releases: http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=f097e7fd-8dc2-4520-b20a-5a63b715699a
Data license: MIT · Data source: dwillis/congress-press
This data as json
| url | title | date | year | month | party | chamber | state | member_name | bioguide_id | domain | scraper | source | date_source | text | has_text | collected_at | updated_at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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. Transcript of Senator Barrassos remarks: I appreciate the opportunitytoday to move this legislation,that is bipartisan and itprotects our environment, and ithelps small businesses allacross the country. S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, is legislation that I introduced with Democrat Senators Donnelly, Heitkamp and Manchin, along with many other senators. The 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. Because this legislation will protect our nations navigable waterways and the streams and wetlands that help keep our navigable waters clean. This 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. Our rivers, our lakes ,our wetlands and other waterways are among Americas most treasured resources. In 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. People from around the world come to Wyoming they come to visit - because we have an environmental landscape that is second to none. Anyone 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. Its what Wyoming sells, and it is what makes Wyoming so unique. The people of Wyoming are devoted to keeping these waterways safe. We want to preserve the water for our children and grandchildren. We understand that there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. It is possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways, while still respecting the difference between state waters and federal waters. This 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. But the EPA has released a new rule. The new ruled is called waters of the United States WOTUS. This 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. The Courts have begun to weigh in with their concerns about this WOTUS rule, and they have given Congress and stakeholders a necessary pause. Judge 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. He 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. The United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals put a nationwide stay on the rule on October 9 of this year. The 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. The 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. What the Courts have done is basically say let Congress have time to act. We dont have to sit on the sidelines and watch this rule slowly crumble under legal scrutiny. Contrary to some activist groups rhetoric, we are not facing an immediate environmental water pollution crisis. In 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. However, no one disagrees that the status quo is optimum for the long term for our nations waters. We can do better, and we can act now. That 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. These are principles that protect navigable waters and adjacent wetlands, as well as farmers, as well as ranchers, as well as other land owners. I 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. I 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. This 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. For 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. What looks likenot what it isbut what looks like they think is a high water mark. Even 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. Under 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. So what is a significant nexus? Under this rule, significant nexus can mean a water feature that provides life cycle dependent aquatic habitat for a species. If 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. Now, 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. People 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. The 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. Under 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. These provisions are sweeping, and will create unnecessary and uncertainty activities in communities across the country. Mr. 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. This 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. But 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: The American Farm Bureau; The Agricultural Retailers Association; The American Soybean Association; The American Sugar Alliance; The Colorado Pork Producers Council; The Corn Refiners Association; The Milk Producers Council; The National Association of Wheat Growers; The National Cattlemens Beef Association; The National Chicken Council; The National Corn Growers Association; The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; The National Pork Producers Council; The National Turkey Federation; The U.S. Poultry and Egg Association; The United Egg Producers; The USA Rice Federation; I could go on and on. These are the food producers of America. They support the legislation in front of the senate today. The point is there is not one state, not a single state, in this country that doesnt have a strong agricultural presence. We all d. I urge all senators to make sure, before you vote on the motion to proceed to this bill, that you check in with your folks. I 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. They are all very concerned with this rule and want Congress to act now. Action could mean Congress pass a Congressional Review Act resolution, which will be considered possible later in the process. But that would eliminate the WOTUS rule, and prevent a substantially similar rule from being proposed. That would allow for a new rule, as long as it was not substantially similar to the existing rule. We 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. It is a bipartisan compromise. Most 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. Now, 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. If 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. We are willing to work with anyone who wants to improve this rule in a bipartisan way. Lets not sit on the sidelines anymore. Rather 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. At 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. Lets protect our nations waterways for the long term. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. ### | 1 | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z |