to stop the count when they saw in nasa tv the icicles hanging on the launch tower. later in the investigation, knowing as we now know, that they had received back the solid rocket boosters from previous flights in january where they saw blow by of the hot gases pass the field joints that were supposed to be sealed with the rubberized gaskets called o-rings but because of the cold weather, they stiffened and did not seal the field joint and the hot gases escaped as challenger was climbing into the florida sky. it hit right at the external

tank, punctured the tank, and the crew was lost. and so, too, we saw engineers in 2003 and before, and crew members like one of the best of the best, captain robert gibson, united states navy, retired, five-time shuttle astronaut, four-time commander, had pointed out after each flight examining the orbiter, it looked like it had been shredded was his words as if you had taken a shotgun out and just shot, buck shot into the delicate silicon tile. which was happening as a result on launch, on ascent, pieces of

the foam of the external tank falling off and hitting the delicate silicon tiles of the space shuttle orbiter. of course on that fateful day in early february 2003, that's exactly what happened. a chunk of the insulation foam, about this size, about the size of an insulated cooler, about this size, on ascent as the orbiter is accelerating and that chunk falls and hits the carbon-carbon fiber of the leading edge of the left wing and knocks a hole in it. and, of course, on ascent to

orbit there's no problem, on orbit there's no problem, but the problem comes after the deorbit burn and after the space shuttle falls for 30 minutes through the vacuum of space and then starts encountering the molecules of air in the atmosphere, and as those upper atmosphere molecules hit the nose of the space shuttle and the leading edges of the wind, the temperatures grow to over 3,000 degrees fahrenheit, and there's a big hole in the leading edge of the left wing, and, of course, the left wing burns up and the crew is destroyed high in the dissent over east texas.

nasa's management structure, well intentioned, filtered out debate and dissent, did not listen to those astronaut commanders look hoot tbibson and -- gipson and did not listen in 1985 and 1986 to those engineers and the result is the loss of two space shuttles and 14 souls, including on the space shuttle columbia in 2003 the first israeli astronaut elon ramon. that'snasa was reorganized so te

safety personnel -- that those concerns are not squashed like they were but instead elevated ultimately to whom? to the guy at the top, the nasa administrator. to make those decisions, the administrator must draw on all of his or her knowledge of engineering principles and of space flight, all of his or her experience of managing large technical organizations and every bit of judgment, reason, and impartiality he or she can muster because leading nasa is a job for an experienced and proven space professional. the success or failure of leadership at nasa is, quite

literally, a matter of life or death. i want to commend congressman bridenstine's time as a pilot and his service to our country in the military. it's commendable, but it does not qualify him to make the complex and nuance engineering safety and budgetary decisions for which the head of nasa has to be accountable. furthermore, congressman bridenstine's recent public service career does not instill great confidence about his ability of bringing people together. his record of behavior in the congress is as divisive as any

in washington, including his attacks on members of this body from his own party. it's hard to see how that record will endear, and by extension nasa, him to congress, and most importantly, endear him to the american people. finally, given nasa's mission to study the earth, that is a mission of nasa. congressman bridenstine's past statements on climate change are troubling, to say the least, particularly in this administration where words like science based and climate change, these words are being scrubbed from government documents and where some

scientists have been restricted from speaking publicly about scientific findings. nasa needs an administrator, a leader, a strong leader who understands the critical importance of studying the earth and is willing to put his job on the line to protect nasa scientists. congressman bridenstine's record suggests that he'll do otherwise. mr. president, i don't come to this decision lightly. i hold nothing against him personally. he's a very likable fellow. my decision is not politically motivated. in fact, i supported the nomination of the chiefle

financial office -- chief financial officer, jeff dewitte because he was qualified for the job as chief financial officer, and he was confirmed without a problem and is in that job. and, of course, if congressman bridenstine is, in fact, confirmed, i will work with him for the good of our nation's space program. my opposition to this nomination comes from decades of experience and an understanding of nasa's history and having lived through some of its darkest moments. i have no doubt that the nominee is passionate about our space program and i don't doubt his

motivation or his intentions. i think that what's not right for nasa is an administrator who is politically divisive and who is not prepared to be the last in line to make that fateful decision on go or no go for launch. mr. president, therefore, i will oppose this nominee, and i yield the floor.

mr. wicker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: once again i rise to express my strong support for the coast guard reauthorization bill and the vaid -- and the bill that is contained within it and the organizations who have come forward and said this is an important piece of legislation for job creation and for those people who want to make a living on our waterways in this vital,

vital aspect of our economy. and to pick up on something that we were mentioning a few moments ago, not only does this legislation have the support of the chamber of commerce and business associations around the country, job creation associations around the country, it has the support of the international association of machinists and aerospace workers, the international brotherhood of boiler makers, the international long shoreman association, the international union of operating engineers, and metal trades, afl-cio, maritime trades afl-cio. i could go on and on, again, pointing out that this legislation has support from both labor and management. and i appreciate people of

diverse political ideologies coming together on something that's going to make it easier to do commerce in the united states, and i just hope that we can get the 60 votes that we require for consensus here in this body. i know we're close. we have 60 people, mr. president, who have at one time or the other expressed support for this legislation, and i hope we can come together in a convergence in a few moments when we vote for this. i want to -- i want to discuss a couple of misconceptions that keep floating around about the ballast water issue, the incidental discharge issue. first of all, some people are saying that the bill lowers the environmental standards for ballast water. of course nothing could be further from the truth. why would all of these organizations come forward in

favor of this if we're going to lower the standards. the bill, in fact, -- in fact the very language of the bill, mr. president, preserves current federal standards. and also the bill includes what is also in the law, and that is that the environmental protection agency will have a principal role in setting the national standard for ballast water discharge. the new standards and requirements would be based upon a term of art, and the term of art in the -- in the language is best available technology economically achievable. batia. this is a term that comes right straight out of our current clean water act. it's already there, but in the vessel incidental discharge act,

which we hope we can bring to the floor in a few moments, the best available technology would be mandated for this new nationwide standard and -- and that nationwide standard would, of course, would be enforced by the coast guard, but it would be developed by the e.p.a. according to the most stringent scientifically available standards that we could possibly have. what we're trying to do in this regard is free up commerce, free up working men and women, free up people who are trying to create more jobs in the maritime industry from complying with a myriad of different requirements as we go state to state to state. some 25 different states have a little bit of a nuanced approach to this, and if you can imagine

if you're in the barge business or in the maritime business, it is almost impossible to comply with 25 separate standards. so this would set one standard across the country, but it would be at the best available technology. so please don't anyone think that this is some sort of lesser technology. this is the best and according to the very wording of the bill, which we are asking the senate to vote on today, e.p.o. concurrence is required for these regulations to be established. would not be able to be enforced unless e.p.a. comes in and blesses it and e.p.a. would have a principle role in developing the proposed regulations. now, let me say a word or two about the great lakes because

this seems to be a matter of concern and misunderstanding. there is a myth that this somehow harms the great lakes. i have to commend the author, the principle author of this legislation and the senator from alaska who's currently occupying the chair for being willing to accommodate our friends from the great lakes during this process. the great lakes gets a little extra treatment in this bill because of concerns that they've raised. here is what will happen if we can pass this bill. all vessels entering the great lakes will need to flush their ballast water before entering. and so the only ballast water then being discharged by great

lake vessels will be water that they have taken in in the great lakes. because before coming in, they have to flush their tanks, their ballast tanks before coming in. that is an accommodation that we've made to bring our friends from the great lakes into this issue. the coast guard in concurrence with the e.p.a., according to this bill, would be required to establish best management practices specifically tailored to the great lakes. and so i would just say to my friends that let's talk about the facts, but please don't make up arguments that are not based in fact. this legislation, if it passes, and i still think we have an opportunity to get 60 votes and move on to considering the

substance of this, if it passes would use the best scientifically available enforcement possible. it would just give our barge folks and our maritime folks one thing to comply with rather than 25 or 26 or 27 different regulatory schemes. and what do those myriad of schemes do? every time you have to hire a lawyer or hire somebody, a compliance person, every time you have to do that, it's money you take out of your bottom line that you'd like to use creating a job in america. that's what these people want to do. they want to increase the employment of these boiler makers who've endorsed this bill, the employment of the long shoremen whocshoremen who've ens bill. i would say to my friends let's not be confused with arguments

that have come in in the last week or two that have no basis in fact. this is a bill about strong, strong requirements for the water that incidentally has to come out of the ballast tanks. and it's about strong enforcement by the coast guard of standards imposed by the e.p.a. according to the best available scientific technology. strong requirements to protect our environment but also to protect jobs and commerce for americans. so i think we're going to probably vote in ten or 11 minutes, mr. president. i would just urge my colleagues who have at one time or the other come forward and endorsed this very proposal.

please stay with us on this, particularly based on the accommodations that the senator from alaska has made to make the bill more accommodating and more inclusive of the concerns that have been made. i urge a yes vote that we're going to continue this fight one way or the other, but this is a day we ought to stand for doing something for commerce, for labor, for business and in the name of bipartisanship and in the name of rewarding the way we ought to be legislating here on the floor. i yield the floor, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from eid hoe -- from idaho. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. in just a few minutes at noon, the senate will begin the process of two votes. the first of those votes will be

a vote on a resolution brought to the senate by senator moran and senator toomey to reject a rule proposed by the consumer financial protection bureau's 2013 action in which it sought to assert jurisdiction over auto finance guidance. i use the word rule guardedly, though, because as you will see from my remarks, this was an end run by the cfpb in two ways. first, the cfpb doesn't have jurisdiction over auto finance and, second, the cnpb did not -- cfpb did not use the administrative procedures act to adopt a rule. it sought to implement a rule through a process of issuing a guidance to avoid the scrutiny and the legal challenges to its effort to assert this jurisdiction. it's important that congress disapprove this guidance because it was an attempt by the cfpb to

make substantive policy changes through guidance rather than through the rule-making process governed by the administrative procedures act. as i said before, it's also an attempt to regulate auto dealers who were explicitly exempted from cfpb supervision and regulation under the dodd-frank act. and finally, this also is a rule that has caused great difficulty and problems in the marketplace hurting auto dealers and consumers alike. the cfpb itself when undertaking this action admitted what it was doing. the cfpb rejected developing a rule using its statutory authority because the actions it was seeking to regulate are ostensibly those of dealers over whom we have no regulatory authority. it's interesting that even in the cfpb's own documentation of what it was doing, they indicated that they didn't have the authority to do it.

so the cfpb decided to develop a guidance rather than a rule. as a back doorway to regulate auto dealers. the cfpb's indirect auto bulletin represents a departure from typical federal agency practice as reflected in the g.a.o.'s conclusion that its rule is subject to c.r.a. requirements. in other words, the g.a.o. said in a ruling, yes, this actually is a rule, even though the administrative procedures act wasn't followed. that decision by the yao gives this -- by the g.a.o. gives this congress the authority to reject the cfpb's actions. some of my colleagues on the other side say disapproving a guidance is somehow a loophole that we are using because we should only have authority to disapprove a specific rule. but the g.a.o.'s guidance -- the g.a.o.'s ruling on the cfpb's guidance clearly puts this

within the jurisdiction of this senate. i would point my colleagues to a statement from among others senator reed in the congressional record from 1996 when the congressional review act was passed explaining what the author's intent was when passing this legislation. he said, the authors are concerned that some agencies have attempted to circumvent notice and comment requirements by trying to give legal effect to general statements of policies or guidelines and agency policy and procedure manuals. the authors admonish the agencies that the a.p.a.'s, the administrative procedure act, rule adopted by the authors of this legislation to discourage circumvention of the requirements of it. as a result of these significant concerns, this resolution has attracted substantial support, including from 14 different organizations involved with helping consumers buy a vehicle

and an endorsement via a statement of administrative policy from the white house. the following organizations submitted letters, the chamber of commerce, the credit union national association, the independent community bankers of america, the american bankers association, the american financial services association, the national auto moibl dealers -- automobile dealers association, the national r.v. dealers association, the national independent automobile dealers association, the recreational vehicle industry association, the american international automobile dealers association, the national auto auction association, the motorcycle industry council, and the national federation of independent businesses. finally, i'd like to response to the assertion that disapproving this guidance someho somehow als

auto dealers to discriminate. that's the issue that's at stake here. the reason that congress did not give the cfpb jurisdiction over auto dealers is because the auto dealers are already subject to the equal credit opportunity act, and if we reject this resolution, the auto dealers will continue to be subject to the equal credit opportunity act, which will continue to apply to all creditors, which means auto dealers that extend credit will be prohibit ted from discrimination -- prohibited from discrimination against customers on the basis of race, sex, age, national origin or marital status or because one receives public assistance. so in other words, mr. president, we're not changing the law. we're not taking away any protections in the law. we are stopping a rogue agency from continuing to be able to enforce a rule which it sought to create by avoiding the administrative procedures act. i urge my colleagues to vote to

support this resolution. mr. president, very 13 requests for committees to -- i have 13 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. crapo: with that, mr. president, i yield my time. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. crapo: mr. president? the presiding the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. officer is without objection. a senator: i ask that there be niches equally divided prior to the second vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. i also ask unanimous consent to start the first vote immediately. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on passage of s.j. res. 57. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the third time.

the clerk: calendar number 378, senate joint resolution 57, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 and so forth. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll on passage of the joint resolution. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 51. the nays are 47. the joint resolution is passed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. there are now five minutes equally divided before the next vote. will the senate be in order.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: my colleagues -- the presiding officer: can we have order, please. senators will take their conversations out of the chamber. the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: thank you, madam president and colleagues. the next vote will be a motion to concur in a bill that is the coast guard reauthorization but with a special provision that i want to draw all my colleagues' attention to, dealing with incidental discharges from vessels. i am strongly supportive of the coast guard reauthorization, but this as it's known, vida provision is extremely troublesome. it impacts both fresh water coasts of the great lakes as well as our other coastal

regions and it strips the environmental protection agency of its scientific role in setting standards for discharges and puts the coast guard entirely in charge of these decisions and enforcement. in addition, it strips all of our coastal states of the authority to pass laws concerning the waters off their coasts. wisconsin is a state that has passed its own water discharge rules. it has done so because we need to protect the greatest drinking water source, fresh drinking water source in the world and in

our nation. we also have had threats of invasive species that would decimate our great lakes. ballast water and incidental discharges can often be the cause of those invasive species. in addition, there are chemicals that can enter the water if this is not regulated. this is not the time for a one-size-fits-all approach. we should remove the vida provision from the coast guard reauthorization, pass the coast guard reauthorization on a voice vote because it is absolutely not controversial, and then get to the hard work of doing the right -- doing vida the right way. i yield. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, the title that our colleagues are complaining about in this bill, the vessel incidental discharge

act or vida, has been introduced in the last five congresses. since 2008, several times being led by democrats. there have been numerous hearings, meetings protracted negotiations regarding vida spanning days, week, months and years. the bill has been passed out of the commerce committee two times this year and multiple times in the past, always by voice vote. there are 23 cosponsors, including many from the other side of the aisle. senators casey, nelson, schatz, mccaskill, coons, shaheen, this year. other cosponsors of similar past vida bills include senators hirono, coons, manchin and hagan. there have been negotiations with committee members, people off the committee. we have accommodated and accommodated and accommodated so much, i have bent over backwards so many times i can't hardly

stand up straight trying to accommodate concerns people have had on this. many of the folks speaking against vida have been in those negotiations, very honestly. some of the friends across the aisle have extracted concession after concession only to move the goalpost whenever we get close. here's a list of some of the changes we agreed to. state incidental discharge standards ra*eupl in place until promulgation until a final rule. ballast water and discharge rules will be prevented by the coast guard in concurrence with e.p.a. we fully anticipate the agency will be closely involved every step of the way. states will have the authority to enforce the federal regulations regarding ballast water and incidental discharges.

states will have the ability to charge existing and new fees for ballast water and incidental discharge inspections. madam president, this was a bipartisan bill when it was introduced, and since we have made numerous changes to accommodate concerns, vida preserves environmental protections and allows commerce to move. it's gone through extraordinary debate and process on both sides of the aisle. it is time to pass this bill now. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur on the house amendment to accompany s. 140, an act to amend the white mountain apache tripe water rights quantification act of 2010 to clarify the aouts of --e of the amounts in the wamt water

fund. the presiding officer: by unanimous -- the question is is on the motioo concur offered on the amendment by the senator from mcconnell shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change his or her vote?

seeing none, on this vote the yeas are 56. the nays 42. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture clerk cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of james bridenstine of oklahoma to be administrator of the national aeronautics administration signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum calls that been waived. the question, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of james bridenstine of oklahoma to be administrator of the national aeronautics and space administration shall be brought to a close. the yairs and nays are -- yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk shall call the roll.

vote:

vote: