Wednesday, July 14, 2021

Wicker nominee 'hold' crosses aisle

WASHINGTON - A dozen of President Biden’s senior national security nominees - including his selection for Air Force and Navy secretaries – are stalled in the Senate because multiple lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have placed procedural holds on their confirmations, Defense News reports. Since early June, the Senate Armed Services Committee has recommended a dozen nominees to the full chamber, but at least three lawmakers are delaying those positions to bargain with the White House over basing and acquisitions. It’s not clear whether any nominees will receive a Senate floor vote before the August recess. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) lifted her holds on Air Force secretary nominee Frank Kendall and DoD acquisition lead Heidi Shyu, but Michigan Democratic Sens. Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow are delaying a vote on Kendall and others. A Senate hold is an informal practice that allows senators to convey objections and deny unanimous consents. The holds also include DoD assistant defense secretary picks Deborah Rosenblum, Christopher Maier, Ely Ratner and Shawn Skelly; DoD general counsel nominee Caroline Krass; Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAFE) director nominee Susanna Blume; Air Force undersecretary nominee Gina Ortiz-Jones, and assistant Navy secretary nominee Meredith Berger. Sixty-one civilian jobs at DoD require Senate confirmation. So far, the Senate has confirmed six. Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, says he is stalling Susanna Blume’s nomination, but it wasn’t personal, but rather to pressure Navy to commit on buying four amphibious ships in a single “block buy.” (Presumably for build at HII-Pascagoula, Miss.) Proponents say it would be cheaper than acquiring the ships individually. “We need a bigger Navy and we need to save money,” he told Defense News, “and there’s a real easy way to do that, by doing a block buy.” (Source: Defense News 07/13/21) A dozen of Biden’s national security nominees are on hold in the Senate (defensenews.com)

No comments: