[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S91-S92]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERMITTING REFORM
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here to give, I guess, an
explanation and update to my colleagues about the status of permitting
reform.
I think, as you know, the chair and ranking member of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee and the chair and ranking member of the
Environment and Public Works Committee were working on a permitting
reform bill until very recently. I have, together with Senator
Heinrich, declared a pause in that permitting reform process, and I
want to explain that because the progress had actually been good. We
were working toward what I think could have been a very meaningful,
very effectual, very bipartisan permitting reform bill. There were
fairly new ideas being developed in it--like requiring front-loaded
stakeholder engagement so the whole rest of the process, as it goes
forward, is accelerated; disciplining the despised-by-me interagency
process mechanism that excuses so much executive branch delay and
indecision. I was actually pretty pleased with the way the process was
going.
Off of Rhode Island, we are developing offshore wind. Our offshore
wind project, Revolution Wind, had already weathered one stop work
order which came out of the blue from the administration. This was a
project then with about $4 billion of investment already expended and
north of 80 percent complete--a lot of turbines fully complete out
there.
And that order was without any lawful basis. As a result, the order
was challenged in court. And in court, the Federal judge said: You can
put that project back to work. The stop work order from President Trump
is invalid.
The judge made that decision on September 22. The Trump
administration had 60 days to appeal. It did not appeal. We got to
November 21, the last appeal day, no notice of appeal was filed. The
matter was settled; work could continue; and everybody was already back
at work.
Thirty days later, the 22nd of December, a new stop work order was
dropped by the Trump administration with no explanation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the stop work letter of
December 22 be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
So the first stop work attempt by the Trump administration had cited
the protection of national security interests of the United States as
one of its bases. And, obviously, that was deliberated in court. There
were pleadings on that subject. The Trump administration lost. They did
not appeal the order finding that they had lost, declaring that they
had lost, so that was a settled question.
This second letter goes back and says again, national security risks.
It does not identify them. In comments made on FOX News, it has been
said that radar interference is the risk. Radar interference was
deliberated in the initial permits. Radar interference was deliberated
in the stop work order proceedings where the Trump administration lost.
So what this looks like is a vindictive attack outside the law and
proper due process by the Trump administration.
It is not the only mischief, and I am going to be joined here by
Ranking Member Heinrich to talk about some of the more westerly tricks
that the Trump administration has been up to to interfere with clean
energy.
But that second stop work order kind of tore it for me--because any
negotiation that we would enter into, any good bill that would result
from it, would then have to be implemented by this administration; and
this administration has been found to have illegally stopped work on
this project, did not appeal that finding, and then came up with a new
stop work order 30 days later. If that is not vindictive harassment
without legal basis, I don't know what is.
It is in litigation right now. With any luck, it will be stopped
again, and they can go back to work again. And--who knows--maybe there
will be a third imaginary stop work order that drops. But in an
environment like that, where the executive branch refuses its
constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws, it doesn't make any
sense for us to continue negotiations on a major bipartisan bill.
I want to say, in particular, that Chair Capito has been helpful,
thoughtful, a good partner. All the Environment and Public Works
Committee Republicans have been helpful and thoughtful. There is
literally zero blame for this to land on the other side of the aisle in
the Senate. This is entirely a legislative versus executive problem of
an executive branch--a rogue executive branch--that refuses to
faithfully execute the laws, notwithstanding its constitutional duty.
It is so bad that the three major miscreants in this process--Zeldin,
Burgum, and Wright--have gone on a campaign of falsehood about the cost
of offshore wind. Here are some of the things that they have been
saying. Secretary Burgum said that ``intermittent, highly expensive
wind is bad.'' ``Highly expensive,'' he called it. He then tweeted:
Offshore wind is one of the most expensive . . . schemes
ever pushed upon American taxpayers.
He said:
Offshore wind forces consumers and taxpayers to pay
CONSIDERABLY more for electricity.
He said that ``blue State offshore wind policies . . . lock in high
prices.''
Zeldin criticized the economic impacts of wind.
Wright said that ``wind and solar brings us . . . less reliable
energy delivery and higher electric bills.''
So all three of them have falsely asserted that offshore wind will
raise electric bills.
In court proceedings, where you actually need to tell the truth--as
opposed to in tweets and talk shows--the story that emerges is exactly
the opposite. In the Rhode Island and Connecticut sworn complaint, we
alleged that Revolution Wind, the project off our shores, ``will . . .
yield substantial cost savings to the States' ratepayers.''
[S]avings to ratepayers--
the pleading continues--
are estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars over 20
years.
The September complaint brought in the Federal court by Orsted--
again, a court filing--pled that long-term contract prices ``are
expected to act as a successful hedge against rising electricity
rates,'' projected to save ratepayers ``hundreds of millions of
dollars.''
In January--just now--in the litigation about the second stop work
order, an affidavit was filed that swore that Revolution Wind would be
a new source of low marginal cost power in New England; that ``once
operational, Revolution Wind alone will provide hundreds of millions of
dollars each year in energy bill savings to New England.''
The ISO, the grid operator, specified that during a specific cold
snap, from December 24, 2017, to January 8, 2018--what is that?--2
weeks, basically--had this offshore wind been online during that
period, it would have ``lowered regional electricity production costs
by $80-85 million'' over those 2 weeks, ``resulting in an $11-13 per
megawatt-hour reduction'' in what the grid charged ratepayers.
Revolution Wind has cleared in the New England capacity market, and
if it were to fail, it would require increases in electricity rates in
New England of hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
Over and over again, when people who know what they are talking about
[[Page S92]]
have to say in court pleadings, where they have an obligation to tell
the truth, what the cost effect of Revolution Wind will be, they talk
about cost savings of hundreds of millions of dollars. And that is
confirmed across the country by grid operators. You can go to any grid,
and you can see pretty much the same thing. They call up power units by
cost. They call up the least expensive power units first, for obvious
reasons, and wind and solar tend to be the low marginal cost units.
They are the ones that are called up first.
So the allegations made in court of savings to ratepayers are
backstopped by the actual economic practice of our electric grids.
So back to Zeldin, Burgum, and Wright. If they are conspicuously and
consistently failing to tell the truth about savings, specifically
misleading the public, telling them fossil fuel is cheaper when it
isn't, what does that tell you about their motives and their bias and
inability to faithfully execute the laws?
It tells me that there is really no point in passing a bipartisan
bill, which would be a really good one, because we wouldn't get the
benefit of the bill. They would just continue with illegal acts and
false statements--anything to help fossil fuel.
It is not just Revolution Wind. Dominion Wind is set to lower
consumer power prices in Virginia, once it is operational, and it is,
too, now under a stop work order.
I want to resume. I want to get back to work. I want to do this
permitting reform bill. In order to get there, I am going to need some
help. The artificial intelligence folks, the crypto folks, the data
system folks who need massive amounts of electrons, you all need to
start showing up and letting people know that you actually want
permitting reform, and you actually want an administrative and
regulatory process in which electrons are treated fairly, irrespective
of source, so you can get the power that you need. That is where we
need to go.
If you want permitting reform, don't come to me. I am not the
problem. Don't come to Democrats in the Senate. We are eager to do
permitting reform. Don't bother Chairman Capito and the Republicans.
They are ready to go too. Leader Thune has been very supportive of our
effort.
The problem isn't in the Senate. The problem is in the White House
and in Environment and Public Works, Energy, and Interior. They are
simply not executing the laws fairly, and the bias and injustice and
illegality they have already demonstrated have got to stop if we are
going to go forward.
It ain't just this bill that has to come through EPW and go through
the Congress. There is also a highway bill coming. There is a water
resources bill for the Army Corps bill. Are we really going to have to
stop work on those big bipartisan bills because we can't trust the
Trump administration to implement them according to law?
Something has to give here, and nobody has done anything wrong in
this building. All of the problems are in illegal, false, unfair, and
biased enforcement of what should be faithful execution of the laws.
That is where we are.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Director's Order, December 22, 2025.
Rob Keiser,
Head of Asset Management, Orsted North America Inc., Boston,
MA, College Park, MD.
Dear Mr. Keiser: The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM) is issuing this Director's Order to Revolution Wind,
LLC, pursuant to 30 C.F.R. Sec. 585.417(b), to suspend all
ongoing activities related to the Revolution Wind Project on
the Outer Continental Shelf for the next 90 days for reasons
of national security. During this time, BOEM will coordinate
with you to determine whether the national security threats
posed by this project can be adequately mitigated.
In November 2025, the Department of War (DoW) completed an
additional assessment regarding the national security
implications of offshore wind projects, and provided senior
leadership at the Department of the Interior with new
classified information, including the rapid evolution of
relevant adversary technologies and the resulting direct
impacts to national security from offshore wind projects.
These impacts are heightened by the projects' sensitive
location on the East Coast and the potential to cause
serious, immediate, and irreparable harm to our great nation.
Based on BOEM's initial review of this classified
information, the particularized harm posed by this project
can only be feasibly averted by suspension of on-lease
activities. In coordination with DoW, BOEM will determine
whether the national security threats relating to this
project can be mitigated and invites you to meet and confer
about that possibility. Given the construction status of this
project, BOEM will consider all feasible mitigation measures
before making a decision as to whether the project must be
cancelled.
Finally, while BOEM and DoW endeavor to reach a
determination on feasible mitigation measures within 90 days
following the date of this letter, BOEM may further extend
the 90 day suspension period based on the status of those
discussions. Even though all ongoing activities at this
project are suspended, you may perform any activities that
are necessary to respond to emergency situations and/or to
prevent impacts to health, safety, and the environment over
the next 90 days and during any subsequent extensions.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward
to hearing from you quickly.
Sincerely,
Matthew N. Giacona,
Acting Director.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
____________________