A bill that seeks to fast-track permitting for a variety of energy and communications projects is drawing opposition from some Indigenous leaders who say parts of the legislation could undermine tribal sovereignty and weaken protections for sacred and historic sites.
On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted 73-25 to advance the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or “BAAJA.”
The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
The legislation aims to speed up federal permitting for projects involving data centers, oil and natural gas pipelines, wind and solar farms, and mining operations.
“Our legislation will prevent unneeded and unnecessary delays and endless litigation that could block growth,” said West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, during remarks on the Senate floor on Monday.
The nonpartisan Citizens’ Climate Lobby endorsed the bill, saying it would help reduce fossil fuel emissions and other pollution by making the permitting process more efficient for clean energy projects like the construction of solar and wind energy farms.
“A slow permitting process is creating a bottleneck that’s slowing down the deployment of key technologies like electrical transmission lines,” the organization says on its endorsement page for the bill. “As a bonus, all that additional, affordable clean energy coming online will also lead to lower electricity costs.”
There were some last-minute changes to address concerns of Indigenous leaders and some environmental advocates, but they still say the bill removes important oversight.
One of the opponents to the legislation is Crystal C’Bearing, director of the Northern Arapaho Tribal Historic Preservation Office. C’Bearing traveled to Washington, D.C., alongside other tribal leaders to urge lawmakers to testify.
C’Bearing is concerned about Title III, which would change federal historic preservation law by narrowing which projects require review and placing new limits on the consultation process. She says those changes could weaken tribes’ ability to protect sacred sites and cultural resources.
“The bill, the Title III historic preservation specifically, is written in a way that will take away our tribal sovereignty and our ability to consult on federal projects,” she said.
C’Bearing also argues that involving tribes early in the planning process can save time and money by addressing potential conflicts before projects move forward.
“We know from experience that if you involve tribes from the beginning, it’s actually more efficient and cost-saving because we’re at the table early,” C’Bearing said.
While acknowledging that the current federal historic preservation review process could be improved, C’Bearing hopes lawmakers will remove Title III and work directly with tribal nations on potential revisions.
“We just want that opportunity and our voices heard because we’re the boots on the ground. We’re the ones that know what’s working and what’s not,” she said.
All but one Republican voted in favor of advancing the legislation, while Democrats were divided.
The National Congress of American Indians and 10 other Indigenous organizations have also urged Congress to halt the legislation, warning that it threatens tribal sovereignty, weakens consultation requirements and puts sacred sites at risk.
However, not all Indigenous nations and organizations oppose the legislation. The Crow Tribe in Montana has expressed support for the bill, while Daniel Cardenas, chairman of the National Tribal Energy Association, has advocated for streamlined federal permitting to expand energy development and economic opportunities on tribal lands.
The legislation is expected to resume debate and vote on the legislation next week, although a date for a final vote has not been announced.
