Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
The bill requires that no Federal land, building, structure, monument, or site owned by the United States that is or has ever been listed on the National Register of Historic Places may be sold, declared excess or surplus, transferred, or conveyed without first notifying Congress and obtaining a joint resolution approving the transaction. "Specified officials" (including the President and heads of Federal agencies) must provide notice and cannot complete such transfers absent congressional approval. The bill defines covered buildings broadly and places a legislative approval requirement on disposals of those properties.
Preservation and congressional oversight versus administrative efficiency
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a single procedural requirement (congressional approval via joint resolution for disposals/transfers of NRHP-listed federal property) and defines key terms broadly, but it leaves substantial implementation, integration, fiscal, and accountability details unspecified.
The bill requires that no Federal land, building, structure, monument, or site owned by the United States that is or has ever been listed on the National Register of Historic Places may be sold, declared excess or surplus, transferred, or conveyed without first notifying Congress and obtaining a joint resolution approving the transaction. "Specified officials" (including the President and heads of Federal agencies) must provide notice and cannot complete such transfers absent congressional approval.
The bill defines covered buildings broadly and places a legislative approval requirement on disposals of those properties.
Substantial institutional intrusion on executive authority, added workload for Congress, and absent compromise features lower enactment odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a single procedural requirement (congressional approval via joint resolution for disposals/transfers of NRHP-listed federal property) and defines key terms broadly, but it leaves substantial implementation, integration, fiscal, and accountability details unspecified.
Preservation and congressional oversight versus administrative efficiency
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Preservation and congressional oversight versus administrative efficiency
Likely supportive because it strengthens legal protections for historic and culturally significant federal properties and adds public oversight.
May worry about bureaucratic delay harming community-beneficial transfers, so support could depend on procedural safeguards.
Cautiously favorable to the preservation intent but concerned about process inefficiency and cost.
Would seek clear timelines, limited exemptions, and coordination with existing federal property law before backing it.
Likely opposed because it increases congressional micromanagement, constrains executive and agency property management, and risks politicizing routine disposals.
Prefers market-oriented, efficient transfers and local control.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantial institutional intrusion on executive authority, added workload for Congress, and absent compromise features lower enactment odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Preservation and congressional oversight versus administrative efficiency
Substantial institutional intrusion on executive authority, added workload for Congress, and absent compromise features lower enactment odd…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a single procedural requirement (congressional approval via joint resolution for disposals/transfers of NRHP-listed federal property) and defines key t…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.