Commemorative Works in the District of September 22, 2020 Columbia: Background and Practice Jacob R. Straus In 1783, the Continental Congress authorized the first memorial in American history, an Specialist on the Congress equestrian statue to honor George Washington that was to be constructed by the "“best artist"” in in Europe. Since that time, Congress has authorized more than 100 commemorative works for placement in the District of Columbia. Even with multiple authorized works, however, no specific process existed for the creation of commemorative works for almost two centuries. While Congress has long been responsible for authorizing memorials on federal land, the process for approving site locations, memorial design plans, and funding was historically haphazard. At times, Congress was involved in the entire design and building process. In other instances, that authority was delegated to executive branch officials, federal commissions were created, or Congress directly authorized a sponsor group to establish a memorial.

In 1986, in an effort to create a statutory process for the creation, design, and construction of commemorative works in the District of Columbia, Congress debated and passed the Commemorative Works Act (CWA). The CWA codified congressional procedure for authorizing commemorative works when federal land isthe location of a memorial is on federa l land in the District of Columbia administered by the National Park Service (NPS) or the General Services Administration (GSA). The act delegated responsibility for overseeing design, construction, and maintenance to the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of the General Services AdministrationGSA, and several other federal entities, including the National Capital Planning Commission, the (NCPC), the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), and the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission. Additionally, the CWA restricts placement of commemorative works to certain areas of the District of Columbia based on the subject'’s historic importance. These areas include the Reserve (i.e., the National Mall), where no new commemorative works are permitted; Area I, where new commemorative works must be of preeminent historical and lasting significance to the United States; and Area II, which is reserved for subjects of lasting historical significance to the American people. The act further stipulates that the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of the General Services AdministrationGSA provide recommendations to Congress on the placement of works within Area I.

Pursuant to the CWA, the National Park Service and the National Capital Planning CommissionNPS and the NCPC outlined a 24-step process to guide the creation of a commemorative work in the District of Columbia. The guidelines include initiation of a memorial, authorizing legislation, site selection and approval, fundraising, design approval, construction, and memorial dedication.

Once a commemorative work is authorized, Congress may continue its involvement in the process in two ways. First, because Once authorized by Congress, the CWA provides a seven-year authorization for all commemorative works (with an administrative extension available), Congress is sometimes asked to extend a memorial sponsor group's authority . Sponsor groups, however, sometimes ask Congress to extend a memorial’s authorization beyond the initial period. SecondAdditionally, in some circumstances, Congress is askedgroups ask Congress to provide appropriations to assist a sponsor group'’s fundraising. In the past,When provided, past appropriations for commemorative works have been in the form of both direct appropriations and matching funds.

This report does not address memorials outside the District of Columbia.

Since Congress approved Congressional Research Service link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 7 link to page 10 link to page 34 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 30 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Creating the District of Columbia ...................................................................................... 2 L’Enfant Plan ........................................................................................................... 2 McMillan Plan .......................................................................................................... 4 Commemorative Works Act .............................................................................................. 7 Initial Passage ........................................................................................................... 7 Extending Legislative Authority................................................................................... 9 Further Extending Legislative Authority...................................................................... 10 Creating the Reserve ................................................................................................ 12 Permitting On-Site Donor Acknowledgment ................................................................ 13 Establishing a Memorial in the Nation’s Capital................................................................. 15 Initiation ................................................................................................................ 15 Legislation ............................................................................................................. 16 Commemorative Works Authorization ................................................................... 17 Payment of Expenses .......................................................................................... 17 Deposit of Excess Funds...................................................................................... 17 Extension of Statutory Authority........................................................................... 18 Site Selection and Approval ...................................................................................... 18 Designation of Areas of Washington, DC ............................................................... 19 Congressional Approval of Memorial Site Location ................................................. 20 Design Approval ..................................................................................................... 21 Fundraising ............................................................................................................ 21 Construction ........................................................................................................... 22 Dedication .............................................................................................................. 22 Authorized Memorials ................................................................................................... 23 Figures Figure 1. L’Enfant Plan for Washington, DC (1792) ............................................................. 3 Figure 2. The McMillan Plan (1901) .................................................................................. 6 Figure C-1. Commemorative Areas Washington, DC and Environs ....................................... 30 Tables Table 1. Memorials Authorized by Congress...................................................................... 23 Table 2. Authorized Memorials in the District of Columbia and its Environs .......................... 24 Table A-1. Summary of Original Commemorative Works Act, 1986 ...................................... 26 Congressional Research Service link to page 30 link to page 32 link to page 34 link to page 35 link to page 40 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Appendixes Appendix A. Summary of Original Commemorative Works Act Provisions ............................ 26 Appendix B. Steps for Establishing a Memorial in the Nation’s Capital ................................. 28 Appendix C. District of Columbia Map with Area Designations ........................................... 30 Appendix D. Entities Responsible for Memorials in the District of Columbia ......................... 31 Contacts Author Information ....................................................................................................... 36 Congressional Research Service link to page 35 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Introduction Since approving an equestrian statue to George Washington in 1783,1 Congress has authorized an equestrian statue to George Washington in 1783,¹ more than 100 other memorials have been authorizedfor placement on federal land in the District of Columbia.²2 Prior to 1986, however, statutory criteria for authorizing commemorative works, including memorials, did not exist.³3 Not only did Congress authorize commemorative works, but it also established how the sponsoring organizations would choose site locations and approve memorial designs.

In some cases, special memorial commissions were established and given authority to select a location for the memorial. The Lincoln Memorial Commission and the Jefferson Memorial Commission, for instance, were provided with suchsu ch authority. Congress also authorized private organizations to select a site, sometimes with the approval of the President, as in the case of the Washington Monument.⁴

4 Although a general practice for the commemorative work creation process existed by the mid-20^th 20th century, impetus for a statutory commemorative work creation program was not realized until the 1980s.⁵ 1980s.5 In 1986, Congress debated and passed the Commemorative Works Act to guide the memorial creation process in the District of Columbia.⁶

6 This report examines the evolving process by which memorials have been proposed, approved, and constructed in the District of Columbia. It begins with a discussion of the creation of the District and its unique place as the center of the U.S. government and the locationloc ation of numerous memorials to individuals and historic events. The report then discusses the creation and operation of the Commemorative Works Act that was enacted to guide the process for creating a commemorative work in the District of Columbia. It concludes with four appendixes: a summary of the original Commemorative Works Act legislation; the 24-step process recommended for creating a memorial in the District of Columbia; a map showing various areas eligible for memorial construction in the District of Columbia; and a list of government agencies that might be involved in the memorial creation process.

1 Arthur Lee (Virginia) introduced a resolution on May 6, 1783, to erect an equestrian statue to George Washington. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, (May 6, 1783), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington: GPO, 1922), vol. 25, p. 963. T he Continental Congress unanimously agreed to the resolution on August 7, 1783, and authorized a bronze statue of Washington “represented in Roman dress, holding a truncheon in his right hand [and his head encircled with a laurel wreath].” T he statue was to be constructed by the “best artist” in Europe. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, (August 7, 1783), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington: GPO, 1922), vol. 24, pp. 494-495. In 1853, Congress appropriated $50,000 and commissioned Clark Mills to build the statue (10 Stat. 153). In 1860, t he statue was dedicated at Washington Circle (James M. Goode, Washington Sculpture: A Cultural History of Outdoor Sculpture in the Nation’s Capital [Baltimore, MD: T he Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008], p. 480). 2 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, The Placement of Commemorative Works on Federal Lands in the District of Colum bia and its Environs, report to accompany H.R. 4378, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., August 15, 1986, S.Rept. 99-421 (Washington: GPO, 1986), p. 4. 3 For the purposes of this report, commemorative works in the District of Columbia and memorials are sometimes used interchangeably because most completed commemorative works are described as memorials to an individual, a group, or an event. In 1910, Congress created the Commission of Fine Arts to “ advise upon the location of statues, fountains, and monuments in the public squares, streets, and parks in the District of Columbia….” (P.L. 61 -181, 36 Stat 371, May 17, 1910). For more information on the Commission of Fine Arts, see Appe ndix D. 4 Michael H. Koby and Ash Jain, “Memorializing Our Nation’s Heroes: A Legislative Proposal to Amend the Commemorative Works Act,” Journal of Law & Politics, vol. 17, no. 1 (Winter 2001), p. 107. 5 Ibid., p. 109. 6 40 U.S.C. §§8901-8909. Congressional Research Service 1 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice This report does not address memorials outside the District of Columbia.7 This report does not address memorials outside the District of Columbia.⁷

Creating the District of Columbia

On July 16, 1790, President George Washington signed a bill authorizing him to designate "the Residency Act into law. The measure authorized the President to designate “a district of territory, not exceeding ten miles square, to be located as hereafter directed on the river Potomac, at some place between the mouths of the Eastern Branch and Connogochegue, be, and the same is hereby accepted for the permanent seat of government of the United States."⁸”8 Pursuant to the Residency Act, the President had a choice between two areas on the Potomac River—land where the Eastern Branch (now the Anacostia River) met the Potomac River and the area around the Village Vil age of Georgetown.⁹9 After ordering surveys of both areas,¹⁰10 Washington chose the confluence of the Potomac River and Anacostia Rivers as the capital site.¹¹11 Subsequently, he chose Major Pierre Charles L'’Enfant, who had just completed a successful refurbishment of Federal Hall Hal in New York City,¹²12 as the city's architect¹³ ’s architect13 and commissioned Major Andrew EllicottEl icott to survey the 10-square-mile district.¹⁴

L'14 L’Enfant Plan

Major L'’Enfant was charged with designing the federal city, including spaces for the President's ’s house, the Capitol Building, and the grid of streets that would transport political leaders from one part of the city to another. The federal spaces are widely considered to be the "“most significant design feature of the plan for the nation'’s capital."¹⁵”15 Within the federal precinct, L'Enfant'’Enfant’s plan deemphasized any single part of the federal government. Political scientist James Sterling Young, 7 For more information on memorial construction outside of the District of Columbia, see CRS Report R45741, Mem orials and Com m em orative Works Outside Washington, DC: Background, Federal Role, and Options for Congress, by Jacob R. Straus and Laura B. Comay. For information on national monuments established on federal land under the Antiquities Act of 1906, see CRS Report R41330, National Monum ents and the Antiquities Act, by Carol Hardy Vincent . 8 1 Stat. 130, July 16, 1790, as amended by 1 Stat. 214, March 3, 1791. T he Conococheague is “ a small Maryland stream near Hagerstown, in the Cumberland Valley.” Worthy of the Nation: Washington, DC from L'Enfant to the National Capital Planning Com m ission, ed. Frederick Gutheim and Antoinette J. Lee, 2 nd ed. (Baltimore, MD: T he Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), p. 10. 1 Stat. 214 amended the initial law to allow President Washington to include the town of Alexandria Virginia to the south and place the city on a “convenient part of the Eastern Branch.” 9 James T homas Flexner, George Washington and the New Nation (1783-1973) (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1963), p. 326. For more information on the Eastern Branch, see National Park Service, “L’Enfant and McMillian Plans,” at http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/lenfant.htm; and Cornelius W. Heine, “T he Washington City Canal,” Records of the Colum bia Historical Society, Washington, D.C., vol. 53/56 (1953/1956), pp. 1-27. 10 Fergus M. Bordewich, Washington: The Making of the American Capital (New York: Amistad, 2008), p. 65. 11 George Washington Bicentennial Commission, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, vol. 31, January 22, 1790 -March 9, 1792 (Washington: GPO, 1939), pp. 202-204. 12 Sarah Luria, Capital Speculations: Writing and Building Washington, D.C. (Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire Press, 2006), p. 6. 13 Les Standiford, Washington Burning: How a Frenchman’s Vision for Our Nation’s Capital Survived Congress, The Founding Fathers, and the Invading British Arm y (New York: T hree Rivers Press, 2009). 14 William Buckner McGroarty, “Major Andrew Ellicott and His Historic Border Lines,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 58, no. 1 (January 1950), pp. 101-102. 15 Michael Bednar, L'Enfant’s Legacy: Public Open Spaces in Washington, D.C. (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), p. 12. Congressional Research Service 2 link to page 7 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice deemphasized any single part of the federal government. Political scientist James Sterling Young, in his book The Washington Community, describes L'Enfant'’Enfant’s vision in creating the federal capital.

capital. There is no single center in the ground plan of the governmental community, no one focus of activity, no central place for the assembly of all its members. What catches the eye instead is a system of larger and lesser centers widely dispersed over the terrain, "“seemingly connect,"” as L'’Enfant put it, by shared routes of communication. It is clear that the planner intended a community whose members were to work or live not together but apart from each other, segregated into distinct units.¹⁶

16 Figure 1. L'’Enfant Plan for Washington, DC 1792

(1792) Source: National Park Service, " “Plate II. L'’Enfant Plan as Modified by Andrew EllicottEl icott, 1792."” at http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/ncr/designing-capital/plates.html.

plates.html. As depicted inin Figure 1, Major L'’Enfant worked to provide symbolic separation between Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court as provided for by separation of powers principles found in the Constitution.¹⁷17 In describing the decision to keep the constitutional centers of powers separated, L'’Enfant "“argued that the distance between the two buildings [the President'President’s house and the Capitol] was not all al that great in his plan and further that '‘no message to nor from the President is to be made without a sort of decorum which will wil doubtless point out 16 James Sterling Young, The Washington Community: 1800-1828 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), p. 3. 17 U.S. Congress, House, The Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Doc. 108-96 (Washington: GPO, 2003). Congressional Research Service 3 link to page 7 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice doubtless point out the propriety of Committee waiting on him in carriage should his palace be even contiguous to Congress.'"¹⁸

Congress.’”18 The original boundaries of the District of Columbia extended beyond the federal city depicted in Figure 1. A 10-mile square, created from land ceded from Maryland and Virginia, it also included much of modern-day Alexandria, Virginia, and Arlington County.¹⁹19 Following Congress'’s move to the District in 1800,²⁰20 proposals were introduced to retrocede (return) portions of the District south of the Potomac River to Virginia.²¹21 In 1846, Congress determined that "“the portion of the District of Columbia ceded to the United States by the State of Virginia has not been, or is ever likely likely to be, necessary for that purpose…"” and passed legislation returning Alexandria to Virginia. President James Polk signed the bill bil into law on July 9, 1846.²²

22 McMillan Plan

For nearly a century, Congress and city planners ignored many elements of L'Enfant'’Enfant’s plan for Washington, DC, until a new call cal for planning was developed to celebrate the city's 100^th ’s 100th anniversary in 1900.²³23 Led by Senator James McMillanMcMil an, the effort to review and create a new comprehensive plan for the District of Columbia was undertaken by the Senate Park Commission.²⁴ Commission.24 Created in March 1901, as part of a Senate resolution directing the Committee on the District of Columbia to study the park system in the District,²⁵25 the commission was instructed to examine questions that had "“arisen as to the location of public buildings, of preserving spaces for parks in the portion of the District beyond the limits of the city of Washington, of connecting and developing existing parks by attractive drives, and of providing for the recreation and health of a constantly growing population."²⁶

The committee hired Daniel Burnham²⁷ and Frederick Law Olmsted²⁸”26 18 Frederick Gutheim and Antoinette J. Lee, Worth of the Nation: Washington, DC, from L'Enfant to the National Capital Planning Com m ission, 2nd ed. (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), p. 25. 19 J. Valerie Fifer, “Washington, D.C.: T he Political Geography of the Federal Capital,” Journal of American Studies, vol. 15, no. 1 (April 1981), pp. 7-8. 20 Annals of the Congress of the United States, vol. 10 (May 14, 1800), p. 720. T he Sixth Congress reconvened for its second session in the District of Columbia in November 1800. For more information, see James Sterling Young, The Washington Com m unity: 1800-1828 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966). 21 Annals of the Congress of the United States, vol. 12 (January 27, 1803), pp. 426-427. For more information, see Mark David Richards, “T he Debates Over the Retrocession of the District of Columbia, 1801-2004,” Washington History, vol. 16, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2004), pp. 57 -60; and Amos B. Casselman, “ T he Virginia Portion of the District of Columbia,” Records of the Columbia Historical Society, vol. 12 (1909), pp. 115-141. 22 9 Stat. 35, July 9, 1946. 23 Geoffrey G. Drutchas, “Gray Eminence in a Gilded Age: T he Forgotten Career of Senator James McMillan of Michigan,” Michigan Historical Review, vol. 28, no. 2 (Fall 2002), p. 98. 24 T he McMillan plan is considered to be part of the larger “City Beautiful Movement.” T he City Beautiful Movement existed at the turn of the 20th Century as an effort to reconfigure the urban landscape by “ grouping and uniting public buildings with one another and with the landscape” (Daniel M. Bluestone, “Detroit’s City Beautiful and the Problem of Commerce,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 47, no. 3 (September 1988), p. 245). For more information see, William H. Wilson, The City Beautiful Movem ent (Baltimore, MD: T he Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), pp. 9-34. 25 “Park System of the District of Columbia,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 35, part 1 (March 8, 1901), p. 30. Senator McMillan had previously introduced a joint resolution authorizing the creation of a commissi on to study the “arrangement of public buildings in Washington and the development of a comprehensive park system.” T he joint resolution was defeated in the House under the opposition of Speaker of the House Joseph Cannon. 26 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, The Improvement of the Park System of the District of Colum bia, 57th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 57-166 (Washington: GPO, 1902), p. 7. Congressional Research Service 4 link to page 10 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice The committee hired Daniel Burnham27 and Frederick Law Olmsted28 as consultants to study the design of the city and the landscaping of the National Mall. The McMillanMal . The McMil an Commission plan examined all al aspects of L'Enfant'’Enfant’s original design and made recommendations to return the monumental core of the city, particularly the MallMal , to the intent of L'Enfant'’Enfant’s plans. In their report to the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, the commission summarized why such a plan was necessary.

Now that the demand for new public buildings and memorials has reached an acute stage, there has been hesitation and embarrassment in locating them because of the uncertainty in securing appropriate sites. The Commission were thus brought face to face with with the problem of devising such a plan as shall tend to restore that unity of design which was the fundamental conception of those who first laid out the city as a national capital, and of formulating definite principles for the placing of those future structures which, in order to become effective, demand both a landscape setting and a visible orderly relation one to another for their mutual support and enhancement.²⁹

29 Figure 2 shows the McMillanMcMil an Commission plan for the National Mal . 27 Daniel Burnham served as the Director of Works for the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition (i.e., the World’s Fair) in Chicago and as the director of numerous other city design projects including the city of Chicago in 1909. For more information on Daniel Burnham, see Carl Smith, The Plan of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the Rem aking of the Am erican City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007); and T homas S. Hines and Neil Harris, Burnham of Chicago: Architect and Planner, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008). 28 Frederick Law Olmsted was a renowned landscape architect. He created the design of Central Park in New York City, the Biltmore Estate, the grounds of the 1893 World’s Columbia Exposition, and the U.S. Capitol grounds. For more information on Frederick Law Olmsted, see Witold Rybczynski, A Clearing in the Distance: Frederick Law Olm sted and Am erica in the 19th Century (New York: Scribner, 2000); and Charles Beveridge and Paul Rocheleau, Frederick Law Olm sted: Designing the Am erican Landscape (New York: Rizzoli, 2005). 29 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, The Improvement of the Park System of the District of Colum bia, 57th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 57-166 (Washington: GPO, 1902), p. 24. Congressional Research Service 5 link to page 35 link to page 35 link to page 35 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Figure 2. The McMillan Plan (1901) Commission plan for the National Mall.

Figure 2. The McMillan Plan 1901

Source: National Capital Planning Commission, "The McMillan “The McMil an Plan of 1901,"” Images, at http://www.ncpc.gov/Images/Maps/McMillanPlanMcMil anPlan, 1901.jpg. While the McMil an , 1901.jpg.

While the McMillan plan was never fully implemented, it laid the foundation for additional studies and plans for further development in the District of Columbia over the next 100 years.³⁰ Additionally, the McMillan30 Additional y, the McMil an plan included concepts for the creation of monuments within the federal landscape. The McMillanMcMil an Plan also emphasized various design features of the federal core including the National MallMal , Federal Triangle, the area that is now the Lincoln Memorial, and the EllipseEl ipse. In recent years, the McMillan Plan'McMil an Plan’s concepts have been codified through plans and studies by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the official planning agency authorized by Congress in 1924.³¹

31 30 Ed Hatcher, “Washington’s Nineteenth-Century Citizens’ Associations and the Senate Park Commission Plan,” Washington History, vol. 14, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2002/2003), p. 92. 31 For more information on the National Capital Planning Commission, see “ National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission” in Appe ndix D. T he National Capital Planning Commission’s studies include the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital (https://www.ncpc.gov/plans/compplan/), the Federal Capital Improvements Program (https://www.ncpc.gov/plans/fcip/), and the Memorials and Museums Master Plan (https://www.ncpc.gov/plans/memorials/#:~:text=T he%20Memorials%20and%20Museums%20Master,general%20guidelines%20for%20their%20development .). Other, not-for-profit entities have been established in recent years to advocate for the “ integrity of the Nation al Mall.” T hese included the National Coalition to Save Our Mall, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that “seeks to preserve the integrity of the National Mall as our national gathering place and symbol of founding ideals” (http://www.savethemall.org); and the T rust for the National Mall, which “ is the official non -profit partner of the National Park Service dedicated to restoring and improving the National Mall while providing new educational and volunteer opportunities to connect visitors to the Mall’s rich history.” For more information on the T rust for the National Mall, see http://www.nationalmall.org. Congressional Research Service 6 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Commemorative Works Act Commemorative Works Act

In 1986, the Commemorative Works Act (CWA) was enacted to guide the creation of memorials in the District of Columbia. Congress created the act in an effort

(1) (1) to preserve the integrity of the comprehensive design of the L'’Enfant and McMillan McMilan plans for the Nation'’s Capital; (2) to ensure the continued public use and enjoyment of open space in the District of Columbia and its environs, and to encourage the location of commemorative works within the urban fabric of the District of Columbia; (3) to preserve, protect, and maintain the limited amount of open space available to residents of, and visitors to, the Nation'’s Capital; and (4) to ensure that future commemorative works in areas administered by the National Park Service and the Administrator of General Services in the District of Columbia and its environs are…appropriately designed, constructed, and located; and…reflect a consensus of lasting national significance of the subjects involved.³²

32 The act further defined a commemorative work as "“any statue, monument, sculpture, memorial, plaque, inscription, or other structure of landscape feature, including a garden or memorial grove, designed to perpetuate in a permanent manner the memory of an individual, group, event or other significant element of American history, except that the term does not include any such item which is located within the interior of a structure or a structure which is primarily used for other purposes."³³ purposes.”33 The CWA does not apply to military properties, such as the Pentagon, Arlington National Cemetery, or Fort McNair, nor does the act apply to land under the jurisdiction of the Smithsonian or the Architect of the Capitol.

Initial Passage

On March 11, 1986, Representative William Wil iam Hughes introduced H.R. 4378 "a bill “a bil to govern the establishment of commemorative works within the National Capital Region of the National Park System."³⁴”34 It was initially referred to the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, then to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, which held a hearing on April 15 and reported the bil the bill to the full committee.³⁵35 On April 23, the full committee approved H.R. 4378, and on May 5 recommended its enactment by the House.³⁶

36 The committee'’s report indicated that legislation was necessary because of the "“numerous groups"groups” seeking to place additional commemorative works in the District of Columbia and the need to strike a balance between different uses of park landparkland. The report also indicated that "“[b]alance needs to be achieved between commemorative works on National Park land and the myriad of activities that occur there. Commemorative works erected in the future should meet the appropriate tests of being of lasting national significance, and designed and constructed to be physically durable."³⁷

physical y durable.”37 32 40 U.S.C. §8901. 33 40 U.S.C. §8902. 34 “Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 132, part 3 (March 11, 1986), p. 4268. 35 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Governing the Establishment of Commemorative Works with the National Capital Region of the National Park System, and f or Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 4378, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., May 5, 1986, H.Rept. 99-574 (Washington: GPO, 1986), p. 5. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., pp. 4-5. Congressional Research Service 7 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice On May 5, the House debated H.R. 4378. Representative Bruce Vento, one of the bill's bil ’s supporters, linked the placement of commemorative works to the L'’Enfant and McMillanMcMil an plans for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, as Americans, we are fortunate as a nation to have a capital city specifically specificaly planned and designed to embody our ideals, a city of both magnificence and practicality. The design we now have comes to us only because of the diligence and vigilance of our predecessors. Through their efforts we can still see the city that Pierre L'’Enfant planned and that the 1902 U.S. Senate Park Commission with the McMillan plan restored, with its vistas, its orderly but grand street patterns and its open space.³⁸

38 Other Members expressed reservations about aspects of the billbil . For example, Representative Michael Strang focused on placing commemorative works within the context of the city'’s design, and the importance of finding balance among uses of public lands.

I believe the major goal of this legislation—to limit the proliferation of insignificant works in D.C.—is certainly meritorious. As additional works are located in this area, the open space which is used by numerous residents and visitors for a variety of activities, is lost forever. While I strongly support commemorating worthy individuals and events in our Nation'Nation’s history, I also feel a balance of uses for the public lands in our Nation'’s Capital must be established shortly.³⁹

39 H.R. 4378 passed the House by voice vote later that day. Subsequently, H.R. 4378 was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.⁴⁰

40 On June 24, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee'’s Subcommittee on Public Lands, Reserved Water, and Resource Conservation held a hearing on both S. 2522,⁴¹ a "bill to S. 2522,41 a “bil to provide standards for placement of commemorative works on certain federal lands in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes,"⁴²”42 and H.R. 4378.⁴³.43 The committee reported H.R. 4378, replacing the House language with the text of S. 2522.⁴⁴.44 The Senate debated H.R. 4378 4378 on September 10 and passed the bill bil by voice vote.⁴⁵

45 On September 29, the House took up H.R. 4378, agreed to the Senate amendments with a few House clarifyingadditional House amendments, and passed H.R. 4378, as amended, by voice vote.⁴⁶ On October 16, the Senate concurred with the House amendments and passed the bill.⁴⁷ The Commemorative Works Act (CWA) was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 14, 1986.⁴⁸46 On October 38 Rep. Bruce Vento, “Advisory Board for Selection of Commemorative Works within the National Capital Region of the National Park System,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 132, part 7 (May 5, 1986), p. 9432. 39 Rep. Michael Strang, “Advisory Board for Selection of Commemorative Works within the National Capital Region of the National Park System,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 132, part 7 (May 5, 1986), pp. 9432-9433. 40 “Measures Referred,” Congressional Record, vol.132, part 7 (May 7, 1986), p. 9899. 41 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Reserved Water and Resource Conservation, Standards for the Establishm ent of Com m em orative Works in the Nation’s Capital, hearing on S. 2522 and H.R. 4378, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., June 24, 1986, S.Hrg. 99-896 (Washington: GPO, 1986). 42 S. 2522 (99th Congress), introduced June 5, 1986 by Senator Malcolm Wallop. 43 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, The Placement of Commemorative Works on Federal Lands in the District of Colum bia and its Environs, report to accompany H.R. 4378, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., August 15, 1986, S.Rept. 99-421 (Washington: GPO, 1986), p. 5. 44 “Reports of Committees,” Congressional Record, vol. 132, part 15 (August 15, 1986), p. 21917. 45 “Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 132, part 16 (September 10, 1986), pp. 22616-22618. One series of amendments was offered in the Senate. Senator James McClure introduced amendments to allow for funds donated for commemorative works to be considered outside of the sequestration process required by P.L. 99-177. Senator McClure’s amendments were agreed to by voice vote. For more information, see Sen. Alan Simpson, “Placement of Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia, McClure Amendment No. 2793,” Congressional Record, vol. 132, part 16 (September 10, 1986), p. 22591. 46 “Providing Standards for Commemorative Works on Lands Administered by the National Park Service in the District Congressional Research Service 8 link to page 30 link to page 30 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice 16, the Senate concurred with the House amendments and passed the bil .47 On November 14, 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the CWA into law.48 The CWA, as enacted, contained 10 sections covering the purposes of the billbil , definitions, congressional authorization for memorials, creation of the National Capital Memorial Commission, conditions for memorial placement in different parts of the District of Columbia, site design and approval, issuance of construction permits, creation of a temporary memorial site, and other administrative provisions.⁴⁹ Table A-1, in in Appendix A, provides a summary of the original provisions contained in the CWA for each section of the bill.

bil . Extending Legislative Authority

By 1991, Congress realized that many authorized sponsor groups were not able to complete memorial construction in the allocated time periodal ocated time. Pursuant to Section 10(b) of the CWA, legislative authority for commemorative works expired within five years of its enactment, unless a construction permit was issued.⁵⁰50 Of the eight commemorative works authorized between the 99^th 99th Congress (1985-1986) and the 101^st101st Congress (1989-1990), only one, the American Armored Force Memorial, had met the five-year deadline.⁵¹51 To address this issue, Representative William Wil iam Clay introduced H.R. 3169, ", “To lengthen from five to seven years the expiration period applicable to legislative authority relating to construction of commemorative works on Federal land in the District of Columbia and its environs."⁵²

”52 During the House debate, Representative Wayne Allard Al ard argued that lengthening the time required to complete a commemorative work was necessary:

As the subcommittee chairman has described, the Commemorative Works Act was enacted in 1986 in in 1986 in order to address the numerous requests received by Congress to authorize commemorative works on public space in the D.C. area. Overall this act has been very successful in ensuring that only the most important works are constructed and that those works constructed are of the highest quality.

Of course, it takes time to develop an outstanding proposal and it of Columbia,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 132, part 19 (September 29, 1986), pp. 27070-27076. T he House amendments to the Senate amendments added the names of House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over commemorative works, set conditions for works to be placed in different geographic areas of the District, and rewrote requirement s for the creation of a temporary site for the placement of memorials before a permanent home was located. 47 “Standards for Placement of Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 132, part 22 (October 16, 1986), p. 32373. 48 P.L. 99-652, 100 Stat. 3650, November 14, 1986; 40 U.S.C. §8901 et seq. 49 40 U.S.C. §§8901-8909. 50 P.L. 99-652, 100 Stat. 3654, November 14, 1986. 51 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Lengthening the Period for Construction of Com m em orative Works on Federal Land in the District of Colum bia , report to accompany H.R. 3169, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., October 21, 1991, H.Rept. 102-257 (Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 2. 52 H.R. 3169 (102nd Congress), introduced August 1, 1991. See also “Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 137, part 15 (August 1, 1991), p. 21069. For more informatio n on H.R. 3169, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Lengthening the Period for Construction of Com m em orative Works on Federal Land in D.C., report to accompany H.R. 3169, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., October 21, 1991, H.Rept. 102-257 (Washington: GPO, 1991); and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Lengthening the Period for Construction of Com m em orative Works on Federal Land in D.C. , report to accompany H.R. 3169, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., November 12, 1991, S.Rept. 102 -211 (Washington: GPO, 1991). Congressional Research Service 9 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Of course, it takes time to develop an outstanding proposal and it appears that when Congress enacted this law 5 years ago, we underestimated the amount of time required to secure the necessary approvals and raise funds for these projects.⁵³

53 Following debate, the House passed H.R. 3169 by voice vote.⁵⁴54 The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported the bill bil on November 12,⁵⁵55 and the full Senate passed the measure without debate on November 27.⁵⁶ The bill was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on 56 President George H.W. Bush signed the bil into law on December 11, 1991.⁵⁷

57 Further Extending Legislative Authority

Following the extension of authority to complete a commemorative work to seven years,⁵⁸58 on August 6, 1993, Representative Nancy Johnson introduced H.R. 2947 to further extend the legislative legislative authority of the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation to nine years from the date of initial enactment.⁵⁹59 The Committee on Natural Resources reported the bill bil on November 20 with amendments to not only extend the legislative authority for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation, but also for the Women in Military Service for America Memorial, and the National Peace Garden. In addition, the committee included other technical amendments to the CWA at the request of the National Capital Memorial Commission.⁶⁰

60 During the ensuing floor debate, Representative Bruce Vento summarized the committee's ’s rationale for further extending legislative authorities of the three memorials and the necessity of further amending the CWA.

Mr. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2947 H.R. 2947 as originally introduced by Congresswoman Nancy Nancy Johnson, would extend the authorization for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial…. As amended by the Committee on Natural Resources, H.R. 2947 extends the authorization for the establishment of three commemorative works to be constructed here in the Nation's Capital and makes various ’s Capital and makes various technical amendments to the Commemorative Works Act. …The Black Revolutionary Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial, the women in military service to America and the National Peace Garden have all been authorized under the in military service to America and the National Peace Garden have all been authorized under the Commemorative Works Act. All three have obtained the initial site and design approvals as required by the law. But for various reasons, particularly because of the difficulty of fundraising, each of them has of them has requested an extension for the the completion of their commemorative works. This This legislation extends their authorizations to authorizations to 10 years—an 53 Rep. Wayne Allard, “Lengthening Expiration Period for Construction of Commemorative Works on Federal Land,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 137, part 19 (October 21, 1991), p. 26895. 54 “Lengthening Expiration Period for Construction of Commemorative Works on Federal Land,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 137, part 19 (October 21, 1991), p. 26896. 55 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Lengthening the Period for Construction of Com m em orative Works on Federal Land in the District of Colum bia , report to accompany H.R. 3169, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., November 12, 1991, S.Rept. 102-211 (Washington: GPO, 1991). 56 “Extension of Expiration of Legislative Authority Relating to Construction of Commemorative Works on Federal Lands in the District of Columbia or its Environs,” Congressional Record, vol. 137, part 24 (November 27, 1991), p. 36314. 57 P.L. 102-216, 105 Stat. 1666, December 11, 1991. 58 Ibid. 59 H.R. 2947 (103rd Congress), introduced August 3, 1993. 60 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Commemorative Works Act Amendments, report to accompany H.R. 2947, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., November 20, 1993, H.Rept. 103 -400 (Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 3-4. Congressional Research Service 10 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice 10 years—an additional 3 years for each. I support this extension with the understanding that there will be no further extensions.

As amended by the Committee on Natural Resources, H.R. 2947 H.R. 2947 also makes various changes to the Commemorative Works Act. Primarily technical, these changes were requested by the National Capital Memorial Commission, and by those responsible for administrating the act. The most important of these changes adds provisions on administrating the act. The most important of these changes adds provisions on accountability for fundraisers so that the public'’s trust is not abused.⁶¹

61 The House passed H.R. 2947 by voice vote,⁶²62 and it was referred in the Senate to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.⁶³

63 In the Senate, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported a further amended version of the bill bil that included changes to the National Capital Memorial Commission amendments, including restoring a previous deleting of aand restoration of a previously deleted provision that "“directed the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the General Services Administration to develop fundraising standards and to suspend a groups'’ fundraising authority if the Secretary or Administrator … determined that the group'group’s fundraising activities were not in compliance with those standards."⁶⁴”64 The Senate passed the bill the bil , as amended, by voice vote.⁶⁵

65 Upon its return to the House, H.R. 2947 was further debated. During the debate, Representative Vento explained the Senate amendments and urged passage of the bill.

bil . The Senate deleted a provision in the House-passed bill authorizing the Secretary to suspend a memorial organization’s activity if there are suspend a memorial organization's activity if there are excessive administrative and fundraising expenses. It is the committee'’s intent that the National Park Service develop guidelines which provide direction to memorial organizations on the subject of unreasonable or guidelines which provide direction to memorial organizations on the subject of unreasonable or excessive administrative costs and fundraising fees. The committee believes that guidelines from the National Park Service would also be helpful to avoiding problems in the future. The committee expects the National Park Service to monitor the fundraising activities of the memorial organizations more closely and it intends that all of the provisions of H.R. 2947 H.R. 2947 apply to all commemorative works authorized under the Commemorative Works Act.⁶⁶

66 The House passed H.R. 2947, as amended in the Senate, by a vote of 378 to 0.⁶⁷67 It became P.L. 103-321 on August 26, 1994.68 61 Rep. Bruce Vento, “Extending Authorization of Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation to Establish Memorial,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 22 (November 22, 1993), p. 32020. 62 “Extending Authorization of Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation to Establish Memorial,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 22 (November 22, 1993), p. 32022. 63 “Measures Referred,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 22 (November 23, 1993), p. 32241. 64 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Commemorative Works Act Amendments, report to accompany H.R. 2947, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., April 5, 1994, S.Rept. 103-247 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 3. 65 “Commemorative Works Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 140, part 5 (April 12, 1994), p. 7143. 66 Rep. Bruce Vento, “Concurring in Senate Amendments to H.R. 2947, Commemorative Works Act Amendments,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 140, part 16 (August 16, 1994), p. 22532. 67 “Concurring in Senate Amendments to H.R. 2947, Commemorative Works Act Amendments,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 140, part 16 (August 16, 1994), p. 22566. 68 P.L. 103-321, 108 Stat. 1793, August 26, 1994. Congressional Research Service 11 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice 103-321 on August 26, 1994.⁶⁸

Creating the Reserve

After receiving several requests for the placement of memorials on the National MallMal , Congress recognized the need to preserve the L'’Enfant and McMillan visions for the MallMcMil an visions and prevent the Mal area from being overbuilt.⁶⁹69 In March 2000, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation held an oversight hearing on monuments and memorials in the District of Columbia. At the hearing, representatives from the NCPCthe National Capital Planning Commission, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, the National Park Service (CFA), the NPS, the District of Columbia, and the Committee of 100 on the Federal City⁷⁰ all City70 al testified on proposed amendments to the CWA.⁷¹71 The proposed amendments were the result of a study conducted by the National Park Service, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts and provided to Congress in May 1997.⁷²

1997 report to Congress by the NPS, the NCPC, and the CFA.72 In summarizing the need for the creation of a new "reserve"“reserve” area, or no-build zone, on the National MallMal , J. Carter Brown, chair of the U.S. Commission of Fine ArtsCFA, also testified that the Reserve should have a building moratorium to protect the National Mall area.

Mal area. With the considerable pressures to add new memorials to the city, it is inevitable that many sponsors of what they feel are preeminent causes would favor a location in the proposed reserve. Under such a continuing threat, it makes sense to define this central precinct as a no-build zone.

Even with the substantial size of the reserve, there will still be many sites available for memorials in the foreseeable future. The genius of L'Enfant'’Enfant’s plan … created literally hundreds of sites across the city, and it is our hope their abundance and desirability will lead to the placement of future memorials throughout the capital.⁷³

In the 107^th73 In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Senator Chuck Hagel introduced S. 281, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Act.⁷⁴74 Reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, it contained amendments to the CWA to create the Reserve and prohibit building of new memorials within its boundaries.⁷⁵ S. 281 was not considered further by the Senate.

The issue was reintroduced in the 108^th75 S. 281 did not receive further consideration by the Senate. 69 National Park Service, “Measures to Protect the Planning Vision,” A History of the National Mall and Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Park, p. 12, at http://www.nps.gov/nationalmallplan/Documents/mallpaavhistory.pdf. 70 T he Committee on 100 of the Federal City was founded in 1923 “to act as a force of conscience in the evolution of the nation’s capital city … [and] to sustain and to safeguard the fundamental values der ived from the tradition of the L'Enfant Plan and the McMillan Commission…. (Committee on 100 of the Federal City: Its History and Its Service to the Nation’s Capital, prepared by Richard Striner, Ph.D, at http://www.committeeof100.net/Who-We-Are/history. 71 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, DC Area Monum ents and Mem orials, hearing on the Status of Monuments and Memorials, and New Policies that have been Adopted for Locating New Commemorative Wo rks in and Around Washington, DC, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., March 23, 2000, S.Hrg. 106-578 (Washington: GPO, 2000). [Hereinafter, DC Area Monum ents and Mem orials]. 72 U.S. Joint T ask Force on Memorials, Report, at https://www.ncpc.gov/docs/2M_Joint_T ask_Force_on_Memorials.pdf. 73 DC Area Monuments and Memorials, p. 6. 74 Companion legislation, H.R. 510, was introduced in the House of Representative by Representative John Murtha. 75 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Act, report to accompany S. 281, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., June 25, 2002, S.Rept. 107-177 (Washington: GPO, 2002). For more information on S. 281, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Miscellaneous National Park and Monum ent Measures, hearing on S. 281, S. 386, H.R. 146, S. 513, H.R. 182, S. 921, H.R. 1000, S. 1097, and H.R. 1668, 107th Cong., 1st sess., July 19, 2001, S.Hrg. 107-219 (Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. 20-37. Congressional Research Service 12 link to page 23 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice The issue was reintroduced in the 108th Congress (2003-2004) by Representative Richard Pombo.⁷⁶76 Reported by the House Committee on Resources, H.R. 1442 authorized the design and construction of the Vietnam Visitor Center, ⁷⁷ 77 and following Senate amendment,⁷⁸78 contained language to amend the CWA to create a "reserve" area.⁷⁹“reserve” area.79 Enacted as P.L. 108-126, a reserve area and building moratorium were established on the National Mall.⁸⁰

Mal .80 Pursuant to P.L. 108-126, no additional commemorative works, unless they were authorized prior to P.L. 108-126, are permitted in the Reserve. As a result, the definitions proscribed for memorial placement in Area I, where new commemorative works must be of preeminent historical and lasting significance to the United States, and Area II, which is reserved for subjects of lasting historical significance to the American people, became more important when deciding where a commemorative work should be placed. More information about the placement of commemorative works is contained below under "“Designation of Areas of Washington, DC"

”. Permitting On-Site Donor Acknowledgment

Historically Historical y, commemorative works have been expensive.⁸¹81 Sponsor groups are often statutorily prohibited from using federal funds to design, construct, or dedicate the monuments or memorials.⁸² memorials.82 Consequently, to raise the necessary funds, groups sometimes turn not only to the general public for donations, but also to corporations and foundations. Occasionally, Occasional y, contributors—especiallyespecial y corporate and foundation donors—request recognition for donation. Whether groups sponsoring monuments and memorials are allowedal owed to recognize donations could affect the sponsor groups'’ ability to raise the necessary funds.⁸³

Donor recognition for monuments and memorials can generally83 76 H.R. 1442 (108th Congress), introduced March 26, 2003. 77 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, To Authorize the Design and Construction of a Visitor Center for the Vietnam Veterans Mem orial, report to accompany H.R. 1442, 108th Cong., 1st sess., October 2, 2003, H.Rept. 108-295 (Washington: GPO, 2003). 78 “T ext of Amendments,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149 (November 5, 2003), p. S14070. 79 “Authorizing Design and Construction of Visitor Center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149 (November 5, 2003), p. S14075. 80 P.L. 108-126, 117 Stat. 1348, November 17, 2003. 81 T wo recent memorials had construction costs in excess of $50 million. T he World War II Memorial ( P.L. 103-32) had total construction costs of $66.4 million. According to the sponsor group, the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC), the total cost for the World War II Memorial project, including site selection, memori al design, fundraising, administration, and dedication, was approximately $182 million. Similarly, the National Park Service reports, based on the 10% of memorial construction costs collected pursuant to 40 U.S.C. §8906(b)(1), that the Martin Luther King Jr., Memorial Project Foundation spent approximately $55.2 million on construction of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial (P.L. 104-333). Further, the Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Project Foundation, Inc., has a goal to raise $120 million for the memorial. Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Project Foundation Inc., “Washington, D.C. Martin Luther King, Jr., National Memorial,” at https://www.thememorialfoundation.org/. 82 For example, P.L. 112-239 §2859, 126 Stat. 2164, January 2, 2013, authorizes the Gold Star Moth ers National Monument Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia. Pursuant to this law, the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Foundation is explicitly prohibited from using federal funds to design or build the memorial. T herefore, the foundation is required to raise all money necessary to “ establish” the commemorative work. 83 In his testimony before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, Jan Scruggs, president and founder of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, articulated his view of why donor recognition is essential to raising sufficient money toward building the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center. See T estimony of Jan D. Scruggs, president, Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulations, Hearing on H.R. 588, H.R. 716, and H.R. 819, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2013, p. 2. Congressional Research Service 13 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Donor recognition for monuments and memorials can general y be divided into two categories: on-site and off-site donor recognition. On-site donor recognition is the acknowledgment—either permanent or temporary—of contributions at the location of a monument or memorial. Off-site donor recognition is the acknowledgement of contributions in a manner that does not involve the monument or memorial location. This recognition can include, but is not limited to, thank you letters, awards, publicity, press conferences, mementos, and online acknowledgment.⁸⁴ Additionally, 84 Additional y, policies on recognizing donations differ for works authorized under the CWA and for non-CWA monuments and memorials.

When it was enacted in 1986, the CWA prohibited the on-site recognition of donors at memorial sites in the District of Columbia. Between 1986 and 2013, memorial sponsors were not allowedal owed to recognize donors on-site. In the 113^th113th Congress, the first exemption to the on-site ban on donor acknowledgement was provided to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund to aid its effort to build the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center.⁸⁵85 The law provided the sponsor group with the ability ability to recognize donors on-site, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and at the expense of the sponsor group.

At the same time that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center was granted permission to recognize donors, Representative Doc Hastings introduced H.R. 2395, ", “to provide for donor contribution acknowledgements to be displayed at projects authorized under the Commemorative Works Act."⁸⁶”86 The bill bil would have amended 40 U.S.C. §8905(b) to allowal ow acknowledgement of donor contributions, subject to several conditions. Additionally, the bill Additional y, the bil would have retroactively applied to all al memorials dedicated after January 1, 2010.⁸⁷

87 In testimony on the bill bil before the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, Stephen WhitesellWhitesel , regional director of the National Capital Region for the National Park Service, supported the on-site recognition of donors. He said,

said, Although the Department has supported the CWA ban on donor recognition, this ban has proven to be impractical, given the challenge of funding new memorials and the reliance of the memorial sponsors on the generosity of the public in order to establish and construct memorials that Congress has authorized. We recognize the importance of acknowledging large donations for effective fundraising and, therefore, support donor recognition with appropriate limitations as described below. We do not support permanent appropriate limitations as described below. We do not support permanent donor recognition.⁸⁸

88 After the subcommittee hearing on July 19, 2013, H.R. 2395 did not receive further consideration. As part of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2015, however, the language from H.R. 2395 was included as §3054. Pursuant to P.L. 113-291, §3054(c), the CWA was amended to allowal ow donor recognition "“inside an ancillaryancil ary structure associated with the commemorative work or as part of a manmade landscape feature at the commemorative work."⁸⁹ Further, donor acknowledgement applies to all ”89 84 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Director’s Order #21: Donations and Fundraising, July 11, 2008, pp. 20-21, at https://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DO_21.htm. 85 P.L. 113-21, 127 Stat. 490, July 18, 2013. 86 H.R. 2395 (113th Congress), introduced June 17, 2013. 87 Ibid. 88 T estimony of Stephen E. Whitesell, regional director of the National Capital Region, Natio nal Park Service, July 19, 2013; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 587, H.R. 1168, H.R. 1170, H.R. 1684, H.R. 2068, H.R. 2095, S. 130, S. 304, and S. 459, 113th Cong., 1st sess., July 19, 2013. 89 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(2). Congressional Research Service 14 link to page 32 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Further, donor acknowledgement applies to al commemorative works dedicated after January 1, 2010,⁹⁰90 is to be paid for by the sponsor,⁹¹91 and is subject to the permission of the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of General Services.⁹²92 The acknowledgment also must

(A) be limited to an appropriate statement or credit recognizing the contribution;

(B) be displayed in a form in accordance with National Park Service and General Services Administration guidelines;

(C) be displayed for a period of up to 10 years, with the display period to be commensurate with the level of the contribution, as determined in accordance with the plan and guidelines described in subparagraph (B);

(D) be freestanding; and

(E) (E) not be affixed to—(i) any landscape feature at the commemorative work; or (ii) any object in a museum collection.⁹³

93 Establishing a Memorial in the Nation'’s Capital

The standards for consideration and placement of commemorative works in areas administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and the General Services Administration (GSA) in the District of Columbia and its environs are contained in the Commemorative Works Act (CWA) of 1986, as amended.⁹⁴94 The following sections examine how commemorative works are established and maintained.

maintained. Pursuant to the CWA, the National Park Service (NPS) has developed a 24-step outline to guide groups interested in creating a commemorative work in the District of Columbia. The NPS outline guides initiation, legislation, site election and approval, design approval, fundraising, construction, and dedication of commemorative works.⁹⁵95 In addition, groups have asked for, and been granted, extensions to their initial authorization to allowal ow additional time to complete the memorial creation process. The full guidelines from NCPC can be found inare found in Appendix B.

Initiation

Initiation Since 1986, legislation authorizing most commemorative works placed in the District of Columbia have been sponsored by non-governmental groups.⁹⁶ Sponsors interested in creating a commemorative work has authorized nongovernmental sponsors.96 Sponsors interested in creating a commemorative work 90 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(5). 91 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(3). 92 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(4). 93 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(1). 94 40 U.S.C §§8901-8909. 95 T he National Park Service 24-step outline, as provided by the National Capital Memorial Commission, September 2001, is published as Appendix A of the National Capital Planning Commission’s Museum and Master Plan, published December 2001. For more information, see National Capital Planning Commission, “ Appendix A: Steps for Establishing a Memorial in the Nation’s Capital,” Memorials and Museums Master Plan, (September 2001, updated 2006), pp. 167-168, at https://www.ncpc.gov/docs/Memorials_and_Museums_Master_Plan_full_2001.pdf#page=173. 96 T he Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial is an exception to this standard. Congress created the Eisenhower Memorial Commission to create “an appropriate permanent memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower.” Commissioners include four Senators, four Representatives, and four individuals appointed by the President ( P.L. 106-79, 113 Stat. 1274, September 30, 2000). T he Eisenhower Memorial Commission is not unlike previous commissions authorized to create Presidential commemorative works to Franklin Delano Roosevelt or T homas Jefferson, whose funds, including planning, design, and construction were appropriated by Congress. Congressional Research Service 15 link to page 34 link to page 23 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice to an individual, group, or event must find a congressional sponsor to introduce authorizing legislation.⁹⁷97 The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission offers consultative services to potential sponsors.⁹⁸

Legislation

98 Legislation The CWA provides that no "“commemorative work may be established in the District of Columbia unless specificallyspecifical y authorized by Congress."⁹⁹”99 The CWA further specifies requirements for military works and works commemorating events, individuals, or groups. For military works, the CWA requires Congress to consider legislation only for the commemoration of "“a war or similar major military conflict or a branch of the armed forces"” that has been designated as officially official y ended for at least 10 years.¹⁰⁰100 Works proposed to commemorate a limited military engagement or a unit of the armed forces are not allowed.¹⁰¹al owed.101 For works commemorating events, individuals, or groups, the CWA specifies that Congress will wil not consider legislation " “until after the 25^th 25th anniversary of the event, death of the individual, or death of the last surviving member of the group."¹⁰²

group.”102 Legislation authorizing a commemorative work typicallytypical y contains three sections: authorization to establish the work, payment of expenses, and deposit of excess funds. Authorizing legislation does not designate a specific site or design for the commemorative work, and additional information, such as findings, can be included, but is not a standard part of most commemorative works legislation.¹⁰³103 Once introduced, legislation is generallygeneral y referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources¹⁰⁴ Natural Resources104 and to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.¹⁰⁵

105 Following authorization, additional legislation legislation is required to designate a commemorative work in Area I (see map inin Appendix C). For example, the Adams Memorial Foundation was authorized to consider sites in Area I by Congress following the recommendation of the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission and the Secretary of the Interior.¹⁰⁶

106 97 40 U.S.C. §8902(a)(4). “The term ‘sponsor’ means a public agency, or an individual, group or organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3)] and exempt from tax under section 501 (a) of such Code [26 U.S.C. §501(a)], and which is authorized by Congress to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs.” 98 National Capital Planning Commission, “Appendix A: Steps for Establishing a Memorial in the Nation’s Capital,” Mem orials and Museum s Master Plan, (September 2001, updated 2006), pp. 167 -168, at https://www.ncpc.gov/docs/Memorials_and_Museums_Master_Plan_full_2001.pdf#page=173. For more information on NCMAC, see National Park Service, “National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC,” at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkID=463&projectID=44217. 99 40 U.S.C. §8903(a)(1). 100 40 U.S.C. §8903(b). 101 Ibid. 102 2 U.S.C. §8903(c). 103 For example, the Adams Memorial authorizing legislation (P.L. 107-62, 115 Stat. 411, November 5, 2001) contains 10 findings by Congress on the importance of creating a memo rial to the Adams family. 104 House Rule X, clause 1 (l)(10). U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives One Hundred Eleventh Congress, prepared by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 110 th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 110-162 (Washington: GPO, 2009), §731, p. 455. 105 Senate Rule XXV, clause 1 (g). U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Manual Containing the Standing Rules, Orders, Laws, and Resolutions Affecting the Business of the United States Senate, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Doc. 110-1 (Washington: GPO, 2008), §25.1(g), p. 29. 106 P.L. 107-315, 116 Stat. 2763, December 2, 2002. For more information about Area I, see “ Designation of Areas of Congressional Research Service 16 link to page 23 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Commemorative Works Authorization Commemorative Works Authorization

The first section of most commemorative works authorization billsbil s includes specific mention of the group authorized to establish the memorial; and the individual, event, or group that is to be honored. The legislation also typicallytypical y provides for the memorial'’s general location (i.e., in the District of Columbia or its environs), but does not provide for a specific site location. For example, the authorization language for the group authorized to create the memorial to President John Adams and his family stated,

Congress approves the location for the commemorative work to honor former President John Adams and his legacy, as authorized by P.L. 107-62 (115 Stat. 411), within Area I as described in section 8908 of title 40, United States Code, subject to the limitation in section 2.¹⁰⁷

107 Payment of Expenses

Other sections of commemorative works authorization billsbil s provide the sponsor with authority to accept contributions and requires the group to make payment for all al expenses related to site selection, design, and construction of the memorial.¹⁰⁸108 Further, the CWA requires that the sponsor must donate an amount "“equal to 10 percent of the total estimated cost of construction to offset the costs of perpetual maintenance and preservation"¹⁰⁹”109 of the commemorative work.

Many statutes authorizing commemorative works also contain a statement specificallyspecifical y prohibiting the use of federal funds. For example, the payment language for the Benjamin Banneker memorial stated,

The Washington Interdependence Council shall be solely responsible for the acceptance of contributions for, and payment of the expenses of, the establishment of the memorial. No federal funds may be used to pay any expense of the establishment of the memorial.¹¹⁰

110 Deposit of Excess Funds

Legislation to authorize a commemorative work often provides for disposal of excess funds raised by the authorized group. Excess funds raised are often directed to be delivered to the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service for deposit with the National Park Foundation as provided for pursuant to 40 U.S.C. §8906 (b). For example, the excess funds language for the Brigadier General Francis Marion memorial stated,

If, If, upon payment of all expenses of the establishment all expenses of the establishment of the commemorative work authorized by subsection (b) (including the maintenance and preservation amount provided for in section 8906(b) of title 40, United States Code), or upon expiration of the authority for for the commemorative work under chapter 89 of title 40, of title 40, United States Code, there remains a balance of funds received for the establishment of that commemorative work, the Marion Park Project, a committee of the Palmetto Conservation Foundation, shall shal Washington, DC” 107 P.L. 107-315, 116 Stat. 2763, December 2, 2002. Section 2 of the act reiterated that the work was not to be placed in the Reserve. 108 T he CWA requires that groups authorized to construct a memorial demonstrate that it “has available sufficient amounts to complete construction of the project” [40 U.S.C. §8906(a)(4)]. 109 40 U.S.C. §8906(b)(1). 110 P.L. 105-355, §512, 112 Stat. 3266, November 6, 1998. Congressional Research Service 17 link to page 23 link to page 34 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice transmit the amount of the balance to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the account provided for in section 8906 (b)(1) of such title.¹¹¹

111 Extension of Statutory Authority

In some instances, Congress has chosen to extend the legislative authority for a commemorative work. All Al authorized commemorative works are provided a seven-year period to complete the work unless the group has a construction permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) or the Administrator of the General Services Administration (Administrator).¹¹²112 In some circumstances, an administrative extension may be provided by the Secretary or Administrator if final design approvals have been received from the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission of Fine Arts and 75% of the amount estimated to be required has been raised.¹¹³

113 If an authorized commemorative works legislative authority expires, Congress may extend that authority by amending the initial authorizing statute. For example, the Adams Memorial Foundation was initially initial y authorized to create a commemorative work to the Adams family in 2001.¹¹⁴ 2001.114 In 2009, Congress extended the authority until September 30, 2010,¹¹⁵115 and in 2010, it was further extended until December 2, 2013.¹¹⁶116 The amendment to the legislative authority stated,

stated, Section 1(c) of P.L. 107-62 is amended by striking "“accordance with"” and all al that follows through the period at the end and inserting the following: "“according with chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code, except that any reference in section 8903(e) of that chapter to the expiration at the end of or extension beyond a seven-year period shall shal be considered to be a reference to an expiration on or extension beyond December 2, 2013."¹¹⁷

”117 Site Selection and Approval

Based on the criteria discussed below in "“Designation of Areas of Washington, DC,"” the Secretary or the Administrator may, after consultation with the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission,¹¹⁸118 recommend the location of a commemorative work in either Area I or Area II (depicted inin Figure C-1). If the Secretary or Administrator agrees with the recommendation and finds that the subject of the commemorative work is of preeminent historical and lasting significance to the nation, he or she will wil recommend placement in Area I and notify Congress of his or her determination. The location of a commemorative work in Area I shall shal be deemed disapproved unless it has been approved by law within 150 calendar days.¹¹⁹ If 119 If 111 P.L. 110-229, 122 Stat. 782, May 8, 2008. 112 40 U.S.C. §8903(e)(1). 113 40 U.S.C. §8903(e)(2). If a commemorative work has been authorized for Area I, the legislation authorizing the site serves as a default extension to the sponsor group’s authority. 114 P.L. 107-62, 115 Stat. 411, November 5, 2011. 115 P.L. 111-88, §130, 123 Stat. 2933, October 30, 2009. 116 P.L. 111-169, 124 Stat. 1192, May 24, 2010. 117 Ibid. 118 40 U.S.C. §8905(a). Members of the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission include the Director, National Park Service (chair); Architect of the Capitol; Chair, American Battle Monuments Commission; Chair, Commission of Fine Arts; Chair, National Capital Planning Commission; Mayor, District of Columbia; Commissioner, Public Building Service, General Services Administration; and Secretary of Defense. 119 40 U.S.C. §8908(b)(1). Congressional Research Service 18 link to page 34 link to page 19 link to page 34 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice the commemorative work is of lasting historical significance it may be located in Area II, and the commemorative work is of lasting historical significance it may be located in Area II, and Congress does not require notification, nor is further legislation needed.¹²⁰

120 Designation of Areas of Washington, DC

The CWA divides the District of Columbia and its environs into three sections for the placement of memorials: the Reserve, Area I, and Area II. For each area the standards for memorial placement are specified in law and enforced through a requirement for congressional approval of monument location through the passage of a joint resolution. For a map of the District marked with these sections, seesee Appendix C.

The Reserve

The Reserve, created by P.L. 108-126, is defined as "“the great cross-axis of the MallMal , which generally general y extends from the United States Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial, and from the White House to the Jefferson Memorial"¹²¹”121 and "is a substantially“is a substantial y completed work of civic art."¹²² ”122 Within this area, "“to preserve the integrity of the Mall Mal … the siting of new commemorative works is prohibited."¹²³”123 Works authorized prior to the enactment of P.L. 108-126 in November 2003—the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial is the only such work—continue to be eligible for placement within the Reserve,¹²⁴124 pursuant to the process established by the National Park Service and outlined below under "“Establishing a Memorial in the Nation'’s Capital."

.” Area I

Area I is reserved for commemorative works of "“preeminent historical and lasting significance to the United States."¹²⁵”125 Shown on Figure C-1, Area I is roughly bounded by the West Front of the Capitol; Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. (between 1^st and 15^th1st and 15th Street, N.W.); Lafayette Square; 17^th 17th Street, N.W. (between H Street and Constitution Avenue); Constitution Avenue, N.W. (between 17^th and 23^rd17th and 23rd Streets); the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts waterfront area; Theodore Roosevelt Island; National Park Service land in Virginia surrounding the George Washington Memorial Parkway; the 14^th14th Street Bridge area; and Maryland Avenue, S.W., from Maine Avenue, S.W., to Independence Avenue S.W., at the U.S. Botanic Garden.

Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. §8908, the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of General Services, after seeking the advice of the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, can recommend that a memorial be placed in Area I. If either the Secretary or the Administrator recommends placement in Area I, he or she must notify the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.¹²⁶126 If the recommendation is not enacted into law within 150 calendar days, the recommendation is not adopted and the memorial sponsor must consider sites in Area II.

Area II is reserved for "subjects of lasting historical significance to the American people."¹²⁷ Shown on Figure C-1, Area II encompasses all 120 40 U.S.C. §8908(b)(2). 121 40 U.S.C. §8902. 122 P.L. 108-126, §202(a), 117 Stat. 1348, November 17, 2003. 123 40 U.S.C. §8901 note; and 40 U.S.C. §8908(c). T he placement of museums and visitors centers is also prohibited under the CWA [40 U.S.C. §8905 (b)(5) and 40 U.S.C. §8908(c)]. 124 P.L. 108-126, 117 Stat. 1349, November 17, 2003; 40 U.S.C. §8901 note. 125 40 U.S.C. §8908(b)(1). 126 Ibid. T he Secretary or the Administrator notifies Congress by sending a letter to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. Congressional Research Service 19 link to page 34 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Area II Area II is reserved for “subjects of lasting historical significance to the American people.”127 Shown on Figure C-1, Area II encompasses al sections of the District of Columbia and its sections of the District of Columbia and its environs not part of the Reserve or Area I.

Congressional Approval of Memorial Site Location

In considering commemorative works legislation, both the House Committee on Resources and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources¹²⁸Resources128 solicit the views of the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission.¹²⁹129 The Secretary or the Administrator likewise seeks the advice of the commission prior to recommending a location for a commemorative work.¹³⁰

130 For example, the joint resolution approving the location of the Vietnam Women'’s Memorial stated,

stated, Whereas section 6(a) of the Act entitled "“An Act to provide standards for placement of commemorative works on certain Federal Lands in the District of Columbia of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes,"” approved November 14, 1986 (100 Stat. 3650, 3651), provides that the location of a commemorative work in the area described therein as area I shall be deemed disapproved unless, not later than one hundred and fifty days after the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of General Services notifies the Congress of his determination that the commemorative work should be located in area I, the location is approved by law;

Whereas the Act approved November 15, 1988 (102 Stat. 3922), authorizes the Vietnam Women' Women’s Memorial Project, Incorporated, to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor women who served in the Armed Forces of the United States in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era;

Whereas section 3 of the said Act of November 15, 1988, states the sense of the Congress that it would be most fitting and appropriate to place the memorial within the two and two-tenths acre site of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in the District of Columbia which is within area I; and

Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified the Congress of his determination that the memorial authorized by the said Act of November 15, 1988, should be located in area I: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States Of America in Congress assembled, That the location of a commemorative work to honor women who served in the Armed Forces of the United States in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, authorized by the Act approved November 15, 1988 (102 Stat. 3922), in the area described in the Act approved November 14, 1986 (100 Stat. 3650), as area I, is hereby approved.¹³¹

131 127 40 U.S.C. §8908(b)(2). 128 Prior to the 104th Congress, the committees of jurisdiction were the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. At the outset of the 104 th Congress, House jurisdiction was transferred to the Committee on Resources. “ Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, part 1 (January 4, 1995), p. H27. 129 40 U.S.C. §8903(d). 130 40 U.S.C. §8905(a)(1). 131 P.L. 101-187, 103 Stat. 1350, November 28, 1989. Congressional Research Service 20 link to page 21 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Design Approval Design Approval

Following site selection, the memorial planners begin the process of hiring a designer and work with National Park Service (NPS) to get plans approved by the NCPC and the Commission of Fine Arts.¹³²132 Memorial sponsors, in the development of a concept(s), are to consult with the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, which in turn provides advice to the Secretary or to Members of Congress.¹³³

133 Once the memorial sponsor has chosen a designer and selected a concept design plan, those plans are presented to the NPS or General Services Administration, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the NCPC. In considering the plans, these entities are guided by several criteria established by the CWA. The design reviews include, but are not limited to, the memorial'’s surroundings,¹³⁴ location,¹³⁵ materials,¹³⁶134 location,135 materials,136 landscape features,¹³⁷137 site specific guidelines,¹³⁸138 and the prohibition of donor contributions.¹³⁹139 Final designs and specifications are completed in coordination with NPS or GSA (as appropriate).¹⁴⁰

Fundraising

140 Fundraising As discussed above in "“Payment of Expenses,"” authorizing legislation often contains a statement that the commemorative work is to be created pursuant to the CWA and that the use of federal funds is not generallygeneral y authorized or appropriated for the creation of commemorative works. Subsequently, sponsor groups are statutorily authorized to raise funds for the completion of the commemorative work.¹⁴¹

141 Fundraising for the creation of commemorative works can sometimes be difficult. In some instances, Congress has appropriated federal funds to assist with the creation of the commemorative work. For example, in 2005, Congress appropriated $10 millionmil ion to the Secretary of the Interior "“for necessary expenses for the Memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr."¹⁴² The appropriation was designated as matching funds and available only after being matched by non-federal contributions.¹⁴³

Construction

The Commemorative Works Act”142 The 132 In addition, the National Capital Planning Commission solicits comment from the DC State Historic Preservation Office. For more information, see National Capital Planning Commission, “Appendix A: Steps for Establishing a Memorial in the Nation’s Capital,” Memorials and Museums Master Plan (September 2001, updated 2006). On Department of Interior properties, the National Park Service, on behalf of memorial planners, requests design approvals from the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts. 133 40 U.S.C. §8905(a)(1). 134 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(1). “T o the maximum extent possible, a commemorative work shall be located in surroundings that are relevant to the subject of the work.” 135 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(2). “A commemorative work shall be located so that – (A) it does not interfere with, or encroach on, an existing commemorative work; and (B) to the maximum extent practicable, it protects open space, existing public space, and cultural and natural resources.” 136 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(3). “A commemorative work shall be constructed of durable material suitable to an outdoor environment.” 137 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(4). “Landscape features of commemorative works shall be compatible with the climate.” 138 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(6). “T he National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts may develop such criteria or guidelines specific to each site that are mutually agreed upon to ensure that the design of the commemorative work carries out the purposes of this chapter [40 U.S.C. §§8901-8909].” 139 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(7). “Donor contributions to commemorative works shall not be acknowledged in any manner as part of the commemorative work or its site.” 140 National Capital Planning Commission, “Appendix A: Steps for Establishing a Memorial in the Nation’s Capital,” Mem orials and Museum s Master Plan (September 2001, updated 2006). 141 40 U.S.C. §8906(a)(4). 142 P.L. 109-54, §134, 119 Stat. 526, August 2, 2005. Congressional Research Service 21 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice appropriation was designated as matching funds and available only after being matched by nonfederal contributions.143 Construction The CWA specifies four criteria that the Secretary or the Administrator must determine prior to specifies four criteria that the Secretary or the Administrator must determine prior to issuing a construction permit:

• 1. 1. Approval of site and design by the Secretary or Administrator, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission of Fine Arts
• 2. 2. Consultation of "“knowledgeable individuals qualified qualified in the field of preservation and maintenance … to determine structural soundness and durability of the commemorative work and to ensure that the commemorative work meets high professional standards"¹⁴⁴
• 3. ”144 3. Submission of construction documents by authorized memorial sponsor to the Secretary or Administrator
• 4. 4. Proof that sufficient funds exist to complete project construction¹⁴⁵
• 5. construction145 5. In advance of receiving a permit, the sponsor must donate an amount equal to 10% of the estimated cost of construction to offset the costs of perpetual maintenance and preservation146 Memorial construction can begin once the Secretary or Administrator issues a construction permit. Dedication Following the memorial’maintenance and preservation¹⁴⁶

Dedication

Following the memorial's completion, the sponsor schedules a dedication and transfer ceremony to NPS or GSA. The President has sometimes attended past dedicationsto NPS or GSA. Past dedications have sometimes been attended by the President, but no specific ceremony requirements exist. For example, President George W. Bush dedicated the World War II Memorial in 2004. In his remarks, President Bush briefly commented on the memorial creation process and on the importance of honoring World War II veterans.

Raising up this Memorial took skill and vision and patience. Now the work is done, and it is a fitting is a fitting tribute, open and expansive like America, grand and enduring like the achievements we honor. The years of World War II were a hard, heroic, and gallant time in the life of our country. When it mattered most, an entire generation of Americans showed the finest qualities of our Nation and of humanity. On this day, in their honor, we will raise the American flag over a monument that will stand as long as America itself.¹⁴⁷

147 In November 2000, Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of Commerce Norman Mineta represented President Bill Bil Clinton at the dedication ceremony for the National Japanese-American Memorial to Patriotism during World War II. In a statement following the dedication, 143 P.L. 109-54, §134, 119 Stat. 527, August 2, 2005. 144 T he determination of soundness of the commemorative work is a review of the materials to be used for the memorial and the memorial’s landscaping to ensure they are compatible with the climate. 145 40 U.S.C. §8906(a). 146 40 U.S.C. §8906(b)(1). 147 U.S. President (George W. Bush), “Remarks at the Dedication of the National World War II Memoria l,” Daily Com pilation of Presidential Docum ents (May 29, 2004), p. 970. Congressional Research Service 22 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 27 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice President Clinton recognized the importance of the memorial and the presence of his Cabinet secretaries.

secretaries. Earlier today America honored the patriotism of Japanese-Americans during World War II with the dedication of the National Japanese-American Memorial in the Nation's Capital. Attorney General Janet Reno and Commerce Secretary Norman Mineta ’s Capital. Attorney General Janet Reno and Commerce Secretary Norman Mineta joined distinguished members of the of the Japanese-American community and Americans of all ancestries in reminding us of a time when this county lost sight of the very foundations of democracy it was defending abroad. This Nation must never forget the difficult lessons of the Japanese-American internment camps during World War II and the inspirational lessons of patriotism in the face of that injustice.¹⁴⁸

148 Authorized Memorials

Since the passage of the CWA in 1986, Congress has authorized 3338 memorials to be constructed on federal lands in the District of Columbia or its environs.¹⁴⁹149 Of these works, 1820 have been dedicated and completed—1517 under the auspices of the CWA and 3 outside the CWA process¹⁵⁰—11process150—9 are in-progress, and 48 have lapsed authorizations, and 1 had its authorization repealed.151 .¹⁵¹

Table 1 provides the number of memorials authorized per Congress, pursuant to the CWA, since the 99^th99th Congress (1985-1987).

Both memorials are included in this total, as P.L. 112-239 created a new authorization for the memorial. Memorials authorized by Congress since the passage of CWA have focused on a variety of individuals, groups, and events. Among the individuals recognized have been Francis Scott Key, George Mason, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Groups commemorated have included Black Revolutionary War Patriots, Victims of Communism, and Ukrainian Famine-Genocide Victims. Still Stil others have sought to memorialize events including the Korean War, World War II, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "’s “I Have a Dream Speech."” Table 2 lists memorials authorized by Congress since 1986.

e. P.L. 115-141 incorporated S. 1460, §7130 (115th Congress; Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017) to authorize modifications to the Second Division Memorial. Congressional Research Service 25 link to page 30 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Appendix A. Summary of Original Commemorative Works Act Provisions

The Commemorative Works Act (CWA), as enacted, contained 10 sections covering the purposes of the billbil , definitions, congressional authorization for memorials, creation of the National Capital Memorial Commission, conditions for memorial placement in different parts of the District of Columbia, site design and approval, issuance of construction permits, creation of a temporary memorial site, and other administrative provisions.¹⁵² Table A-1 provides a summary of the original provisions contained in the CWA for each section of the bill.

Congressional Research Service 27 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Appendix B. Steps for Establishing a Memorial in the Nation'’s Capital

In 1987, the National Park Service created a 24-step outline of the commemorative works process. In 2001, the National Capital Planning Commission published the outline for establishing a monument or memorial in the District of Columbia as part of the Museums and Memorials Master Plan.¹⁵³153 The 24- steps, reprinted verbatim below, are designed to guide interested groups and help ensure appropriate legislation, site selection, design approval, fundraising, and construction.

• 1. Memorial 1. Memorial sponsor seeks National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) assistance to review the requirements and process established by the Commemorative Works Act (CWA)¹⁵⁴154 and its applicability to the proposed memorial.
• 2. Memorial 2. Memorial sponsor seeks a Senator or Representative who is willingwil ing to draft and introduce a bill bil to authorize establishment of the memorial.
• 3. 3. Staffs of NCMAC, Member of Congress who will wil introduce the bill, and bil , and authorizing committees draft a bill bil that conforms to the provisions of the CWA.
• 4. 4. Congressman and/or Senator introduce bill bil authorizing the memorial and designating the sponsor as the entity responsible for its erection at no cost to the federal government.
• 5. NCMAC 5. NCMAC considers proposed authorizing legislation to establish its view pursuant to CWA.¹⁵⁵
• 6. 155 6. Chairmen of House and Senate authorizing Subcommittees on National Parks solicit views of NCMAC, may hold hearings on proposed authorizing legislation, and take action on a bill bil before sending it to the full House and Senate for a vote on the bill.
• 7. bil . 7. Congress passes billbil , President signs bill bil into law, providing memorial sponsor 7 years in which to begin construction of memorial in Area II.
• 8. Memorial 8. Memorial sponsor organizes the structure of the entity that will wil establish the memorial and beings planning.
• 9. 9. The memorial sponsor may submit to the Secretary a request to be authorized to consider sites in Area I. The Secretary seeks the advice of NCMAC to determine whether the memorial warrants placement in Area I. Based on the advice of NCMAC, the secretary notifies Congress of a determination that the subject is of preeminent and lasting historical significance¹⁵⁶significance156 so that Congress can consider passage of legislation authorizing an Area I location for enactment by the President.¹⁵⁷
• 10. Memorial 157 153 National Capital Planning Commission, “Steps for Establishing a Memorial in the Nation’s Capital,” Memorials and Museum s Master Plan, September 2001, updated 2006, pp. 167 -168, at https://www.ncpc.gov/docs/Memorials_and_Museums_Master_Plan_full_2001.pdf#page=173. 154 40 U.S.C. §§8901-8909. 155 40 U.S.C. §8903(d). 156 40 U.S.C. §8908(b). 157 If legislation to authorize the commemorative work within Area I is not passed with the 1 50-calendar day period, Area I sites can no longer be considered by the sponsor group. Congressional Research Service 28 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice 10. Memorial sponsor works with NPS staff to identify potential Area II sites (may sponsor works with NPS staff to identify potential Area II sites (may include Area I if authorized) and prepare alternative site study and accompany preliminary environmental analysis.
• 11. Memorial sponsor, for sites within Area II, or Area I if authorized, submits alternative site study and accompanying preliminary environmental analysis to NPS for approval of preferred site and consultation with NCMAC.
• 12. NPS submits recommended site and environmental document to the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) for approval. NPS initiates Section 106 consultation on its recommendation of site with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).
• 13. After site approval by NCPC and CFA and in consultation with the SHPO, the design process begins in accordance with any approved design guidelines.
• 14. Memorial sponsors select a designer or initiate a design competition.
• 15. Memorial sponsor selects preferred design concept and meets with NPS to discuss issues that design may present. After possible refinements, sponsor submits the design concept and draft environmental assessment to the NPS.
• 16. NPS reviews design concept and, upon concurrence, submits to NCPC and CFA with appropriate environmental document for approval.
• 17. Memorial sponsor, in close coordination with NPS, refines preliminary design concept on the basis of NCPC, CFA, and SHPO comments and submits preliminary design to NPS who, upon approval, submits it to NCPC and CFA for approval.
• 18. Memorial sponsor, in close coordination with NPS, refines preliminary design on the basis of comments and submits final design to NPS, who upon approval, submits it to NCPC and CFA for approval.
• 19. Memorial design team completes final drawings and specifications in close coordination with NPS.
• 20. Memorial sponsor completes fund-raising.
• 21. Memorial sponsor submits final drawing and specifications, cost estimate and evidence of funds on hand plus 10 percent cash payment of design and construction costs for maintenance to NPS.
• 22. NPS issues a construction permit on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior which constitutes final approval by the Secretary and the start of construction.
• 23. Memorial Sponsor begins construction and preparation of operation, maintenance, and preservation plans for the memorial.
• 24. Memorial is dedicated and transferred to NPS for management with accompanying as-built operation, maintenance, and preservation plans.

Congressional Research Service 29 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Appendix C. District of Columbia Map with Area Designations

Designations Figure C-1. Commemorative Areas Washington, DC and Environs

Source: National Park Service Map 869-86501 B (June 24, 2003).

Congressional Research Service 30 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice Appendix D. Entities Responsible for Memorials in the District of Columbia

The process established by the Commemorative Works Act (CWA) to create a commemorative work in the District of Columbia involves the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, the National Capital Planning Commission, the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office, and sometimes the American Battle Monuments Commission.¹⁵⁸ Commission.158 Each entity is highlighted below.

National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission

The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission was created in 2001 to "“advise the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of General Services (as appropriate) on policy and procedures for establishment of, and proposals to establish, commemorative works in the District of Columbia and its environs and on other matters concerning commemorative works in the Nation'Nation’s Capital as the Commission considers appropriate."¹⁵⁹”159 The commission is comprised of eight members160eight members¹⁶⁰ and meets at least two times a year to "“examine … each memorial proposal for conformance to the Commemorative Works Act, and make … recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator and to Members and Committees of Congress. The Commission also serves as a source of information for persons seeking to establish memorials in Washington, DC and its environs."¹⁶¹

environs.”161 U.S. Commission of Fine Arts

In 1910, Representative Samuel McCall McCal introduced a billbil , H.R. 19962, to create a commission on fine arts.¹⁶²162 Reported by the Committee on the Library,¹⁶³163 the House debated the bill bil on February 9. During the debate, Representative McCall McCal explained why a permanent entity was needed to govern art within the District of Columbia.

We have had a very haphazard development of art in the city of Washington. We have had our streets and our squares filled up by art objects that are not always art. We have had commissions appointed—temporary, sporadic commissions—one commission to operate 158 For more information on memorials outside of Washington, DC, see CRS Report R45741, Memorials and Com m em orative Works Outside Washington, DC: Background, Federal Role, and Options for Congress, by Jacob R. Straus and Laura B. Comay. 159 40 U.S.C. §8904(c). T he commission was initially created in 1986 and called the National Capital Memorial Commission. For more information on the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, see National Park Service, “National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC),” at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkID=463&projectID=44217. 160 T he National Capital Memorial Advisory commission consists of the Director of the National Park Service, the Architect of the Capitol, the Chair of the American Battle Monuments Commission, the Chair of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, the Chair of the National Capital Planning Commission, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Commissioner of the Public Building Service of the General Services Administration, and the Secretary of Defense [40 U.S.C. §8904(a)]. 161 Department of the Interior, “National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission,” 75 Federal Register 68823, November 9, 2010. 162 “Public Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials,” Congressional Record, vol. 45, part 2 (February 2, 1910), p. 1417. 163 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, Commission of Fine Artscommissions appointed—temporary, sporadic commissions—one commission to operate upon one statue and another commission to operate upon another, and the result is that we have had no uniform or well thought out development.¹⁶⁴

In 1924, Congress established the National Capital Park and Planning Commission to implement the McMillan Plan for the District of Columbia (see Figure 2).¹⁷⁷ Pursuant to the act of June 6, 1924, the commission was to "preserve the flow of water in Rock Creek, to prevent pollution of Rock Creek and the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, to preserve forests and natural scenery in and about Washington, and to provide for the comprehensive systematic, and continuous development of the park, parkway, and playground system of the National Capital."¹⁷⁸