Preservation Action

Yesterday the Senate voted 73-25 to advance and open debate on the legislative vehicle for the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA, S. 5653). The vote was opposed by 24 Democrats and 1 Republican. Preservation Action is dismayed by this vote. We remain committed to fighting this harmful legislation and defending the National Historic Preservation Act.

While this vote is a setback, the process is far from over. The vote allows for the bill to be debated and amended, but it is not the final vote. In fact some Senators may vote to open to debate, but still end up opposing the final bill. Our fight continues!

Ahead of vote, Preservation Action joined hundreds of advocates for the 106 Strong Coalition Rally outside the capitol, who made their opposition to this harmful bill known. We appreciate the work of the coalition in organizing the rally and all of those that showed up and spoke out.

We need you to keep up your advocacy! A final Senate vote could come as soon as next week and Congress needs to continue to hear from you.

Reach out to your Senators and Representatives and tell them to oppose the bill! Or encourage them to pass an amendment to completely strike the Title III historic preservation provisions. Check out our action alert to see phone scripts, send emails to your members of Congress, and learn more about this harmful bill.

---

We also encourage you to be sure to thank those 25 Senators that stood up and voted against this harmful permitting bill and encourage them to talk to their colleagues about their concern.

Senators who voted NO on the motion to proceed to BAAJA:

Preservation Action remains strongly opposed to the harmful preservation provisions in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (S. 5653), as revised by the manager’s amendment released over the weekend. This bill is severely flawed and would have a devastating impact on core historic preservation protections afforded by the National Historic Preservation Act.

The amendment makes some modest changes, but it leaves the bill’s central flaws in place. The bill continues to completely cut the public out of the process and fundamentally weaken meaningful consultation with states and tribes. Federal officials would still have the unilateral authority to set aside mitigation whenever they decide other considerations outweigh historic preservation. Additionally, the bill would still severely limit the courts’ ability to stop the destruction of historic places. While the amendment includes tweaks on when Section 106 review would apply, it continues to exclude nearly all federally funded projects from review and limit what impacts count as harm.

Section 106 works because it brings communities to the table before decisions are final. These changes would not make permitting faster. They would shut out the people who know these places best, and they would lead to more conflict and delay.

Preservation Action supports making federal permitting more efficient and predictable, and we stand ready to work with Congress on real reforms. But this bill was written behind closed doors without input from the historic preservation community and completely upends a 60-year-old law that communities across the country depend on.

We continue to urge Congress to OPPOSE on this deeply flawed bill without the complete removal of the historic preservation title. In light of the growing vocal opposition to this bill, we ask the Senate to reconsider their approach.

*Update*

Preservation Action remains strongly opposed to the harmful preservation provisions in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (S. 5653), as revised by the manager’s amendment released over the weekend. This bill is severely flawed and would have a devastating impact on core historic preservation protections afforded by the National Historic Preservation Act. See our full statement.

Your voice is critical, keep up your advocacy!

---

Just before recessing for month of October, a bipartisan group of Senators unveiled the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (S. 5653). This bill proposes major changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) with the goal of accelerating the permitting process for infrastructure projects. Title III of the Energy and Natural Resources portion deals with historic preservation. This bill constitutes the most significant changes to the National Historic Preservation Act and the Section 106 process in the law’s history. It would substantially weaken protections for historic places under Section 106 , curtailing consultation with State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, limiting what constitutes an undertaking, imposing rigid deadlines, and narrowing adverse effects. Preservation Action strongly opposes the provisions that weaken Section 106.

The bill’s text is available here.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Following the bill’s introduction the Senate adjourned for the month of October. While the House and Senate out until after the midterm elections, the Senate is expected to move very quickly on this bill when they return on Nov. 9th. This bill was largely negotiated behind closed doors and Senators are looking to fast track the bill without a usual committee hearings process. Your voice will be critical over the next 5 weeks!

Here are some of the harmful changes that undermine the Section 106 process:

• The bill compresses and weakens the consultation process with State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Nations, and local governments. The bill inserts rigid deadlines regardless of the projects complexity, would make consultation optional when determining an area of potential effect, and worse it effectively gives federal agencies the final word during disputes by deciding that other considerations outweigh historic preservation.
• The bill narrows what constitutes a federal undertaking, limiting which projects would even require review. The changes would exclude projects where the only federal involvement is federal financial assistance, like grants or loans. It would also exclude projects where the agency doesn’t exercise “substantial control” — a new, undefined threshold that could let agencies avoid review.
• The bill narrowly redefines what is considered an “adverse effect” on a historic property. The bill explicitly excludes many visual, atmospheric, and audible effects unless they “significantly” diminish the historic property, an undefined threshold. The bill would limit adverse effects to those that are “reasonably foreseeable”, defined as a “a reasonably close causal relationship” to the undertaking. This gives much more latitude to federal agencies to determine what is an adverse effect.
• The bill dramatically limits judicial review. The ability of project opponents would be severely limited, the bill would restrict who can file claims, and imposes a 150 day deadline to bring certain claims.
• The bill imposes harsh leverage over State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. The bill would increase evaluations by Interior of SHPOs to every two years, threatens to revoke federal funding if deadlines aren’t meant, and even includes the ability of the Interior Department to assume the role of the THPO.
• Exempts certain categories of transmission, pipeline, and nationwide permitting activities from Section 106 review.

The bill also includes some provisions that the historic preservation community has supported to improve the process like designating lead agencies and increased investments in the Historic Preservation Fund. The bill would reauthorize the HPF at $200 million annually through 2036 and provide $20 million for THPOs to develop a database for Tribal records. While positive, the bill only authorizes the HPF at $200 million, but does not appropriate any additional funding.

Preservation Action continues to analyze the bill, including provisions in other sections that could impact historic preservation. We are also working to compare the changes included in the permitting bill to those proposed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in July. Importantly, while changes proposed by the ACHP to Section 106 regulations could be litigated in court or undone by future administrations, changes made to statute like those in the permitting bill would be far more difficult to change.

Preservation Action is urging Congress to reject the provisions in the Senate permitting bill that weaken protections for historic resources. We stand ready to work with members of Congress on positive changes that strengthen Section 106 and actually improve efficiency.

The Senate is expected to hold a vote to proceed on Nov. 9th. Time is of the essence. We need your voice to fight back against threats to critical historic preservation protections.

---

Take Action!

Reach out to your members of Congress, especially Senators. Let them know the devastating impact the bill will have on historic resources in your community and urge them to OPPOSE the permitting reform bill!

Call your members of Congress!

Call the U.S Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to your Representative or Senator’s office. Identify yourself as a constituent and urge them to oppose the permitting reform bill introduced in the Senate as currently drafted.

Here’s a short phone script to assist in your outreach.

Phone script

Hello, my name is [NAME], and I’m a constituent from [CITY/TOWN]. I’m calling to ask [Senator/Representative NAME] to oppose the Senate permitting reform bill, the American Affordability and Jobs Act (S. 5653), as currently drafted.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act strikes a balance, keeping infrastructure projects moving while protecting the places our communities care about. This bill would substantially weaken those historic preservation protections. It would cut state, Tribal and local voices out of the process, allowing federal agencies to make unilateral decisions from Washington with little to no consultation.

This bill won’t make permitting faster. It will mean more conflict and more delay, while leaving historic places that drive tourism and local economies unprotected. The bill was written behind closed doors and is being rushed to a vote without a committee hearing.

There are ways to make the Section 106 process more efficient, but cutting the public out of the process and putting our communities’ historic resources at risk are not how we achieve it. Therefore I urge you to reject the Senate permitting reform bill. Thank you.

Here’s a short script to request a meeting with your members of Congress on behalf of an organization:

Meeting request script

“Hello, my name is [NAME], and I’m a constituent from [CITY/TOWN]. I’m calling regarding the Senate permitting reform bill, the American Affordability and Jobs Act (S. 5653).

The bill would have a devastating impact on historic preservation protections. It would cut State, Tribal, and local voices out of Section 106 historic preservation reviews and let federal agencies make unilateral decisions with little to no consultation. That means more conflict and more delay, not faster permitting.

I’d like to request a meeting with [Senator/Representative NAME], or with the staff member who handles energy, permitting, or natural resources issues, to discuss these concerns. Who’s the best person to speak with, and what’s the best way to schedule it? Thank you.

---

Email your members of Congress!

If you have a contact in your Representative or Senator’s office, reach out to them directly. If you need assistance reaching congressional staff, contact Preservation Action at rnaylor@preservationaction.org.

You can also check out our latest action alert to easily edit and send a letter to your members of Congress today!

---

Additional Resources:

• Coalition Preservation Partners: Preservation Coalition Letter Opposing Senate Permitting Reform Bill
• NCSHPO: Senate Proposal Does More Than “Streamline” Section 106
• NCSHPO: Permitting Reform Must Work for States One-Pager
• National Trust for Historic Preservation: Principal Objections to the Historic Preservation Title of the BAAJA, S.5653 One Pager
• National Trust for Historic Preservation: National Trust for Historic Preservation Rejects Key Provisions of Bipartisan Permitting Reform Bill
• ACRA: Senate Permitting Reform Bill- Additional Details
• Cultural Heritage Partners: War Room for Threats to Section 106
• Section 106 Strong
• Section 106 Strong: Permitting Reform Should Not Silence Americans One-Pager