For Sale Act of 2025

Bill Number

S. 2173

Origin Chamber

Senate

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Government Operations and Politics

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-06-25: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Last Updated

2025-09-30T17:14:28Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The "For Sale Act of 2025" aims to consolidate federal agencies by requiring the sale of six underutilized federal buildings in Washington, DC. This is intended to reduce government real estate costs, generate revenue to help lower the federal deficit, and promote efficient use of federal property.

Key Provisions

• Agency Relocation and Building Vacancy: Within 18 months of the bill's enactment, federal agencies occupying the specified buildings must vacate them and move to other federal buildings.
• Mandatory Sale of Buildings: Within 2 years after the buildings are vacated, the Administrator of General Services (GSA, the federal agency that manages government properties) must sell the following buildings at fair market value for their "highest and best use" (the most valuable and appropriate future purpose, such as commercial or residential development):
• Department of Agriculture South Building (1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC).
• Hubert H. Humphrey Federal Building (200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC).
• Frances Perkins Federal Building (200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC).
• James V. Forrestal Building (1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC).
• Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building (1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC).
• Robert C. Weaver Federal Building (451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC).
• Restrictions on Buyers: Sales cannot be made to foreign persons, foreign entities, or any U.S. entity where a foreign person has a beneficial ownership interest (a controlling or significant financial stake). These terms are defined under the Secure Federal LEASEs Act, a law that limits foreign involvement in federal property deals for security reasons.
• Use of Sale Proceeds:
• Funds needed to carry out the relocations and sales go into the Federal Buildings Fund (a dedicated account for managing government properties).
• Any remaining "net proceeds" (after costs) are deposited into the U.S. Treasury's general fund to reduce the federal budget deficit.
• Money in the Federal Buildings Fund can only be spent if Congress approves it in a future budget.
• Limits on New Property: No federal agency can buy or lease any new buildings (short-term or long-term) specifically to replace the sold ones.
• Exemptions from Other Laws: The sales process skips requirements under:
• The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (which protects homeless individuals' access to federal properties).
• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, which requires environmental impact studies for major federal actions).
• The National Historic Preservation Act (which protects historic sites from harmful changes).
• Certain federal procurement rules (chapters 5 and 87 of title 40, U.S. Code, which govern property disposal and advertising processes).

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• This bill mandates the sale of these specific buildings with strict timelines (18 months for vacancy, 2 years for sale), which is not required under current law. Previously, the GSA could choose to sell underutilized properties but was not forced to do so for these locations.
• It introduces a outright ban on foreign ownership for these sales, building on but expanding the Secure Federal LEASEs Act's definitions.
• The exemptions from NEPA, historic preservation, and other reviews represent a major shortcut, as federal property sales typically require these steps to assess environmental, cultural, or community effects—potentially speeding up the process but bypassing standard safeguards.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Agencies like the Department of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Labor, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development (which occupy these buildings) will face relocation disruptions and costs, though long-term savings from smaller footprints could follow. The GSA gains responsibility for quick sales but loses flexibility in property management.
• On Citizens and Taxpayers: Sales could free up prime Washington, DC, land for private development (e.g., offices, housing), potentially boosting local economy and tax revenue. Proceeds directed to deficit reduction may lower overall federal borrowing, indirectly benefiting taxpayers through fiscal responsibility.
• On International Relations: The foreign ownership ban reinforces U.S. national security policies but could limit the buyer pool, possibly straining relations with foreign investors if perceived as overly restrictive; no direct international impacts are outlined.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Federal Agencies and Employees: Occupants of the buildings (e.g., USDA, HHS, DOL, DOE, HUD) must relocate, affecting thousands of workers' operations and workflows.
• General Services Administration (GSA): Leads the sales and relocations, bearing administrative burdens.
• Taxpayers and the Public: Benefit from revenue and deficit reduction but may see changes to iconic federal sites.
• Potential Buyers and Developers: Domestic U.S. entities (individuals, companies, or organizations without foreign ties) can bid, potentially gaining valuable real estate; foreign interests are excluded.
• Local Community and Environment: Washington, DC., residents and advocacy groups concerned with historic preservation, homelessness, or environmental effects, though exemptions limit their input.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: The exemptions from NEPA and historic preservation laws could invite lawsuits from environmental groups, historians, or homeless advocates, arguing that skipping reviews violates broader federal protections. However, Congress has authority to waive such requirements for specific actions.
• Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's power under Article I to manage federal property and appropriations; no apparent conflicts with due process or property rights, as sales are for public benefit.
• Political: Promotes government efficiency and fiscal conservatism, appealing to deficit hawks, but may draw criticism for disrupting agency functions, ignoring cultural heritage (e.g., buildings named after historic figures), or limiting economic opportunities through foreign buyer bans. As an introduced Senate bill (S. 2173, 119th Congress), it faces committee review and potential amendments before a full vote.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

Cosponsors (1)

Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

Recent Actions

• 2025-06-25: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
• 2025-06-25: Introduced in Senate

Bill Versions

• For Sale Act of 2025 — issued 2025-06-25 — PDF (5 pages)