The National Trust for Historic Preservation remains strongly opposed to the Historic Preservation Title of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA), as revised by the Manager’s Amendment. This is a deeply flawed and egregious piece of legislation that would significantly weaken the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and undermine the effectiveness of Section 106 review.

The Manager’s Amendment retains provisions that give federal officials broad discretion to subordinate historic preservation to other considerations, potentially bypassing Section 106 consultation altogether. It continues to allow federal officials to unilaterally determine that a project will have no adverse effect on historic properties, limiting the meaningful role of States, Tribes, local governments, and other consulting parties in that determination. It also significantly narrows what qualifies as an undertaking subject to review, excluding nearly all projects receiving federal financial assistance and activities that are not under the substantial control of a federal agency. Further, it restricts the ability of courts to provide remedies that could prevent the destruction of historic properties and fails to ensure that historic properties identified after an initial 30-day review period receive appropriate consideration.

The National Trust supports efforts to make federal permitting more efficient, predictable, and timely. But efficiency should not come at the expense of meaningful consultation, public participation, Tribal sovereignty, or the consideration of historic properties in federal decision-making. These are not unnecessary procedural hurdles; they are essential safeguards that help federal agencies make better-informed decisions, identify opportunities to avoid or minimize harm, and prevent the loss of irreplaceable historic resources.

The Manager’s Amendment does not resolve these fundamental concerns. The National Trust therefore continues to oppose the BAAJA's Historic Preservation Title and urges Congress to reconsider its approach. Permitting reform and historic preservation are compatible goals, but reform must strengthen the federal review process rather than dismantle the safeguards that make it work.