Order Code RS20912
May 15, 2001
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Legislation to Expedite the Construction of
the World War II Memorial in the District of
Columbia
name redacted
Legislative Attorney
American Law DIvision
Summary
Legislation has been introduced in the 107th Congress which would have the effect
of expediting the construction of the previously authorized World War II memorial in the
District of Columbia. This report examines the proposed legislation.
Background
The Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act provided for the codification
of the existing authority and for the expansion of the authority of the American Battle
Monuments Commission (“ABMC”) to construct a World War II memorial (“memorial”)
in the District of Columbia.1 The existing legislation provides for a comprehensive
framework for the establishment of the memorial.
Analysis
Legislation has been introduced in the 107th Congress which would have the effect
of expediting the commencement of the ABMC’s construction of the memorial.2 Both
bills are substantially similar and they would add a new section to the existing memorial
authorization legislation which would direct the ABMC to commence construction of the
memorial in an “expeditious manner.” The provisions of the bills and their substantive
differences are examined below.
Section one of the bills provides that the ABMC shall expeditiously proceed with the
memorial construction. There is a substantive difference in how the bills address this issue.
Subsection (1) of S. 580 states that the ABMC shall proceed with the construction of the
1 Pub. L. 106-117, 113 Stat. 1576, codified at 36 U.S.C. § 2113.
2 S. 580, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (2001); H.R. 1696, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (2001).
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
memorial “without regard to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”)(42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Commemorative Works Act (“CWA”)(40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.),
or any other law pertaining to the siting or design for the World War II memorial.” By
contrast, subsection (1) of H.R. 1696 provides that the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Commemorative Works Act, and “all other laws
pertaining to the siting and design for the World War II memorial having been met,” that
the Commission shall expeditiously proceed with the memorial construction. Hence, the
Senate bill excludes compliance with NEPA, CWA, and any other legislation concerning
the memorial. The House bill apparently presumes that the requirements of NEPA, CWA,
and other relevant legislation have been met.3
Subsection (2) is almost identical in both bills. It provides that the construction of
the memorial shall be consistent with: 1) the final architectural submission made to the
Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission on June 30, 2000,
as supplemented on November 2, 2000; and 2) such reasonable construction permit
requirements as may be required by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
National Park Service.
Subsection (3) is similar in both bills. This section provides that the decision to
construct the memorial at the dedicated site, and the decisions regarding the design for the
memorial, are final and conclusive and shall not be subject to further administrative or
judicial review. The House bill adds the provision that “decisions implementing this
subsection” shall not be subject to administrative or judicial review.
3 It is beyond the scope of this report to determine whether or not the requirements of the relevant
legislation have been met.
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.