By SCOTT MCKIE B.P.
One Feather Asst. Editor
The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) Act of 2026, Senate Bill 5653, was introduced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capita (R-W.V.), Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Sen. Martin Heinrick (D-N.M.), and the bill has drawn ire from tribal organizations and environmental gorups. The Senate voted 73-25 on a cloture motion on Monday, Nov. 9 to advance the bill to the floor for debate and/or amendment.
Two days prior, the four sponsors of the bill put forth a 494-page substitute known as the Manager’s Amendment. The text of that was accepted and put forward when Monday’s cloture motion vote occurred.
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) issued a statement on Nov. 8 in opposition to the Manager’s Amendment. “While bill sponsors point to the superficial adjustments in the Manager’s Amendment, such as striking a proposed federal redefinition of Tribal sacred properties and removing a mandate for the Department of the Interior to commandeer Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), those edits leave BAAJA’s core structural harms intact and, in critical ways, make Title III worse.
For example, in a classic legislative bait-and-switch, while the committee summary touts removing the provision allowing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to consult or sign agreements in lieu of ‘an Indian tribe’, the actual bill text only strikes the words ‘Indian tribe’, while retaining ‘Tribal Historic Preservation Officer’. Federal agencies could still bypass a Tribal Nation’s THPO and execute agreements with the ACHP instead.”
Dr. Beau Carroll, Tribal Historic Preservation officer for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI), opposes the bill. In a video statement, he explains, “Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider how their projects might affect culturally- and historically-important places and to consult with tribes. So, for decades, THPOs (Tribal Historic Preservation Offices) across the country have worked with federal agencies to protect these places while also helping build roads, power lines, and other infrastructure projects.
That’s important because our ancestral homeland stretches across eight states. Just because someone else owns that land, it doesn’t mean that those places are any less important to us. Our ancestors are still there.”
He added, “We still have a responsibility to protect these places. What would BAAJA change? First, they would narrow which projects are required to go through federal historic preservation review. Second, it would change how agencies determine whether a project harms a historic place, including how certain impacts to the surrounding landscape are considered. Third, it would change consultation procedures and timelines. That raises concerns about whether tribes would have enough time to review projects and identify important places. Finally, it proposes changes involving federal oversight of THPO offices and the collection of information about culturally-important places. These changes raise question about tribal authority. They raise questions about how we protect sensitive cultural information, and it raises questions about our ability to protect places throughout our ancestral homeland.”
Information from the Senate outlines the scope of the bill:
“This bill modifies federal permitting processes, including environmental reviews, to expedite a wide range of projects.
The bill limits the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act and expedites environmental reviews, including by
- further limiting the types of federal actions that trigger environmental review,
- narrowing the range of alternatives that must be considered in environmental reviews, and
- exempting additional types of projects from environmental review.
It also establishes deadlines for issuing permits once an environmental review is complete.
The bill also limits permit obligations under the Clean Water Act, including by
- narrowing the scope of review for water quality certifications,
- extending the term for permits issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and
- limiting the time period for review of permits for discharges of dredged or fill materials.
It also modifies requirements concerning threatened or endangered species to expedite the review of federal permits, including by shortening the timeline for certain consultations.
Additionally, the bill addresses numerous aspects of energy infrastructure permitting, including by
- expanding the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to issue construction permits for certain interstate electricity transmission projects;
- directing FERC to establish ratepayer protections related to certain large computational loads (e.g. data centers);
- removing permit requirements for onshore oil and gas drilling on nonfederal land; and
- accelerating renewable energy, geothermal, hydropower, or offshore energy projects.
It also limits the scope of the National Historic Preservation Act, including by limiting what types of projects trigger review.”
Following Monday’s vote, Sen. Heinrich issued a statement, “If we have any hope of making energy cheaper and making data centers pay for their own costs, then we need to pass our Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act into law. This bill delivers exactly what Americans told us they wanted on election day: lower costs and more jobs for American workers – all while reducing our emissions and defending against the administration’s attacks on tribal consultation.”
Several tribal organizations have voiced their opposition to BAAJA.
Mark Macarro, NCAI present and chairman of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians in California, said in a statement on Nov. 8, “The premise that tribes, tribal sovereignty, and tribal decision-making are impediments to federal permitting is a fallacy. Tribal nations, when at the table early in the planning and design process, are key to successful project outcomes.”
The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO) also opposes the bill and released the following statement, “BAAJA would expedite federal permitting by amending laws including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). NATHPO supports efficient permitting, responsible infrastructure development, and effective federal decision-making but not at the expense of Tribal sovereignty, consultation, sacred places, or cultural heritage that Section 106 was enacted to protect.
NATHPO opposes BAAJA as written. Its changes would narrow Section 106, expand agency control, shorten consultation timelines, impose new THPO enforcement, and limit judicial review and remedies. NATHPO and other Tribal organizations urge Congress to withdraw the NHPA language and develop an alternative with Indian Country that ensures early, meaningful consultation and protects sovereignty and sacred places. BAAJA would amend the NHPA, NEPA, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and other federal laws. Tribal Nations and THPOs should closely review Title III’s NHPA and Section 106 changes.”
Loren Blackford, Sierra Club executive director, said in a statement on Nov. 8, “The Sierra Club appreciates the improvements made by the manager’s amendment, but the draft legislation remains deeply flawed. The Senate must allow an open amendment process for additional changes to be made.
Updating and expediting transmission and clean energy permitting is essential to delivering lower costs, reduced air, water, and climate pollution, protecting communities, and expanding the grid for the American people. But rushing legislation that erodes Tribal sovereignty and people’s right to have a say in what is built in their communities, abandons clean water safeguards, and wildlife protections, while further enabling a rogue president that is waging a war on clean energy and our public lands is not an acceptable outcome.”
