WASHINGTON — The Senate Commerce Committee advanced the nomination of Jared Isaacman to be NASA administrator to the full Senate in a Dec. 8 vote.
The committee voted 18-10 to send Isaacman’s nomination to the Senate floor. All 15 Republican members voted in favor, along with three Democrats: Maria Cantwell of Washington, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.
The committee announced plans to take up Isaacman’s nomination last week, even before his Dec. 3 confirmation hearing, grouping him with seven other nominees for unrelated positions. The executive session was scheduled to be webcast, as is standard for the committee’s hearings and markups.
However, viewers attempting to watch the session on the committee’s website were met with static and an error message. It was not immediately clear why the committee failed to broadcast the session, though one source said it may have been related to holding the meeting in a Capitol building room rather than the committee’s usual hearing room.
This is the second time the committee has advanced Isaacman’s nomination. It previously approved his initial nomination April 30 on a 19-9 vote. Two Democrats who voted for him then — John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Andy Kim of New Jersey — voted against him this time. Fetterman, who voted no in April, voted yes this time.
None of the three senators issued statements explaining their changed positions. Fetterman did not attend the confirmation hearing but submitted two questions for the record about lunar solar power and an executive order that classifies NASA employees as national security workers ineligible for collective bargaining.
Hickenlooper submitted 16 questions for the record, covering topics ranging from NASA facilities to the value of decadal surveys. It was unclear whether any responses influenced his vote.
During the hearing, Kim pressed Isaacman about “Project Athena,” a document Isaacman developed during his first nomination outlining ideas for NASA’s future.
Kim said the report had raised concerns. “While we didn’t see eye-to-eye on everything, I was willing to support you,” he said of Isaacman’s original nomination before turning to Project Athena.
Isaacman described the document as a “draft” that he updated throughout the confirmation process, containing “ideas, thoughts on the direction of the agency, [and] research requests.” He said he still stood behind it, calling it “directionally correct,” though he said some views had evolved since May.
Kim said he struggled to reconcile Isaacman’s support at the hearing for the current Artemis architecture with Project Athena’s recommendations to terminate the Space Launch System and Gateway. He also questioned Isaacman’s support for climate science given the document’s comment about taking NASA “out of the taxpayer-funded climate science business.”
“I’m just having trouble understanding what to believe,” Kim said.
Kim said he planned to follow up with Isaacman after the hearing, but he submitted no additional questions for the record. “I’m trying to be someone who can work together. I think this needs to be bipartisan going forward,” he said.
Related
Read the original article here