The Senate is tantalizingly close to passing comprehensive permitting reform in a bipartisan vote. Before final passage, however, a large group of Democrats is pushing an amendment to strike from the bill a section that would reform federal reviews under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). That would be a mistake.

Progressives and some (but not all) Native American tribes claim that the bill would vitiate protections for historic sites by allowing energy and infrastructure projects to plow over them. They’d like you to imagine a transmission line running through Gettysburg National Cemetery, or the demolition of Independence Hall to make room for an oil refinery. In truth, the reforms proposed are far more modest — yet desperately needed.

Most “historic” sites that trigger reviews under the NHPA aren’t major national landmarks but hundreds of thousands of small locations that most Americans don’t realize have any historical significance — including virtually any property more than 50 years old. Examples include old houses, a polar bear statue atop a Chevrolet dealership, seemingly random high schools, and roads in the middle of nowhere. And reviews under the NHPA aren’t just triggered by outright destruction, which almost never occurs, but by any project that could affect these sites in any way. In one instance, regulators found that offshore wind turbines would “adversely affect” a supposedly historic roadside attraction called Lucy the Elephant in New Jersey, despite their being 20 miles away. Why? Apparently, the turbines would have been visible on the horizon within Lucy’s “viewshed.”

The permitting reform bill would end most of these absurdities. It would narrow which projects require NHPA review, excluding those with minimal federal involvement or financing, as well as routine maintenance. It would also confine reviews to areas and project components subject to substantial federal control, so a 150-mile transmission line crossing 5 miles of federal land would no longer be subject to review across its entire length. The bill restricts the definition of adverse effects to direct harms, not indirect visual and audible effects, while imposing strict agency deadlines and limits on outside legal challenges.

All of these changes would help projects move along, saving years of needless delay and billions of dollars cumulatively, without risking genuine damage to historic sites. Perhaps many fewer locations should be eligible for reviews in the first place under the NHPA. For now, though, enacting the structural reforms already negotiated is an essential place to start. Senators should keep the section in the bill, and then make it law.