{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=f097e7fd-8dc2-4520-b20a-5a63b715699a", "Barrasso Calls on Senate to Support Federal Water Quality Protection Act", "2015-11-03", "2015", "2015-11", "Republican", "House", "WY", "John Barrasso", "B001261", "www.barrasso.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C. Today, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor in support of the bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act (S. 1140). Senator Barrasso introduced the legislation in response to the Environmental Protection Agencys overreaching waters of the United States rule. The Senate will vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1140 at 2:30 pm ET today.\r\nTranscript of Senator Barrassos remarks:\r\nI appreciate the opportunitytoday to move this legislation,that is bipartisan and itprotects our environment, and ithelps small businesses allacross the country.\r\nS. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, is legislation that I introduced with Democrat Senators Donnelly, Heitkamp and Manchin, along with many other senators.\r\nThe senator from California previously spoke, and I would just point out to her that the California Chamber of Commerce supports my legislation. The California Farm Bureau supports my legislation.\r\nBecause this legislation will protect our nations navigable waterways and the streams and wetlands that help keep our navigable waters clean.\r\nThis bill is a testament to the hard work that both sides of the aisle have done in achieving an agreement on an environmental protection bill.\r\nOur rivers, our lakes ,our wetlands and other waterways are among Americas most treasured resources.\r\nIn my home state of Wyoming we have some of the most beautiful rivers in the world  the Snake River, the Wind River, and dozens of others.\r\nPeople from around the world come to Wyoming  they come to visit - because we have an environmental landscape that is second to none.\r\nAnyone who has gone to my state and experienced Yellowstone National Park, the Grand Tetons and the Big Horn Mountains, comes away with a sense that Wyoming is a pristine and beautiful place.\r\nIts what Wyoming sells, and it is what makes Wyoming so unique.\r\nThe people of Wyoming are devoted to keeping these waterways safe.\r\nWe want to preserve the water for our children and grandchildren.\r\nWe understand that there is a right way and a wrong way to do that.\r\nIt is possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways, while still respecting the difference between state waters and federal waters.\r\nThis is the environmental legacy that my constituents want, and it is the legacy they have earned for their decades of sound management that they have put into keeping Wyomings waterways pristine and beautiful.\r\nBut the EPA has released a new rule. The new ruled is called waters of the United States  WOTUS.\r\nThis rule doesnt work for the people of Wyoming, and most likely it doesnt work for any of your constituents either  certainly not for those who have to put a shovel in the ground to make a living.\r\nThe Courts have begun to weigh in with their concerns about this WOTUS rule, and they have given Congress and stakeholders a necessary pause.\r\nJudge Erickson of the District of North Dakota on August 27, issued an injunction that blocked the WOTUS rule in 13 states because the rulemaking record was, in the judges words, inexplicable, arbitrary, and devoid of a reasoned process.\r\nHe also stated with regard to the rationale behind EPAs threshold for what is and is not federal water that, again in the judges words, On the record before the court, it appears that the standard is the right standard because the agencies say it is.\r\nThe United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals put a nationwide stay on the rule on October 9 of this year.\r\nThe Court stated in granting the stay that the sheer breadth of the ripple effects caused by the Rules definitional changes counsel strongly in favor of maintaining the status quo for the time being.\r\nThe court added, a stay temporarily silences the whirlwind of confusion that springs from uncertainty about the requirements of the new Rule and whether they will survive legal testing.\r\nWhat the Courts have done is basically say let Congress have time to act.\r\nWe dont have to sit on the sidelines and watch this rule slowly crumble under legal scrutiny.\r\nContrary to some activist groups rhetoric, we are not facing an immediate environmental water pollution crisis.\r\nIn fact, the 6th Court stated that in granting the stay that neither is there any indication that the integrity of the nations water will suffer imminent injury if the new scheme is no immediately implemented and enforced. They called it a scheme.\r\nHowever, no one disagrees that the status quo is optimum for the long term for our nations waters.\r\nWe can do better, and we can act now.\r\nThat is why we must take this opportunity to pass the legislation before us that will have EPA do a new rule under specific principles outlined by Congress.\r\nThese are principles that protect navigable waters and adjacent wetlands, as well as farmers, as well as ranchers, as well as other land owners.\r\nI know that some Senators gave the administration the benefit of the doubt with their rule, despite concerns from constituents, and those senators waited for the final result before making a judgement to see if those concerns would be addressed.\r\nI am here to tell you today, Mr. President, that no matter what concessions EPA has claimed to address the serious problems raised about the proposed rule, they added new provisions in the final rule that greatly expand their authority.\r\nThis is disappointing because I believe the great majority of senators voiced concerns in this process, and those concerns fell on deaf ears. The EPA has produced a final rule worse than the one they originally proposed.\r\nFor example, instead of clarifying the difference between a stream and an erosion on the land, the rule defines tributaries to include any place where EPA thinks- the EPA thinks - it sees an ordinary high water mark.\r\nWhat looks likenot what it isbut what looks like they think is a high water mark.\r\nEven worse, EPA proposes to make these decisions from their desks, using aerial photographs and laser generated images  claiming a visit to the location is not necessary.\r\nUnder the rule, the Environmental Protection Agency also has the power to regulate something as waters of the United States if it falls within a 100-year floodplain or if it is within 4,000 feet of a navigable water or a tributary, and the EPA claims there is a significant nexus.\r\nSo what is a significant nexus?\r\nUnder this rule, significant nexus can mean a water feature that provides life cycle dependent aquatic habitat for a species.\r\nIf you start drawing 4,000 foot circles around anything the EPA identifies or defines as a tributary - now, remember: 4,000 feet ; were talking over 13 football fields long - and everywhere there is potential aquatic habitat. Essentially, almost the entire United States, according to this, would be underwater. Actually, 100 percent of the state of Virginia is under this jurisdiction. 99.7 percent of the state of Missouri falls within this area. Underwater, if you will, according to the EPA guideline.\r\nNow, Id like to take a moment to talk about puddles because one of the speakers on the other side of the aisle talked about puddles.\r\nPeople know what they think about when they think about a puddle - when it rains. The final rule does exempts puddles, defined as  very small, shallow, and highly transitory pool of water that forms on pavement or uplands during or immediately after a rainstorm or similar precipitation event. I guess that would mean, like, when the snow melts.\r\nThe rule specifically does take control of other pools of water created by rain, such as prairie potholes and vernal pools, even if the land where these pools of water form is far away from any navigable water, or even a tributary. \r\nUnder this new regulation, Mr. President, nearly all of these pools of water created by rain will now be considered waters of the U.S., giving the Environmental Protection Agency the power to regulate what you do on that land.\r\nThese provisions are sweeping, and will create unnecessary and uncertainty activities in communities across the country.\r\nMr. President, there is plenty that I have already outlined in the WOTUS rule that is bad for agriculture with the many methods it provides for federalizing previously state controlled water. Its bad for agriculturewith the many methods itprovides for federalizingpreviously state-controlled water.States have made these decisionsin the past.Now we're adding another levelof government bureaucracy.\r\nThis rule is bad for agriculture.For those people who produce ourfood.Farmers, ranchers, and othersare used to working with theirstates to protect their land andwater under that you are ownstewardship.\r\nBut I will tell you,Mr. President, we heard from thesenator from California aboutgroups opposing this - 480 different groups supportthis bill and they are majornational groups:\r\nThe American Farm Bureau;\r\nThe Agricultural Retailers Association;\r\nThe American Soybean Association;\r\nThe American Sugar Alliance;\r\nThe Colorado Pork Producers Council;\r\nThe Corn Refiners Association;\r\nThe Milk Producers Council;\r\nThe National Association of Wheat Growers;\r\nThe National Cattlemens Beef Association;\r\nThe National Chicken Council;\r\nThe National Corn Growers Association;\r\nThe National Council of Farmer Cooperatives;\r\nThe National Pork Producers Council;\r\nThe National Turkey Federation;\r\nThe U.S. Poultry and Egg Association;\r\nThe United Egg Producers;\r\nThe USA Rice Federation;\r\nI could go on and on.\r\nThese are the food producers of America. They support the legislation in front of the senate today.\r\nThe point is there is not one state, not a single state, in this country that doesnt have a strong agricultural presence. We all d.\r\nI urge all senators to make sure, before you vote on the motion to proceed to this bill, that you check in with your folks.\r\nI would also note that many industries outside of agriculture are concerned about this rule as well- these include manufacturers, homebuilders, small businesses, you name it.\r\nThey are all very concerned with this rule and want Congress to act now.\r\nAction could mean Congress pass a Congressional Review Act resolution, which will be considered possible later in the process.\r\nBut that would eliminate the WOTUS rule, and prevent a substantially similar rule from being proposed.\r\nThat would allow for a new rule, as long as it was not substantially similar to the existing rule.\r\nWe need to vote on this resolution because I believe that S. 1140 is a better route, the one that we have here today. This is the bipartisan compromise. This is the bill that has a number of senators from the Democrat side of the aisle cosponsoring the legislation.\r\nIt is a bipartisan compromise.\r\nMost importantly, this piece of legislation on the floor today allows for Congress to establish the principles of what the new EPA rule would look like.\r\nNow, I know there are a number of Democrats who have ideas to improve the legislation that's on the floor today specific for their own states.\r\nIf my colleagues vote for the motion to proceed, we can have an open amendment process that would allow members to improve S. 1140 in a bipartisan way.\r\nWe are willing to work with anyone who wants to improve this rule in a bipartisan way.\r\nLets not sit on the sidelines anymore.\r\nRather than support an final EPA rule that is actually worse than the proposed rule, that will likely not survive legal scrutiny based on what we saw from the courts, a rule that does not represent the interests of our farmers, ranchers, families, small businesses and communities, lets move forward with the bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act to assure the public that we hear and we understand their concerns.\r\nAt the same time, lets give EPA and the Army Corps the certainty that they need to confidently move forward with a new rule, a rule that truly reflects the needs of the constituents we represent.\r\nLets protect our nations waterways for the long term.\r\nThank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.\r\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=f097e7fd-8dc2-4520-b20a-5a63b715699a"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.9336159564554691, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}