← Research & insights

Senate permitting debate · November 9, 2026

BAAJA advances.
The coalition is
the story.

Seventy-three senators voted to move the permitting bill forward. Look closer, and the agreement gives way to a sharp divide over energy costs, faster construction, and protections for communities.

Find your senators ↓Read and watch the arguments ↓

By Michael Bommarito · Updated November 9, 2026

Illustrative artwork generated with GPT Image 2.6; not a photograph of the vote.

01 · What happened

A hurdle cleared.
Final passage still ahead.

On November 9 at 5:31 p.m., the Senate voted to limit debate on the motion to take up H.R. 2347, the vehicle for the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act. It was a vote to advance the process, not to pass BAAJA. Official roll call ↗

73Yes
25No
2Not voting

Roll call 257 · 119th Congress, second session
Three-fifths required · 60 votes

The vote, one senator at a time100 dots: 73 amber yes votes, 25 slate no votes, and 2 pale dots for senators not voting. Armstrong (R–OK): YesBanks (R–IN): YesBarrasso (R–WY): YesBlackburn (R–TN): YesBlumenthal (D–CT): YesBoozman (R–AR): YesBritt (R–AL): YesBudd (R–NC): YesCapito (R–WV): YesCassidy (R–LA): YesCollins (R–ME): YesCoons (D–DE): YesCornyn (R–TX): YesCortez Masto (D–NV): YesCotton (R–AR): YesCramer (R–ND): YesCrapo (R–ID): YesCruz (R–TX): YesCurtis (R–UT): YesDaines (R–MT): YesErnst (R–IA): YesFetterman (D–PA): YesFischer (R–NE): YesGallego (D–AZ): YesGillibrand (D–NY): YesGraham (R–SC): YesGrassley (R–IA): YesHagerty (R–TN): YesHawley (R–MO): YesHeinrich (D–NM): YesHickenlooper (D–CO): YesHoeven (R–ND): YesHusted (R–OH): YesHyde-Smith (R–MS): YesJohnson (R–WI): YesJustice (R–WV): YesKennedy (R–LA): YesKim (D–NJ): YesKing (I–ME): YesKlobuchar (D–MN): YesLankford (R–OK): YesLee (R–UT): YesLummis (R–WY): YesMarshall (R–KS): YesMcConnell (R–KY): YesMcCormick (R–PA): YesMoody (R–FL): YesMoran (R–KS): YesMoreno (R–OH): YesMurkowski (R–AK): YesOssoff (D–GA): YesPaul (R–KY): YesPeters (D–MI): YesReed (D–RI): YesRicketts (R–NE): YesRisch (R–ID): YesRosen (D–NV): YesSchatz (D–HI): YesSchmitt (R–MO): YesSchumer (D–NY): YesScott (R–FL): YesScott (R–SC): YesShaheen (D–NH): YesSlotkin (D–MI): YesSullivan (R–AK): YesThune (R–SD): YesTillis (R–NC): YesTuberville (R–AL): YesWarner (D–VA): YesWarnock (D–GA): YesWhitehouse (D–RI): YesWicker (R–MS): YesYoung (R–IN): YesAlsobrooks (D–MD): NoBaldwin (D–WI): NoBennet (D–CO): NoBlunt Rochester (D–DE): NoBooker (D–NJ): NoCantwell (D–WA): NoDuckworth (D–IL): NoDurbin (D–IL): NoHassan (D–NH): NoHirono (D–HI): NoKaine (D–VA): NoKelly (D–AZ): NoLujan (D–NM): NoMarkey (D–MA): NoMerkley (D–OR): NoMurray (D–WA): NoPadilla (D–CA): NoRounds (R–SD): NoSanders (I–VT): NoSchiff (D–CA): NoSmith (D–MN): NoVan Hollen (D–MD): NoWarren (D–MA): NoWelch (D–VT): NoWyden (D–OR): NoMurphy (D–CT): Not votingSheehy (R–MT): Not voting
Yes · 73No · 25Not voting · 2

One dot per senator. Votes grouped by position; this is not a seating chart.

02 · Who made the majority

Republicans supplied the base.
Democrats were divided.

All but one Republican who voted supported advancement. Among Democrats who voted, 21 supported it and 23 opposed it. The two independents split. These counts use the party labels in the official Senate record.

Republicans

51 yes · 1 no · 1 not voting

Democrats

21 yes · 23 no · 1 not voting

Independents

1 yes · 1 no

Common scale: one senator = one unit of bar length. Source: Senate roll call 257.

The votes that mattered

Republican votes alone would not have reached 60. The 51 Republican yes votes were joined by 21 Democrats and independent Angus King, producing a total 13 above the threshold.

Mike Rounds was the only Republican no. Independent Bernie Sanders joined the 23 Democratic no votes. Chris Murphy and Tim Sheehy did not vote; an absence is not a no vote.

“Twenty-two Democrats” blurs a distinction. The supporting group was 21 Democrats plus King, an independent. The vote record does not explain anyone’s motive or guarantee their vote on final passage.

Two senators. Fifty state delegations.

Eleven states had one yes and one no. The grid is alphabetical by state abbreviation; each dot is one senator. Hover or focus for names.

AKMurkowski: YesSullivan: Yes
ALBritt: YesTuberville: Yes
ARBoozman: YesCotton: Yes
AZGallego: YesKelly: No
CAPadilla: NoSchiff: No
COBennet: NoHickenlooper: Yes
CTBlumenthal: YesMurphy: Not voting
DEBlunt Rochester: NoCoons: Yes
FLMoody: YesScott: Yes
GAOssoff: YesWarnock: Yes
HIHirono: NoSchatz: Yes
IAErnst: YesGrassley: Yes
IDCrapo: YesRisch: Yes
ILDuckworth: NoDurbin: No
INBanks: YesYoung: Yes
KSMarshall: YesMoran: Yes
KYMcConnell: YesPaul: Yes
LACassidy: YesKennedy: Yes
MAMarkey: NoWarren: No
MDAlsobrooks: NoVan Hollen: No
MECollins: YesKing: Yes
MIPeters: YesSlotkin: Yes
MNKlobuchar: YesSmith: No
MOHawley: YesSchmitt: Yes
MSHyde-Smith: YesWicker: Yes
MTDaines: YesSheehy: Not voting
NCBudd: YesTillis: Yes
NDCramer: YesHoeven: Yes
NEFischer: YesRicketts: Yes
NHHassan: NoShaheen: Yes
NJBooker: NoKim: Yes
NMHeinrich: YesLujan: No
NVCortez Masto: YesRosen: Yes
NYGillibrand: YesSchumer: Yes
OHHusted: YesMoreno: Yes
OKArmstrong: YesLankford: Yes
ORMerkley: NoWyden: No
PAFetterman: YesMcCormick: Yes
RIReed: YesWhitehouse: Yes
SCGraham: YesScott: Yes
SDRounds: NoThune: Yes
TNBlackburn: YesHagerty: Yes
TXCornyn: YesCruz: Yes
UTCurtis: YesLee: Yes
VAKaine: NoWarner: Yes
VTSanders: NoWelch: No
WACantwell: NoMurray: No
WIBaldwin: NoJohnson: Yes
WVCapito: YesJustice: Yes
WYBarrasso: YesLummis: Yes

Outlined tiles have a yes/no split. Connecticut and Montana each had one yes and one senator not voting. See the full table below for party labels.

03 · Michigan

Peters and Slotkin both voted yes.

Michigan’s two Democratic senators joined the coalition to advance the bill. That records their position on this procedural question; it does not tell us how they will vote on amendments or final passage.

Democrat · Michigan

Gary Peters

Yes

Cloture on the motion to proceed
November 9, 2026 · Roll call 257

View official vote ↗

Democrat · Michigan

Elissa Slotkin

Yes

Cloture on the motion to proceed
November 9, 2026 · Roll call 257

View official vote ↗

We did not locate a vote-specific explanation from either Michigan senator in the sources collected for this update. We do not infer their reasons from their state, party, or earlier positions on other bills.

04 · The complete roll call

Find your senators.

All 100 entries below come from the official Senate roll call. Names follow the Senate’s displayed labels. Filter by name, state, party, or vote; the downloadable files preserve every entry.

Showing 100 senators

Senate roll call 257, November 9, 2026: cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2347
SenatorStatePartyVote
AlsobrooksMDDemocratNo
ArmstrongOKRepublicanYes
BaldwinWIDemocratNo
BanksINRepublicanYes
BarrassoWYRepublicanYes
BennetCODemocratNo
BlackburnTNRepublicanYes
BlumenthalCTDemocratYes
Blunt RochesterDEDemocratNo
BookerNJDemocratNo
BoozmanARRepublicanYes
BrittALRepublicanYes
BuddNCRepublicanYes
CantwellWADemocratNo
CapitoWVRepublicanYes
CassidyLARepublicanYes
CollinsMERepublicanYes
CoonsDEDemocratYes
CornynTXRepublicanYes
Cortez MastoNVDemocratYes
CottonARRepublicanYes
CramerNDRepublicanYes
CrapoIDRepublicanYes
CruzTXRepublicanYes
CurtisUTRepublicanYes
DainesMTRepublicanYes
DuckworthILDemocratNo
DurbinILDemocratNo
ErnstIARepublicanYes
FettermanPADemocratYes
FischerNERepublicanYes
GallegoAZDemocratYes
GillibrandNYDemocratYes
GrahamSCRepublicanYes
GrassleyIARepublicanYes
HagertyTNRepublicanYes
HassanNHDemocratNo
HawleyMORepublicanYes
HeinrichNMDemocratYes
HickenlooperCODemocratYes
HironoHIDemocratNo
HoevenNDRepublicanYes
HustedOHRepublicanYes
Hyde-SmithMSRepublicanYes
JohnsonWIRepublicanYes
JusticeWVRepublicanYes
KaineVADemocratNo
KellyAZDemocratNo
KennedyLARepublicanYes
KimNJDemocratYes
KingMEIndependentYes
KlobucharMNDemocratYes
LankfordOKRepublicanYes
LeeUTRepublicanYes
LujanNMDemocratNo
LummisWYRepublicanYes
MarkeyMADemocratNo
MarshallKSRepublicanYes
McConnellKYRepublicanYes
McCormickPARepublicanYes
MerkleyORDemocratNo
MoodyFLRepublicanYes
MoranKSRepublicanYes
MorenoOHRepublicanYes
MurkowskiAKRepublicanYes
MurphyCTDemocratNot voting
MurrayWADemocratNo
OssoffGADemocratYes
PadillaCADemocratNo
PaulKYRepublicanYes
PetersMIDemocratYes
ReedRIDemocratYes
RickettsNERepublicanYes
RischIDRepublicanYes
RosenNVDemocratYes
RoundsSDRepublicanNo
SandersVTIndependentNo
SchatzHIDemocratYes
SchiffCADemocratNo
SchmittMORepublicanYes
SchumerNYDemocratYes
ScottFLRepublicanYes
ScottSCRepublicanYes
ShaheenNHDemocratYes
SheehyMTRepublicanNot voting
SlotkinMIDemocratYes
SmithMNDemocratNo
SullivanAKRepublicanYes
ThuneSDRepublicanYes
TillisNCRepublicanYes
TubervilleALRepublicanYes
Van HollenMDDemocratNo
WarnerVADemocratYes
WarnockGADemocratYes
WarrenMADemocratNo
WelchVTDemocratNo
WhitehouseRIDemocratYes
WickerMSRepublicanYes
WydenORDemocratNo
YoungINRepublicanYes

05 · What senators said

The same goals.
Different judgments about the deal.

Supporters describe faster construction, lower bills, and data centers paying their costs. Opponents can support those goals while objecting to the package’s treatment of fossil fuels, state authority, public participation, and Tribal rights. The accounts below summarize the named senators’ own statements.

R · West Virginia

Yes

Shelley Moore Capito

Faster decisions and more predictable approvals would unlock investment, jobs, and energy supply.

She presents permitting reform as a way to make government decisions more timely. The investment and jobs figures in her remarks are claims attributed to outside analyses, not results measured after enactment.

Prepared floor remarks ↗

D · New Mexico

Yes

Martin Heinrich

Lower electricity costs, make data centers bear their costs, and build more energy infrastructure and union jobs.

He acknowledges compromise and describes changes on Tribal consultation, state participation, workers’ rights, and assistance for communities considering data centers. This was a press conference, not floor testimony.

Press conference · transcript as delivered ↗

D · Rhode Island

Yes

Sheldon Whitehouse

The package offers near-term affordability benefits, clean-energy investment, and protections against shifting data-center costs to other customers.

The committee release quotes his position. The Daily Press separately logs his floor remarks at 5:07 p.m.; that entry does not supply a transcript of what he said there.

Press conference excerpts; floor appearance logged ↗

D · Colorado

Yes

John Hickenlooper

Advancing the deal is an opportunity to lower bills, hold large technology companies accountable, and accelerate clean-energy projects.

He also calls for continued work with Tribal Nations and environmental groups. Supporting this procedural step is compatible with seeking further changes.

Written statement ↗

D · Oregon

No

Jeff Merkley

Transmission and cheaper clean energy are worthwhile goals, but the package also promotes fossil-fuel development and restricts public protections.

He raises concerns about LNG exports, state water-quality authority, community challenge deadlines, and Tribal rights, and argues for more deliberation in the next Congress.

Written statement ↗

Watch the original remarks.

Capito: the case from the floor

Watch

The committee links this floor video and publishes prepared remarks. The Daily Press logs her appearance at 5:11 p.m.

Heinrich and Whitehouse: the case before the vote

Watch

A press conference, not a floor session. The committee publishes Heinrich’s remarks as delivered and excerpts from Whitehouse.

What kind of record are you reading?

MaterialWhat we haveWhat it establishes
Official roll callAll 100 recorded positionsWho voted how on this exact procedural question; not each senator’s reasons.
Floor chronologyDaily Press times and short descriptionsWhitehouse spoke at 5:07 p.m.; Capito at 5:11 p.m. Entries are not verbatim quotations.
Prepared floor remarksCapito’s committee publicationHer published argument as prepared. The delivered wording may differ.
Press conferenceVideo; Heinrich transcript as delivered; Whitehouse excerptsPublic arguments before the vote, made away from the Senate floor.
Written statementsMerkley and Hickenlooper releasesTheir stated positions; not evidence that these words were spoken on the floor.
Complete floor transcriptNot obtained for this updateWe do not present these materials as the complete November 9 debate or as a committee hearing.

06 · A different text is on the table

The September analysis
is a starting point, not the last word.

The four sponsors released a substitute amendment on November 7. We retained the original 494-page PDF and the seven-page ENR and EPW Democrats’ summary. Our earlier reports and videos analyze the September 30 text.

September 30S. 5653 introduced

417-page text analyzed in our original series.

November 7Substitute released

494-page proposed replacement; subject to further floor action.

November 9Procedural vote

73–25 to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

Four changes to keep in view

The following is a selective guide to changes described by the committee Democrats, with PDF page references to their summary. It is not a complete redline or a finding that the revisions resolve opponents’ concerns.

TopicWhat the summary describesWhy revisit itSummary
Project CertaintyAdds a bad-faith requirement for additional damages and changes the comparative baseline for certain denial claims.The original damages analysis needs a fresh reading against the revised standards.p. 3–4 ↗
Data-center communitiesAdds a Department of Energy technical-assistance program for state, local, and Tribal governments considering data-center impacts.Technical assistance can help a community evaluate a proposal; it does not itself decide whether the project should be approved.p. 5 ↗
Tribal historic preservationRemoves the required federal takeover of noncompliant Tribal preservation programs and adds corrective-action and support provisions.Our earlier discussion of that takeover provision describes the September text.p. 6 ↗
Consultation and objectionsAdds consultation requirements and extends the report-objection period from 30 to 45 days.Participation rights and deadlines are material to the debate over community protections.p. 7 ↗

A substitute’s release is not its adoption. The November 9 procedural vote does not settle the text that would ultimately pass.

07 · What to watch next

The next votes will tell us more.

01

Taking up the bill

The Senate’s next-day schedule resumes the motion to proceed, post-cloture. Clearing that procedural hurdle and moving into consideration of the legislation are separate actions.

02

The amendments

Watch the actual amendment text, which amendments receive votes, and whether senators’ stated concerns become changes in the bill. A sponsor’s promise is not an adopted amendment.

03

Final passage and the House

A senator may support debate and oppose final passage. Even Senate passage would leave the House and presidential action; the chambers must agree on the same text.

Evidence & method

Start with the record.

The member table and graphics were generated from retained official Senate HTML. We checked 100 unique senator/state entries, the 73–25–2 totals, and the party subtotals. The state splits and threshold comparisons are our calculations from those entries. We retained the source records and distinguished prepared floor remarks, delivered press-conference remarks, and written statements.

  1. Official Senate roll call 257 ↗

    Recorded votes · November 9

  2. Senate Daily Press: November 9 proceedings ↗

    Floor chronology · not a transcript

  3. Capito’s floor remarks ↗

    Prepared floor remarks · November 9

  4. Heinrich and Whitehouse press conference ↗

    Heinrich transcript as delivered; Whitehouse excerpts · November 9

  5. Merkley’s statement opposing the bill ↗

    Written statement · November 9

  6. Hickenlooper’s statement supporting advancement ↗

    Written statement · November 9

  7. The four sponsors release the substitute amendment ↗

    Committee announcement · November 7

  8. November 7 substitute amendment ↗

    Original legislative text · 494 PDF pages

  9. ENR and EPW Democrats’ summary of changes ↗

    Committee summary · 7 PDF pages

  10. Congressional Record ↗

    Official debate record · complete November 9 transcript not obtained for this update

No voting motive is inferred from geography, campaign support, industry presence, or a shared vote. Forecasts and policy arguments in senators’ statements are attributed claims, not independently established outcomes. The earlier videos remain available in their original context.

Research series

Permitting, power lines, and data centers

8 related analyses from Bommarito Consulting.

  1. 1 You are here

    Senate vote · November 9, 2026

    BAAJA’s First Senate Vote

    All 100 senators, the 73–25 coalition, Michigan’s votes, original remarks, and the revised bill. A procedural vote, with final passage still ahead.

    Vote explorerOriginal remarksSources

  2. 2 Open →

    Michigan utility decisions · October 7, 2026

    Michigan Act 30 and the MPSC

    Transmission routes, rates, large loads, pipelines, and renewable siting: which law applies, who decides, and how residents can participate.

    ReportVideosCase explorer

  3. 3 Open →

    First look · September 30, 2026

    The 2026 Senate Permitting Bill

    Who pays, where projects go, and what states and communities can decide, with Michigan worked examples. 40-page report and a 12-minute explainer.

    ReportVideo

  4. 4 Open →

    Full reading · October 2026

    BAAJA, Line by Line

    What the bill actually says, what it changes in federal law, and who wins and loses, cited to page and line. 132-page report and two companion videos.

    ReportVideos

  5. 5 Open →

    Fact check · October 9, 2026

    Checking the Case for BAAJA

    Seventeen common claims from supporters, checked against the text: what they get right, what they leave out, and what they overstate.

    PageFact check

  6. 6 Open →

    Fine print · October 9, 2026

    BAAJA's Fine Print

    Changes the sponsors' summary does not describe, likely drafting errors, and one that looks hidden but is disclosed, each with a fix.

    Page

  7. 7 Open →

    Michigan case study · revised September 24, 2026

    The ITC Oneida–Sabine Lake 345 kV Line

    Seven published routes scored on Michigan's Act 30 factors, stress-tested across a million weightings, and resolved township by township.

    ReportVideoSimulator

  8. 8 Open →

    Michigan companion · October 2026

    HB 5940: Power Lines Along Michigan's Highways

    What the House-passed bill changes about lines along limited access highways, the four public bodies that still have to act, and what townships and landowners can do.

    PageQ&A

Working on something like this? Talk to us →