To require congressional approval before the sale, disposal, declaration of excess or surplus, transfer, or conveyance of Federal property with historical significance, and for other purposes.
Summary
HB2046 would require congressional approval before certain federal property with historical significance can be sold, disposed of, declared excess or surplus, transferred, or conveyed. Before any such action, the responsible federal official would have to notify Congress and then obtain passage of a joint resolution approving the proposed disposition.
The bill defines covered property broadly to include any 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. It applies to the President, federal agency heads, and other federal officials, effectively creating a congressional veto point over the disposal of a wide range of historically significant federal assets.
Impact
The bill would add a new procedural requirement to federal property disposal authority by limiting executive-branch discretion over historically significant federal property. It would affect federal agencies and officials that manage public buildings, monuments, and sites, and would likely slow or block transfers, sales, or surplus declarations unless Congress affirmatively approves them through a joint resolution. The measure would interact with federal property management and historic preservation practices, especially for assets listed on or previously listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a preservation-oriented safeguard rather than a controversial policy change. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, so no formal opposition or support is documented. The bill’s introduction and referral suggest it was treated as a substantive oversight measure for further committee consideration.
Contention
The main point of contention would likely be the breadth of the covered property definition and the added congressional approval requirement. Supporters would likely view the bill as protecting historically significant federal assets from executive-branch disposal, while critics could argue it creates an onerous approval process, reduces administrative flexibility, and could delay routine property management decisions. Because the definition includes property that has ever been listed on the National Register, disputes could also arise over how far the restriction reaches and which properties should be subject to it.
In disposition of Commonwealth surplus land, further providing for limited definitions, for annual property survey, for property disposition and for conditions upon conveyances; and making an editorial change.