Key facts
- The coalition says BAAJA would narrow when NEPA applies and let qualified state or Tribal reviews substitute for federal review.
- Projects using federal grants, loans or guarantees that are not primarily preservation-focused would no longer automatically trigger federal historic preservation review, the groups say.
- The coalition says at least $10 billion a year in HUD funding could move more quickly under the bill's changes.
- The groups say streamlined Clean Water Act reviews could save up to an estimated $425,000 per project.
- BAAJA would extend and expand permitting reforms enacted in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, the coalition says.
- The letter is backed by national trade groups, think tanks and 58 local pro-housing groups, according to the coalition.
A coalition of national housing organizations, homebuilders and 58 local pro-housing groups sent a letter to Senate committee leaders urging passage of the housing provisions in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (S. 5653), the coalition said in a public statement on November 9, 2026. The letter was co-led by Inclusive Abundance Action.
The groups say the bill could "transform how quickly federally supported housing gets built," and argue that public attention on BAAJA has focused on its energy and infrastructure effects rather than its potential to speed affordable and multifamily projects.
According to the letter, federally assisted affordable and multifamily housing typically faces National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act reviews that do not apply to most private-market projects. Affordable housing developers report delays of a year or more to clear environmental review and up to three months just to document that a project is exempt, the letter says.
The coalition says BAAJA would narrow and streamline when NEPA applies, allow qualified state or Tribal reviews to substitute for federal review, expand categorical exclusions and set clearer timelines. Projects using federal grants, loans or loan guarantees that are not primarily preservation-focused would no longer automatically trigger a federal historic preservation review, the groups say.