DISPOSAL Act
- Bill Number
- S. 3091
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-10-30: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S7851)
- Last Updated
- 2026-01-08T16:58:54Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The DISPOSAL Act aims to mandate the disposal of specific underutilized federal buildings in Washington, DC, through sale or long-term ground lease, to generate revenue for relocating federal agencies and reducing the federal deficit. It streamlines the process by granting broad authority to the General Services Administration (GSA) while prohibiting foreign ownership.
Key Provisions
- Required Disposals: The GSA Administrator must dispose of six named federal buildings in Washington, DC, including the Frances Perkins Federal Building (200 Constitution Avenue NW) and the James V. Forrestal Building (1000 Independence Avenue SW).
- Disposal Methods: Buildings can be sold at fair market value based on their highest and best use (e.g., commercial or residential development) or leased via ground lease for up to 99 years. The Administrator has discretion to set terms in the U.S. government's best interest, including temporary leasebacks (up to 5 years) or agency relocations.
- Prohibitions and Restrictions: Sales or leases cannot go to foreign persons, foreign entities, or entities with foreign beneficial owners (as defined under the Secure Federal LEASEs Act). No "build-to-suit" leases are allowed for relocated agencies, where a developer constructs a custom building.
- Relocation of Agencies: The Administrator has sole authority to choose relocation sites, after consulting affected agency heads on mission needs. For moves outside Washington, DC, Congress must receive 30 days' advance notice. Relocations are exempt from certain procurement laws (e.g., Competition in Contracting Act).
- Exemptions from Reviews: Disposals bypass requirements under laws like the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (priority for homeless services), National Environmental Policy Act (environmental impact assessments), National Historic Preservation Act (historic site protections), and specific federal procurement and advertising rules.
- Revenue Handling: Net proceeds first cover disposal and relocation costs (deposited in the Federal Buildings Fund), with excess going to the U.S. Treasury to reduce the deficit. Funds in the Federal Buildings Fund remain available until spent, subject to future appropriations.
- Additional Disposals: The Administrator can add up to 20 more underutilized buildings (average use below 60% over the prior year) annually, after 30 days' notice to Congress. Some exemptions (e.g., for homeless assistance or historic preservation) apply conditionally based on building size or status. Congressional disapproval can block additions via the Congressional Review Act.
- Other Details: Actions are not subject to judicial review under laws like the Administrative Procedure Act. The Act sunsets on December 31, 2028, but does not affect prior actions. It supplements, rather than replaces, existing GSA authorities.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Introduces mandatory disposal of specific buildings, unlike prior voluntary GSA processes.
- Grants exemptions from environmental, historic, and homeless assistance reviews, accelerating sales but potentially overriding protections in current law.
- Prohibits foreign ownership explicitly for these transactions, building on but expanding the Secure Federal LEASEs Act.
- Vests sole relocation authority in GSA, bypassing typical inter-agency negotiations or competitive bidding requirements.
- Allows excess proceeds directly to deficit reduction, a new directive not standard in federal property sales.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: Federal agencies in affected buildings (e.g., Departments of Labor, Energy, Justice, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services) may face disruptions from relocations, potentially to other U.S. sites, affecting operations and costs (covered by proceeds).
- Citizens: Could lead to redevelopment of prime DC real estate, increasing local economic activity, housing, or commercial space, but might reduce public access to government facilities. Bypassed homeless protections could limit community services.
- International Relations: The foreign ownership ban may deter foreign investment in U.S. properties, signaling stricter controls on national security-sensitive real estate, but has minimal broader diplomatic effects.
- Fiscal: Expected to generate revenue for deficit reduction while funding relocations, potentially saving taxpayer money on underused properties.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- GSA and Federal Agencies: Primary implementers and relocatees, bearing operational changes.
- Congress: Receives notices and can disapprove additions; oversees via committees (Environment and Public Works in Senate, Transportation and Infrastructure in House).
- U.S. Treasury: Benefits from excess proceeds for deficit reduction.
- Private Sector: Domestic developers, buyers, or lessees interested in repurposing buildings; foreign entities are excluded.
- Local Communities and Non-Profits: In Washington, DC, affected by potential loss of historic sites or homeless priorities; environmental groups may oppose bypassed reviews.
- Taxpayers: Indirectly gain from efficiency and revenue but may face agency relocation costs elsewhere.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Broad exemptions and no judicial review limit challenges under administrative or environmental laws, potentially raising due process concerns (e.g., under the Administrative Procedure Act). The foreign ownership ban reinforces national security priorities but could face trade law scrutiny.
- Constitutional: Precluding judicial review might test separation of powers, as it insulates executive actions from court oversight; however, Congress can authorize such limits for specific programs.
- Political: Promotes fiscal conservatism by targeting "inactive" properties for revenue, appealing to deficit hawks, but could spark debate over bypassing historic and environmental safeguards. The sunset clause allows future Congresses to extend or modify, while conditional exemptions for added buildings balance flexibility with oversight.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2025-10-30: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S7851)
- 2025-10-30: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Disposing of Inactive Structures and Properties by Offering for Sale And Lease Act — issued 2025-10-30 — PDF (11 pages)