
what Chairman Lungren (R,CA) said in his opening
remarks, it doesn’t sound like there was going to be any testimony about
any active or recently foiled IED plot.
This conclusion is supported by the opening
comments made by Ranking Member Clarke (D,NY) when she said:
“However, my preference would have
been to take the testimony in public, in unclassified formats. I’m sure we
could ask all of our witnesses back to give us classified briefings if needed,
but, Mr. Chairman, I will not object to your motion to go into executive
session.”
The prepared testimony from the witnesses (Woods
– ICE, Barbero
– DOD, and Johnson
– GAO) was rich in administrative details about the counter IED and IED
prevention activities being undertaken in Afghanistan. There were no technical
details presented, but this Sub-Committee isn’t charged with overseeing that
program, so they have no real need for those sensitive technical details.
A couple of interesting points were raised by Lungren in his
opening comments. Early in those comments he noted that NPPD declined to send a
witness to participate in the hearing. One would presume that the official
reason had to do with the fact that, according to the title of the hearing,
this was supposed to concentrate on anti-IED operations in Afghanistan and NPPD
has not operational experience in that area that would allow them to provide useable
information on the topic.
The real reason NPPD declined was alluded to towards the end
of Lungren’s remarks when he mentioned the much delayed Ammonium Nitrate
Security Program for which we are still waiting to see NPPD publish a final
rule). I know from sources in ISCD that the
ANPRM and the
NPRM had been held up for quite a while in OMB deliberations and I suspect
that the same thing is happening now, though the rule hasn’t yet reached the
stage where it is officially submitted to OMB for EO 12866 review.
There was no projected date in the Fall
2011 Unified Agenda for the Ammonium Nitrate final rule, but that was
because the comment period had just closed in December (well the Fall 2011
Unified Agenda was published in January
2012). We are still waiting to see the Spring 2012 Unified Agenda to be
published, maybe that will provide a reasonable date for the publication of the
final rule for the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program.
No comments:
Post a Comment