By subscribing, you agree to Substack's Terms of Use, and acknowledge its Information Collection Notice and Privacy Policy. “PPS opposes changes to the NHPA proposed in S. 5653 that we believe directly conflict with the original intent and spirit of the 1966 Act and harm communities across Rhode Island and the country.” In September, Senators Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mike Lee (R-UT), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced S. 5653, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026. The Senate will likely vote to advance the bill on November 9, 2026, and it will significantly alter the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ( NHPA). \See also: [Barry Schiller: A bill in Congress would speed up project approval. The NHPA was passed in response to the devastating impacts of urban renewal, a federal redevelopment program that touched every corner of America. In Providence, urban renewal displaced more than 5,000 households and 800 businesses, and demolished over 3,000 buildings, redeveloping about 9% of the city’s landmass. In Providence, as in other cities, communities of color were disproportionately impacted by this program: about 29% of the people displaced were categorized by planners as “non-white,” while they accounted for only 4 to 9% of the city population during this period. There was virtually no public input and no mechanism to understand the impacts on communities before projects began. State and municipal clearance and redevelopment, fueled by the federal government’s funding and priorities, overshadowed community voice, participation, and agency. As part of a federal reckoning with this history, Congress declared through the NHPA that our neighborhoods, landscapes, and cultural sites are valuable because they connect us to our shared history. The NHPA is a “stop, look, and listen” statute that seeks to understand impacts before irreparable harm is done; it has no prescriptive outcome. Of all the environmental laws in the country, the NHPA is one of the most flexible. PPS opposes changes to the NHPA proposed in S. 5653 that we believe directly conflict with the original intent and spirit of the 1966 Act and harm communities across Rhode Island and the country. 1 We urge Senator Whitehouse to reconsider his support of this bill and to vote against it in its present form, absent amendments to address the concerns detailed below. We also urge Senator Reed to vote against this legislation in its present form due to the following repercussions. A core principle of the Section 106 review process created by the NHPA is consultation: Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, State Historic Preservation Officers, and local governments are given a seat at the table. They are given a voice at the start of a project to raise concerns about impacts to historic places before a final decision is made. The knowledge and perspective that community members can share through this process are essential to recognizing, understanding, and then resolving harm when federal agencies and project proponents are not from the area. 5653 does not mention substantive public participation, and the bill does not protect the public as a party that must be consulted in the statutory language. 2 This new proposed process is unilateral and directly conflicts with federal and state coordination, as it provides no mechanism for collaboration. The bill also proposes that federal agencies publish final agency actions in a report once a decision is made, with no public participation. 3 The report would give federal officials sole discretion to conclude that “other considerations,” which the bill does not describe, are more important than historic preservation concerns when determining outcomes. Removing stakeholders’ ability to bring claims is not efficiency; it is legal inequity. Chief Justice Earl Warren said, “It is the spirit, and not the form of law, that keeps justice alive.” On its face, the bill favors project applicants and limits stakeholders’ ability to obtain a judicial remedy. It only allows lawsuits to those who can show that they will suffer a direct harm and who made a “substantive and unique comment” during the public comment period. The “unique” element further narrows who can walk through the door of justice and would force community members who do not fit this narrow description to watch as beloved cultural heritage is destroyed, with no ability to be heard by a third party. The bill also forces the court to “afford substantial deference to the agency” while tying the court’s hands from making logical and informed decisions. Tribal Nations are integral to the fabric of America. Tribal Nations are not given due consideration or consultation in this bill. The Federal Trust Responsibility to Tribal Nations acknowledges the political nature of federally recognized Tribes and obligates the federal government to maintain a government-to-government relationship with them. Consultation is a cornerstone of that trust responsibility, and when both procedurally and substantively there is little power to shape an outcome, consultation is rendered hollow. The bill permits federal agencies to take over aspects of the work of Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, with a limited path for THPO control, restricting or even eliminating Tribal Nations’ rights and ability to voice perspectives or shape outcomes. In addition, the bill seeks to limit, by definition, which Tribal Nation sites of cultural and religious importance can be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 5 For Tribal Nations, this may reinforce the perception that the National Register is only for some Americans, and that such sites do not deserve recognition or protection. The bill allows for federal agencies to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer regarding an undertaking’s area of potential effect, but removes the requirement that they do so. It leaves federal agencies to identify historic properties and determine effects, with no accountability or independent review. Furthermore, the bill allows agencies to forgo consultation and instead provides a very small window of opportunity for parties to merely share information with no power to shape the outcome. Finally, it defines and restricts “adverse effects” to those effects that are “reasonably foreseeable,” which would restrict the recognition of harm and potentially limit alternative proposals, or allow no proposals at all, that might be formulated to lessen that harm. The Providence Preservation Society believes that democratic governance requires democratic planning practices. Historic preservation is concerned with outcomes, but it is also concerned with process and with ensuring public participation in the country’s planning and development projects. We urge the Senate to vote no on passing the bill in its present form to ensure Tribal Nations are respected, public rights are protected, and State Historic Preservation Officers and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers are consulted on irreversible decisions that affect our shared heritage. SteveAhlquist.news is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. See National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Senate Proposal Does More Than “Streamline” Section 106(2026). American Society of Landscape Architects, ASLA Urges Landscape Architects to Oppose Permitting Legislation That Would Weaken Section 106(2026).