1. United States
2. N.C.
3. Letter

On Nov. 9th, I urge you to oppose the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (S.5653) unless its harmful provisions are removed. I support improving the electric grid and making responsible infrastructure easier to build. But faster permitting must not result in weaker protections, curtailed Tribal consultation, or permits insulated from meaningful legal review. The changes proposed in Title III to amend Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are especially objectionable. The Congressional Research Service identifies provisions that would narrow which projects receive review, define more narrowly which effects count as adverse, impose deadlines, and limit judicial review. Section 106 is not a box-checking exercise. It is a safeguard for places and cultural resources that cannot be replaced once damaged. Tribal Nations must have a meaningful opportunity to identify effects on sacred places, cultural landscapes, waterways, and other historic properties before decisions are made, not after a deadline has passed. New grants for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers do not compensate for restricting their role in consultation. The bill’s broader permitting provisions raise a related concern: they could allow construction to continue even when a court finds that environmental review violated the law. It is unacceptable that projects could be substantially or entirely built before agencies correct deficient reviews, making resulting damage difficult or impossible to reverse. The provisions that restrict agencies from revising or revoking certain permits and authorizations are also unacceptable. These changes seem designed to particularly benefit carbon-intensive projects while reducing affected communities’ ability to secure timely remedies. This is not an argument for endless delays. It is an argument for sound decisions made with the people affected, based on adequate review, and subject to courts’ ability to provide an effective remedy when agencies break the law. The Congressional Research Service’s analysis confirms that Title III changes the Section 106 process in specific ways, while independent policy analyses describe the bill as a mix of grid reforms and consequential changes to environmental review. Please oppose Title III’s Section 106 amendments and the provisions that weaken environmental review, fast-track polluting projects, or limit challenges to permits. Any permitting compromise should preserve Tribal sovereignty, public participation, and enforceable environmental protections