Regarding the Nov. 10 editorial “Victory is in sight for historic permitting reform”:
The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act and the proposed amendment disregard tribal sovereignty.
Federal agencies are required to consult with tribal nations on decisions that may affect areas of cultural significance. This consultation mandate has helped ensure that tribal nations have meaningful input when plans affect sacred places, burial sites or ancestral homelands. This process respects our role as sovereign nations.
The provisions of the bill that diminish tribal sovereignty have little to do with streamlining or improving federal permitting. They would shut tribal nations out of the rooms where decisions are made about their lands and sacred places.
Despite what proponents of this bill have said, reviews that require tribal consultation do not significantly slow down or impede projects. Ninety-eight percentof reviews involving tribal consultation are concluded with no adverse effects on projects. The permitting bill would narrow which projects get reviewed, shorten tribal nations’ response time and give greater decision-making power to federal officials.
Tribal leaders nationwide have expressed serious concerns about the proposed legislation. I urge members of Congress to listen to them and oppose this bill.
Mark Macarro, Pechanga, California
The writer is the president of the National Congress of American Indians and the tribal chairman of the Pechanga Band of Indians.
When our father ran for Senate
The Nov. 4 front-page article “Leftward lurch extends across demographics and geographies” noted that Kansas sent a Democrat to the Senate for the first time since 1932.
In 1950, our father, Paul Aiken, answered the call to represent his fellow Kansans as a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Despite his relatively young age (40 years old), vigor, government experience and bruising primary election win over the state’s Democratic boss, our father lost to the state’s governor, Frank Carlson, who represented Kansans in the Senate for the next 18 years.
Born in rural Macksville, Kansas, our dad was a Kansas University grad and a World War II veteran who was appointed to serve in the Truman administration as assistant postmaster general after the war. He returned to Kansas to run in the 1950 election with the goal of blending his rural roots with his Washington experience.
A major factor in the loss of many Democratic seats and races that year was voters’ rebuke of President Harry S. Truman.
Kudos to Adam Hamilton for being the first Democrat to win a Senate seat in Kansas in 94 years.
Patricia Aiken-O’Neill, Naples, Florida
Carol Aiken Preece, Gambrills, Maryland
Is it time to talk about the filibuster?
Regarding the Nov. 10 news article “It’s not too early to think about the 2028 Senate map”:
With Democrats poised to take 54 to 56 seats in the Senate, chatter about abolishing the filibuster has been revived. That would be a mistake. Even for those who like the idea, now would be the wrong time to implement it.
President Donald Trump will still occupy the White House and retain the power to veto legislation for the next two years. Therefore, abolishing the filibuster in the next Congress probably won’t achieve anything useful — if the Democrats don’t have the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster, they certainly won’t have the 67 votes needed to override a presidential veto. It would, however, almost certainly lead to negative legislative consequences for Democrats whenever the Republicans control the Senate in the future.
The time for the Democrats to abolish the filibuster, if ever, would come when they have the legislative trifecta (a Democratic president and Democratic control of both the House and the Senate), but less than a three-fifths majority in the Senate. In that situation, barring any intraparty bickering, only the filibuster would stand in the way of enacting bills into law.
If the Democrats win the White House in 2028 while retaining control in the House and Senate, there will be time enough to consider abolishing the filibuster then. Now would be the wrong time to do it.
Jonathan R. Siegel, Chevy Chase
The writer is the F. Elwood and Eleanor Davis professor of law at George Washington University Law School.
A first for Mississippi
I’m a native Mississippian and a historian. The Nov. 6 news article “In Miss., Scott Colom could make history. Some saw his potential early on” said that Colom is “on the verge of becoming the first African American elected to the Senate from Mississippi since Reconstruction,” but the word “elected” requires some context.
Neither Hiram Revels nor Blanche K. Bruce — the first two Black U.S. senators, both of whom were from Mississippi — was directly elected by voters to that office. Like all U.S. senators at that time, they were selected by the state legislature to represent their state in the Senate. It was not until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913 that U.S. senators were directly elected to office by their state’s voters.
I believe this distinction needs to be acknowledged when writing about what may be a historic outcome. If elected, Colom would be the first Black senator ever directly elected by voters in Mississippi.
James Currie, Alexandria
The writer is the author of “Enclave: Vicksburg and Her Plantations, 1863-1870.”
The misconduct reckoning
The Nov. 8 news article “A reckoning pushes out six congressmen accused of sexual misconduct, domestic abuse” reported that six House members accused of sexual misconduct or domestic abuse lost their seats and will not be members of the 120th Congress. The article did not mention, however, that voters in Tennessee’s new 9th Congressional District, which includes part of Memphis, chose Republican Brent Taylor over Democrat Justin Pearson. Taylor admitted to sending unsolicited nude pictures of himself and claimed that his wife has forgiven him. Unfortunately, though voters sent six congressmen accused of sexual misconduct out, Taylor, currently a member of the Tennessee state Senate, was sent in.
Melissa Pollak, Arlington
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
The post The Senate passed a permitting reform bill. It threatens tribal sovereignty. appeared first on Washington Post.
