November 5, 2026
A vote is scheduled on November 9, 2026 in the United States Senate that will have a detrimental impact on the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966.
Proposed federal permitting reform legislation recently introduced in the U.S. Senate, known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (S. 5653), would fundamentally alter how federal agencies identify, evaluate, and mitigate damage to historic structures and archaeological sites under Section 106 of the NHPA. Since 1966, Section 106 has functioned as the primary legal mechanism requiring federal agencies to evaluate whether an undertaking or federally permitted project harms cultural resources, compelling formal consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers, Tribal Nations, preservation organizations, and local communities to avoid or lessen that damage. It is also the only real protection afforded to buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
By targeting the procedural stages of these reviews, S. 5653 seeks to expedite project approvals by constraining the traditional consultative framework. If passed by the U.S. Congress during this lame duck session, upon enactment the bill would institute unreasonably strict statutory deadlines for agency determinations, narrow the geographic and environmental scope of impact assessments, and expand exemptions for energy and infrastructure initiatives, significantly transforming how federal undertakings balance modern development against the protection of historic and cultural heritage.
Texans Led Efforts to Save the Nation's Heritage in 1966
The National Historic Preservation Act was signed into law by one of our own, President Lyndon B. Johnson, on October 15, 1966. This law created the National Register of Historic Places, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and State Historic Preservation Officers as well as the Section 106 process. The man placed in charge of the National Park Service's new Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to oversee the implementation of these new programs was another Texan: Dr. Ernest A. Connally. Born in Groesbeck, Texas in 1921, Connally studied at Rice University, the University of Texas at Austin, and Harvard University. He was introduced early to historic preservation through his father's efforts to reconstruct Old Fort Parker in the 1930s.
Why does Section 106 Matter?
Under the law in place since 1966, before the federal government builds something, funds a project, or gives out a permit, it is legally required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to stop and ask: “Will this destroy an important historic building, sacred site, or archaeological area?” To answer that, federal officials can’t just guess from a desk in Washington. They are required to sit down and talk with local communities, Native American Tribes, the Texas Historical Commission (the state historic preservation office), and organizations like ours who actually know our state's history on the ground.
The Section 106 process has, for example, allowed Preservation Texas to weigh in on the impact on the Amarillo Helium Plant in the Panhandle by a highway widening project and share our concerns about the potential flooding of the important archaeological remains of the early 19th century Trammell's Trace ferry crossing on the Sabine River in Northeast Texas. In both of these examples, meaningful discussions with agency staff, professional preservationists, and community stakeholders ensured that historic places were not unintentionally lost, and that even where resources were impacted, steps would be taken to offset these effects.
What's the Threat to Section 106?
This new bill will change the rules in the name of expediency:
Agencies can simply excuse themselves from getting state and local input on their projects. A federal agency could declare that its own mission matters more than saving history. That single declaration lets them skip the entire preservation review.
The government becomes its own judge. If a federal agency claims on its own that a project won't harm anything, or claims no historic sites exist, no one can challenge that call. For instance, the Department of Veterans Affairs could decide to bulldoze older, classic hospital buildings in a Texas city, claiming "no harm done," without ever asking local historians or adaptive-reuse advocates if the structures were significant.
Native American Tribes are cut out. Agencies would no longer be required to consult sovereign Tribal Nations about ancestral lands, cultural sites, and sacred burial grounds.
Noise, smells, and ruined views no longer count. We know that historic places aren't just isolated buildings; their surroundings matter. Under this bill, an agency wouldn't have to care if a loud industrial plant is permitted directly beside a historic town square, mission, or ranch, so long as the facility doesn't physically knock the buildings down.
Federal money gets a pass. Projects that rely on federal grants or loans, like massive highway widenings or transit corridors across Texas, would completely skip historic reviews.
Old, incomplete paperwork becomes a loophole. Decades ago, when historic Texas buildings were first listed on the National Register, paperwork was often brief, sometimes noting only a single standout feature like a clock tower, cupola, or elaborate limestone facade. Under this new law, a developer could tear down the entire historic building and claim there was no legal harm, as long as that one listed feature was preserved.
Local knowledge is ignored, and agencies wouldn't have to ask Texas experts to help map out what historic properties exist in a project's path.
Late discoveries can be brushed aside. If unmapped historic ruins or an ancient archaeological site are discovered after the initial federal paperwork starts, the agency can legally ignore them, even when local historians provide clear proof of the mistake.
Courts lose the power to stop the bulldozers. Even if a federal judge agrees that an agency broke the law, courts would be banned from halting the work with an injunction. Demolition could continue while the lawsuit drags on, leaving the landmark in ruins before a final ruling is ever made.
Essentially, the bill turns what used to be a predictable and productive engagement framework with local communities and Texas historians into a process where federal agencies can grade their own homework and look the other way. All in the name of efficiency. But in fact, out of 120,000 federal undertakings reviewed annually, only about two percent result in adverse effects; and the average Section 106 review is completed within just 16 days. And managing those effects is exactly why the Section 106 review process was created in 1966.
What You Can Do
Created by Texans for all Americans, Section 106 ensures local voices have a seat at the table, and Texans can once again lead the way by ensuring it remains strong for generations to come. Let our United States Senators and our Governor know that Division B, Title III, Section 2301 of S. 5653 dismantles the balanced, predictable, and effective Section 106 framework that protects Texas’s historic resources from overreaching federal projects. It should be eliminated from the bill.
SENATOR JOHN CORNYN
Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 224-2934
Austin State Office Phone: (512) 469-6034
Online Email / Web Contact: cornyn.senate.gov/contact
Mailing Address: 517 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
SENATOR TED CRUZ
Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 224-5922
Central Texas Office Phone (Austin): (512) 916-5834
Online Email / Web Contact: cruz.senate.gov/contact
Mailing Address: 167 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT
Citizen Opinion Hotline: (512) 463-1782
Main Switchboard: (512) 463-2000
Online Email / Web Contact: gov.texas.gov/contact
Mailing Address: Office of the Governor, P.O. Box 12428, Austin, TX 78711-2428
Here’s a sample script you can adapt when contacting representatives:
“Hello, my name is [NAME], and I am a constituent from [CITY, STATE]. I am calling to ask [REPRESENTATIVE’S NAME] to vote NO on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 as written, or to support the bill only if Title III is removed.
The proposed changes threaten historic and archaeological resources, weaken meaningful public participation, and limit opportunities for communities and Tribal Nations to weigh in on federally supported projects. Please protect historic preservation review and ensure that local voices remain part of these decisions. Thank you.”
