Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

March 10, 2015 – May 8, 2023 R41658

Commemorative Works in the District of
May 8, 2023
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

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 the location of a memorial is on federal 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 GSA, and several other federal entities, including the National Capital Planning Commission (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 GSA provide recommendations to Congress on the placement of
works within Area I.
Pursuant to the CWA, the NPS 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 authorized by Congress, the CWA provides a seven-year authorization for all commemorative works (with an
administrative extension available). Sponsor groups, however, sometimes ask Congress to extend a memorial’s authorization
beyond the initial period. Additionally, in some circumstances, groups ask Congress to provide appropriations to assist a
sponsor group’s fundraising. 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.

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
more than 100 other memorials for placement on federal land in the District of Columbia.2 Prior
to 1986, however, statutory criteria for authorizing commemorative works, including memorials,
did not exist.3 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 such 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
Although a general practice for the commemorative work creation process existed by the mid-20th
century, impetus for a statutory commemorative work creation program was not realized until the
1980s.5 In 1986, Congress debated and passed the Commemorative Works Act to guide the
memorial creation process in the District of Columbia.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 location 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. The 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].” The 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, the statue was dedicated at Washington Circle (James M. Goode, Washington Sculpture: A Cultural History of
Outdoor Sculpture in the Nation’s Capital [Baltimore, MD: The 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 Columbia 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 Appendix 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 Koby and Jain, “Memorializing Our Nation’s Heroes,” 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
Creating the District of Columbia
On July 16, 1790, President George Washington signed 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 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 of Georgetown.9 After ordering
surveys of both areas,10 Washington chose the confluence of the Potomac River and Anacostia
Rivers as the capital site.11 Subsequently, he chose Major Pierre Charles L’Enfant, who had just
completed a successful refurbishment of Federal Hall in New York City,12 as the city’s architect13
and commissioned Major Andrew Ellicott to survey the 10-square-mile district.14
L’Enfant Plan
Major L’Enfant was charged with designing the federal city, including spaces for the President’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 Within the federal precinct, L’Enfant’s plan
deemphasized any single part of the federal government. Political scientist James Sterling Young,
in his book The Washington Community, describes L’Enfant’s vision in creating the federal
capital.

7 For more information on memorial construction outside of the District of Columbia, see CRS Report R45741,
Memorials and Commemorative 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 Monuments and the Antiquities Act, by Carol
Hardy Vincent.
8 1 Stat. 130, July 16, 1790, as amended by 1 Stat. 214, March 3, 1791. The 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 Commission, ed. Frederick Gutheim and Antoinette J. Lee, 2nd ed. (Baltimore, MD: The
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 Thomas 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, “The Washington City Canal,”
Records of the Columbia 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 Army (New York: Three 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

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
Figure 1. L’Enfant Plan for Washington, DC (1792)

Source: National Park Service, “Plate II. L’Enfant Plan as Modified by Andrew El icott, 1792.” at
http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/ncr/designing-capital/plates.html.
As depicted in 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.17 In describing the decision to keep the constitutional centers
of powers separated, L’Enfant “argued that the distance between the two buildings [the
President’s house and the Capitol] was not all 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 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

the propriety of Committee waiting on him in carriage should his palace be even contiguous to
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.19 Following Congress’s move
to the District in 1800,20 proposals were introduced to retrocede (return) portions of the District
south of the Potomac River to Virginia.21 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 to be, necessary for that purpose…” and passed legislation returning Alexandria to Virginia.
President James Polk signed the bill into law on July 9, 1846.22
McMillan Plan
For nearly a century, Congress and city planners ignored many elements of L’Enfant’s plan for
Washington, DC, until a new call for planning was developed to celebrate the city’s 100th
anniversary in 1900.23 Led by Senator James McMillan, the effort to review and create a new
comprehensive plan for the District of Columbia was undertaken by the Senate Park
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,25 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

18 Frederick Gutheim and Antoinette J. Lee, Worth of the Nation: Washington, DC, from L'Enfant to the National
Capital Planning Commission, 2nd ed. (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), p. 25.
19 J. Valerie Fifer, “Washington, D.C.: The 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. The Sixth Congress reconvened for its
second session in the District of Columbia in November 1800. For more information, see James Sterling Young, The
Washington Community: 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, “The 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, “The 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: The Forgotten Career of Senator James McMillan of
Michigan,” Michigan Historical Review, vol. 28, no. 2 (Fall 2002), p. 98.
24 The McMillan plan is considered to be part of the larger “City Beautiful Movement.” The 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 Movement (Baltimore, MD: The 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 commission to study
the “arrangement of public buildings in Washington and the development of a comprehensive park system.” The 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
Columbia, 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 McMillan Commission plan
examined all aspects of L’Enfant’s original design and made recommendations to return the
monumental core of the city, particularly the Mall, to the intent of L’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 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
Figure 2 shows the McMillan Commission plan for the National Mall.

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 Remaking of the
American City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007); and Thomas 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
Olmsted and America in the 19th Century (New York: Scribner, 2000); and Charles Beveridge and Paul Rocheleau,
Frederick Law Olmsted: Designing the American 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
Columbia, 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)

Source: National Capital Planning Commission, “The McMil an Plan of 1901,” Images, at http://www.ncpc.gov.
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 McMillan plan included concepts for the creation of monuments within the
federal landscape. The McMillan Plan also emphasized various design features of the federal core
including the National Mall, Federal Triangle, the area that is now the Lincoln Memorial, and the
Ellipse. In recent years, the McMillan 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

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 Appendix D. The 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=
The%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 National Mall.” These
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 Trust for the National Mall, which “is the official nonprofit 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 Trust 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
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) to preserve the integrity of the comprehensive design of the L’Enfant and McMillan
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
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 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 Hughes introduced H.R. 4378 “a bill to govern the
establishment of commemorative works within the National Capital Region of the National Park
System.”34 It was 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 bill to the full committee.35 On April 23, the full committee approved H.R. 4378, and on May
5 recommended its enactment by the House.36
The committee’s report indicated that legislation was necessary because of the “numerous
groups” seeking to place additional commemorative works in the District of Columbia and the
need to strike a balance between different uses of parkland. 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

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 for 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 H.Rept. 99-574, p. 5.
37 H.Rept. 99-574, 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
supporters, linked the placement of commemorative works to the L’Enfant and McMillan plans
for the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, as Americans, we are fortunate as a nation to have a capital city specifically
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
Other Members expressed reservations about aspects of the bill. 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’s history, I also feel a balance of uses for the public lands in our Nation’s Capital
must be established shortly.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
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
provide standards for placement of commemorative works on certain federal lands in the District
of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes,”42 and H.R. 4378.43 The committee reported
H.R. 4378, replacing the House language with the text of S. 2522.44 The Senate debated H.R.
4378 on September 10 and passed the bill by voice vote.45
On September 29, the House took up H.R. 4378, agreed to the Senate amendments with a few
additional House amendments, and passed H.R. 4378, as amended, by voice vote.46 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 Establishment of Commemorative 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 Columbia 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
(continued...)
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 bill.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 bill, 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 Appendix A, provides a summary of the original provisions contained in the CWA for each
section of the bill.
Extending Legislative Authority
By 1991, Congress realized that many authorized sponsor groups were not able to complete
memorial construction in the allocated 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.50 Of the eight commemorative works authorized between the 99th
Congress (1985-1986) and the 101st Congress (1989-1990), only one, the American Armored
Force Memorial, had met the five-year deadline.51 To address this issue, Representative William
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
During the House debate, Representative Wayne Allard 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 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 Columbia,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 132, part 19 (September 29, 1986), pp. 27070-27076. The
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
requirements 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 (1986); 40 U.S.C. §8901 et seq.
49 40 U.S.C. §§8901-8909.
50 P.L. 99-652, 100 Stat. 3654 (1986).
51 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Lengthening the Period for Construction of
Commemorative Works on Federal Land in the District of Columbia, 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 information on H.R. 3169, see U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Lengthening the Period for Construction of Commemorative 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 Commemorative 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
Following debate, the House passed H.R. 3169 by voice vote.54 The Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources reported the bill on November 12,55 and the full Senate passed the measure
without debate on November 27.56 President George H.W. Bush signed the bill into law on
December 11, 1991.57
Further Extending Legislative Authority
Following the extension of authority to complete a commemorative work to seven years,58 on
August 6, 1993, Representative Nancy Johnson introduced H.R. 2947 to further extend the
legislative authority of the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation to nine years from the
date of initial enactment.59 The Committee on Natural Resources reported the bill 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
During the ensuing floor debate, Representative Bruce Vento summarized the committee’s
rationale for further extending legislative authorities of the three memorials and the necessity of
further amending the CWA.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2947 as originally introduced by Congresswoman 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 technical amendments to the Commemorative Works Act.
…The Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial, the women 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 requested an extension for the completion of their
commemorative works. This legislation extends their authorizations to 10 years—an
additional 3 years for each. I support this extension with the understanding that there will
be no further extensions.

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
Commemorative Works on Federal Land in the District of Columbia, 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 (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

As amended by the Committee on Natural Resources, 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
accountability for fundraisers so that the public’s trust is not abused.61
The House passed H.R. 2947 by voice vote,62 and it was referred in the Senate to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.63
In the Senate, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported a further amended
version of the bill that included changes to the National Capital Memorial Commission and
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’s fundraising activities were not in compliance with those standards.”64 The Senate passed
the bill, as amended, by voice vote.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.
The Senate deleted a provision in the House-passed bill authorizing the Secretary to
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 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 apply to all commemorative works authorized under the
Commemorative Works Act.66
The House passed H.R. 2947, as amended in the Senate, by a vote of 378 to 0.67 It became P.L.
103-321 on August 26, 1994.68
Creating the Reserve
After receiving several requests for the placement of memorials on the National Mall, Congress
recognized the need to preserve the L’Enfant and McMillan visions and prevent the Mall area
from being overbuilt.69 In March 2000, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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 (1994).
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.
Congressional Research Service

11

Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

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 NCPC, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), the NPS, the District of Columbia, and the
Committee of 100 on the Federal City70 all testified on proposed amendments to the CWA.71 The
proposed amendments were the result of a 1997 report to Congress by the NPS, the NCPC, and
the CFA.72
In summarizing the need for the creation of a new “reserve” area, or no-build zone, on the
National Mall, J. Carter Brown, chair of the CFA, also testified that the Reserve should have a
building moratorium to protect the National Mall 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’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 107th Congress (2001-2002), Senator Chuck Hagel introduced S. 281, the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Education Act.74 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 did not receive further consideration by the Senate.
The issue was reintroduced in the 108th Congress (2003-2004) by Representative Richard
Pombo.76 Reported by the House Committee on Resources, H.R. 1442 authorized the design and
construction of the Vietnam Visitor Center, 77 and following Senate amendment,78 contained

70 The 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 derived 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 Monuments and Memorials, hearing on the Status of Monuments and
Memorials, and New Policies that have been Adopted for Locating New Commemorative Works in and Around
Washington, DC, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., March 23, 2000, S.Hrg. 106-578 (Washington: GPO, 2000). [Hereinafter, DC
Area Monuments and Memorials].
72 U.S. Joint Task Force on Memorials, Report, at https://www.ncpc.gov/docs/
2M_Joint_Task_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 Monument 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.
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 Memorial, report to accompany H.R. 1442, 108th Cong., 1st sess., October 2, 2003, H.Rept. 108-
295 (Washington: GPO, 2003).
78 “Text of Amendments,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149 (November 5, 2003), p. S14070.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 22 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

language to amend the CWA to create a “reserve” area.79 Enacted as P.L. 108-126, a reserve area
and building moratorium were established on the National Mall.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, commemorative works have been expensive.81 Sponsor groups are often statutorily
prohibited from using federal funds to design, construct, or dedicate the monuments or
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,
contributors—especially corporate and foundation donors—request recognition for donation.
Whether groups sponsoring monuments and memorials are allowed to recognize donations could
affect the sponsor groups’ ability to raise the necessary funds.83
Donor recognition for monuments and memorials can generally 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, policies on recognizing donations differ for works authorized under the CWA and
for non-CWA monuments and memorials.

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 (2003).
81 Two recent memorials had construction costs in excess of $50 million. The 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, memorial 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 Mothers 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. Therefore, 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 Testimony 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.
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.
Congressional Research Service

13

Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

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 allowed to
recognize donors on-site. In the 113th 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.85 The law provided the sponsor group with the
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 The bill would have amended 40 U.S.C. §8905(b) to allow acknowledgement of
donor contributions, subject to several conditions. Additionally, the bill would have retroactively
applied to all memorials dedicated after January 1, 2010.87
In testimony on the bill before the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Public
Lands and Environmental Regulation, Stephen Whitesell, regional director of the National
Capital Region for the National Park Service, supported the on-site recognition of donors. He
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 donor
recognition.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 allow donor recognition “inside an ancillary 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 commemorative works dedicated after January 1,
2010,90 is to be paid for by the sponsor,91 and is subject to the permission of the Secretary of the
Interior or the Administrator of General Services.92 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;

85 P.L. 113-21, 127 Stat. 490 (2013).
86 H.R. 2395 (113th Congress), introduced June 17, 2013.
87 H.R. 2395 (113th Congress).
88 Testimony of Stephen E. Whitesell, regional director of the National Capital Region, National 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), 128 Stat. 3806 (2014).
90 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(5).
91 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(3).
92 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(4).
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 32 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

(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) not be affixed to—(i) any landscape feature at the commemorative work; or (ii) any
object in a museum collection.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.94 The following sections examine how commemorative works are established and
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.95 In addition, groups have asked for, and
been granted, extensions to their initial authorization to allow additional time to complete the
memorial creation process. The full guidelines from NCPC are found in Appendix B.
Initiation
Since 1986, legislation authorizing most commemorative works in the District of Columbia has
authorized nongovernmental sponsors.96 Sponsors interested in creating a commemorative work
to an individual, group, or event must find a congressional sponsor to introduce authorizing
legislation.97 The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission offers consultative services to
potential sponsors.98

93 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(1).
94 40 U.S.C. §§8901-8909.
95 The 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 The 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). The Eisenhower Memorial Commission is not unlike previous commissions authorized to create
Presidential commemorative works to Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Thomas Jefferson, whose funds, including
planning, design, and construction were appropriated by Congress.
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,”
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. 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.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 34 link to page 22 link to page 22 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

Legislation
The CWA provides that no “commemorative work may be established in the District of Columbia
unless specifically authorized by Congress.”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
ended for at least 10 years.100 Works proposed to commemorate a limited military engagement or
a unit of the armed forces are not allowed.101 For works commemorating events, individuals, or
groups, the CWA specifies that Congress will not consider legislation “until after the 25th
anniversary of the event, death of the individual, or death of the last surviving member of the
group.”102
Legislation authorizing a commemorative work typically 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.103 Once introduced, legislation is generally referred to the House Committee on
Natural Resources104 and to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.105
Following authorization, additional legislation is required to designate a commemorative work in
Area I (see map in 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
Commemorative Works Authorization
The first section of most commemorative works authorization bills 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 typically 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,

99 40 U.S.C. §8903(a)(1).
100 40 U.S.C. §8903(b).
101 40 U.S.C. §8903(b).
102 2 U.S.C. §8903(c).
103 For example, the Adams Memorial authorizing legislation (P.L. 107-62, 115 Stat. 411 [2001]) contains 10 findings
by Congress on the importance of creating a memorial 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, 110th 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 (2002). For more information about Area I, see “Designation of Areas of Washington,
DC.”
Congressional Research Service

16

Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

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
Payment of Expenses
Other sections of commemorative works authorization bills provide the sponsor with authority to
accept contributions and requires the group to make payment for all expenses related to site
selection, design, and construction of the memorial.108 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 of the commemorative work.
Many statutes authorizing commemorative works also contain a statement specifically 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
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, upon payment of 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 the commemorative work under chapter 89 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
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
Extension of Statutory Authority
In some instances, Congress has chosen to extend the legislative authority for a commemorative
work. All 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).112 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

107 P.L. 107-315. Section 2 of the act reiterated that the work was not to be placed in the Reserve.
108 The 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 (1998).
111 P.L. 110-229, 122 Stat. 782 (2008).
112 40 U.S.C. §8903(e)(1).
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 22 link to page 34 link to page 34 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

(NCPC) and the Commission of Fine Arts and 75% of the amount estimated to be required has
been raised.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 authorized to create a commemorative work to the Adams family in
2001.114 In 2009, Congress extended the authority until September 30, 2010,115 and in 2010, it
was further extended until December 2, 2013.116 The amendment to the legislative authority
stated,
Section 1(c) of P.L. 107-62 is amended by striking “accordance with” and all 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 be considered to be a reference to an
expiration on or extension beyond December 2, 2013.”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,118 recommend the location of a commemorative work in either Area I or
Area II (depicted in 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 recommend placement in Area I
and notify Congress of his or her determination. The location of a commemorative work in Area I
shall be deemed disapproved unless it has been approved by law within 150 calendar days.119 If
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
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, see Appendix C.

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 (2011).
115 P.L. 111-88, §130, 123 Stat. 2933 (2009).
116 P.L. 111-169, 124 Stat. 1192 (2010).
117 P.L. 111-169.
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).
120 40 U.S.C. §8908(b)(2).
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 19 link to page 34 link to page 34 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

The Reserve
The Reserve, created by P.L. 108-126, is defined as “the great cross-axis of the Mall, which
generally extends from the United States Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial, and from the White
House to the Jefferson Memorial”121 and “is a substantially completed work of civic art.”122
Within this area, “to preserve the integrity of the Mall … the siting of new commemorative works
is prohibited.”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,124 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 Shown on Figure C-1, Area I is roughly bounded by the West Front of the
Capitol; Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. (between 1st and 15th Street, N.W.); Lafayette Square; 17th
Street, N.W. (between H Street and Constitution Avenue); Constitution Avenue, N.W. (between
17th 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 14th 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.126 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
Area II is reserved for “subjects of lasting historical significance to the American people.”127
Shown on Figure C-1, Area II encompasses all 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 Resources128 solicit the views of the National Capital

121 40 U.S.C. §8902.
122 P.L. 108-126, §202(a), 117 Stat. 1348 (2003).
123 40 U.S.C. §8901 note; and 40 U.S.C. §8908(c). The 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; 40 U.S.C. §8901 note.
125 40 U.S.C. §8908(b)(1).
126 40 U.S.C. §8908(b)(1). The Secretary or the Administrator notifies Congress by sending a letter to the Speaker of
the House and the President of the Senate.
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

19

Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

Memorial Advisory Commission.129 The Secretary or the Administrator likewise seeks the advice
of the commission prior to recommending a location for a commemorative work.130
For example, the joint resolution approving the location of the Vietnam Women’s Memorial
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 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’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
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.132 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

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. At the outset of the 104th 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 (1989).
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).
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 21 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

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,136 landscape features,137 site specific guidelines,138 and the prohibition of
donor contributions.139 Final designs and specifications are completed in coordination with NPS
or GSA (as appropriate).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 generally 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
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 million 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
nonfederal contributions.143
Construction
The CWA specifies four criteria that the Secretary or the Administrator must determine prior to
issuing a construction permit:
1. Approval of site and design by the Secretary or Administrator, the National
Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission of Fine Arts
2. Consultation of “knowledgeable individuals qualified in the field of preservation
and maintenance … to determine structural soundness and durability of the

134 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(1). “To 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). “The 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,”
Memorials and Museums Master Plan (September 2001, updated 2006).
141 40 U.S.C. §8906(a)(4).
142 P.L. 109-54, §134, 119 Stat. 526 (2005).
143 P.L. 109-54, §134, 119 Stat. 527 (2005).
Congressional Research Service

21

Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

commemorative work and to ensure that the commemorative work meets high
professional standards”144
3. Submission of construction documents by authorized memorial sponsor to the
Secretary or Administrator
4. Proof that sufficient funds exist to complete project 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’s completion, the sponsor schedules a dedication and transfer ceremony
to NPS or GSA. The President has sometimes attended past dedications, 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 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
In November 2000, Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of Commerce Norman Mineta
represented President Bill Clinton at the dedication ceremony for the National Japanese-
American Memorial to Patriotism during World War II. In a statement following the dedication,
President Clinton recognized the importance of the memorial and the presence of his Cabinet
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 joined
distinguished members 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

144 The 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 Memorial,” Daily
Compilation of Presidential Documents (May 29, 2004), p. 970.
148 U.S. President (William J. Clinton), “Statement on the Dedication of the National Japanese-American Memorial,”
Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents (November 9, 2000), p. 2834.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

Authorized Memorials
Since the passage of the CWA in 1986, Congress has authorized 48 memorials on federal lands in
the District of Columbia or its environs.149 Of these works, 22 have been dedicated and
completed—19 under the auspices of the CWA and 3 outside the CWA process150—18 are in-
progress, 7 have lapsed authorizations, and 1 had its authorization repealed.151 Table 1 provides
the number of memorials authorized per Congress, pursuant to the CWA, since the 99th Congress
(1985-1987).
Table 1. Memorials Authorized by Congress
99th through 117th Congresses
Congress
Memorials
Congress
Memorials
99th (1985-1987)a
5
109th (2005-2007)
1
100th (1987-1989)
2
110th (2007-2009)
1
101st (1989-1991)
1
111th (2009-2011)
1b
102nd (1991-1993)
3
112th (2011-2013)
2
103rd (1993-1995)
3
113th (2013-2015)
4
104th (1995-1997)
1
114th (2015-2017)
1
105th (1997-1999)
2
115th (2017-2019)
3
106th (1999-2001)
5
116th (2019-2021)
4
107th (2001-2003)
2
117th (2022-2023)
6
108th (2003-2005)
1
Total
48c
Source: CRS analysis of memorial legislation.
Notes:
a. Only memorials subject to the CWA are included in the total for the 99th Congress.
b. In the 111th Congress, a plaque honoring Senator Robert J. Dole was placed at the World War II Memorial
(P.L. 111-88, §128, 123 Stat. 2933 [2009]). The placement of the plaque was authorized outside of the CWA
process, but is included because it was placed in the Reserve.
c. P.L. 112-239, §2860 repealed an authorization to the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation to
create a Black Revolutionary War Veterans Memorial that had been authorized by P.L. 99-558 (100 Stat.
3144 [1986]). P.L. 112-239 provided a new authorization for the Slaves and Free Black Persons who Served

149 To compile the list of memorials, three different sources were consulted. First, a search of Congress.gov was
conducted for the terms “Commemorative Works Act” and “Federal Land in the District of Columbia.” Second, the list
provided through the Congress.gov search was then cross-referenced with legislative information provided by the
National Park Service Legislative and Congressional Affairs Office. The Office of Legislative and Congressional
Affairs provides compilations of laws related to the National Park Service for each year. These documents include a list
of memorials. (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Legislative and Congressional Affairs,
“National Park Service Laws,” at http://www.nps.gov/legal/). Finally, the list was compared to a compilation of
memorials provided in 40 U.S.C. §8903 note. Overall, Congress has authorized 38 memorials.
150 For more information on completed commemorative works, see CRS Report R43743, Monuments and Memorials
Authorized and Completed Under the Commemorative Works Act in the District of Columbia, by Jacob R. Straus.
151 For more information on in-progress memorials and memorials with lapsed authorizations, see CRS Report R43744,
Monuments and Memorials Authorized Under the Commemorative Works Act in the District of Columbia: Current
Development of In Progress and Lapsed Works, by Jacob R. Straus. The Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial,
authorized in the 99th Congress (P.L. 99-558), had a lapsed authorization until Congress repealed it and authorized a
new memorial to Slaves and Free Black Persons Who Served in the Revolution (P.L. 112-239). See note c on Table 1
for more information.
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

in the American Revolution Memorial to the National Mall Liberty Fund. 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 others have sought to memorialize events including the Korean War, World War II, and Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech.” Table 2 lists memorials authorized by
Congress since 1986.
Table 2. Authorized Memorials in the District of Columbia and its Environs
Congress
Memorial
Citation
99
Francis Scott Key
P.L. 99-531, 100 Stat. 3022 (1986)
99
Black Revolutionary War Patriotsa
P.L. 99-558, 100 Stat. 3144 (1986)
99
Korean War Veterans
P.L. 99-572, 100 Stat. 3226 (1986)
99
Women in Military Service for America
P.L. 99-610, 100 Stat. 3477 (1986)
99
American Armored Force
P.L. 99-620, 100 Stat. 3493 (1986)
100
National Peace Gardena
P.L. 100-63, 101 Stat. 379 (1987)
100
Vietnam Women’s Memorial
P.L. 100-660, 102 Stat. 3922 (1988)
101
George Mason
P.L. 101-358, 104 Stat. 419 (1990)
102
Thomas Painea
P.L. 102-407, 106 Stat. 1991 (1992)
102
African-American Civil War-Union Soldiers/Sailors
P.L. 102-412, 106 Stat. 2104 (1992)
102
Japanese American Patriotism in World War II
P.L. 102-502, 106 Stat. 3273 (1992)
103
World War II Memorial
P.L. 103-32, 107 Stat. 90 (1993)
103
Air Forceb
P.L. 103-163, 107 Stat. 1973 (1993)
103
Victims of Communism
P.L. 103-199, title IX, §905, 107 Stat. 2331 (1993)
104
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
P.L. 104-133, div I, title V, §508, 110 Stat. 4157
(1996)
105
Mahatma Gandhi
P.L. 105-284, 112 Stat. 2701 (1998)
105
Benjamin Bannekera
P.L. 105-355, title V, §512, 112 Stat. 3266 (1998)
106
Dwight D. Eisenhower
P.L. 106-79, §8162, 113 Stat. 1274 (1999)
106
Veterans Who Died as a Result of Service in the
P.L. 106-214, 114 Stat. 335 (2000)
Vietnam War
106
Disabled Veterans’ for Life Memorial
P.L. 106-348, 114 Stat. 1358 (2000)
106
Lincoln Memorial “I Have a Dream Speech” Plaque
P.L. 106-365, 114 Stat. 1409 (2000)
106
Frederick Douglassa
P.L. 106-479, 114 Stat. 2184 (2000)
107
Tomas G. Masaryk
P.L. 107-61, 115 Stat. 410 (2001)
107
John Adams
P.L. 107-62, 115 Stat. 411 (2001)
108
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors Center
P.L. 108-126, 117 Stat. 1348 (2003)
109
Ukrainian Famine-Genocide Victims 1932-1933
P.L. 109-340, 120 Stat. 1864 (2006)
110
Brigadier General Francis Marion
P.L. 110-229, §331, 122 Stat. 781 (2008)
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

Congress
Memorial
Citation
111
Senator Robert J. Dole Plaquec
P.L. 111-88, §128, 123 Stat. 2933 (2009)
112
Gold Star Mothersa
P.L. 112-239, §2859, 126 Stat. 2164 (2013)
112
Slaves and Free Black Persons Who Served in the
P.L. 112-239, §2860, 126 Stat. 2164, (2013)
Revolution
113
Peace Corpsa
P.L. 113-78, 127 Stat. 647 (2013)
113
World War II Memorial Prayer
P.L. 113-123, 128 Stat. 1377 (2014)
113
World War I
P.L. 113-291, §3091(b), 128 Stat. 3858 (2014)
113
Desert Storm and Desert Shield
P.L. 113-291, §3093, 128 Stat. 3879 (2014)
114
Korean War Memorial Wall of Remembrance
P.L. 114-230, 130 Stat. 947 (2016)
115
Global War on Terrorism
P.L. 115-51, 131 Stat. 1003 (2017)
115
Second Division Memorial Modifications
P.L. 115-141, Division G, §121(a)(1), 132 Stat. 661
(2018)
115
Emergency Medical Services
P.L. 115-275, 132 Stat. 4164 (2018)
116
Women’s Suffrage and the 19th Amendment
P.L. 116-217, 134 Stat. 1052 (2020)
116
Republic of Texas Legation
P.L. 116-248, 134 Stat. 1124 (2020)
116
Fallen Journalists
P.L. 116-253, 134 Stat. 1135 (2020)
116
First Division Monument Modifications
P.L. 116-283, Title X, §1083, 134 Stat. 3875
(2021)
117
Medal of Honor Memorial
P.L. 117-80, 135 Stat. 1538 (2021)
117
Women Who Worked on the Home Front in World P.L. 117-328, Division DD, Subtitle D, Title VII,
War II
§702 (2022)
117
Service Animals and Handlers
P.L. 117-328, Division DD, Subtitle D, Title VII,
§704 (2022)
117
Jean Monnet
P.L. 117-328, Division DD, Subtitle D, Title VII,
§705 (2022)
117
Enslaved Individuals who Endured the Middle Passage
P.L. 117-328, Division DD, Subtitle D, Title VII,
§707 (2022)
117
Thomas Paine
P.L. 117-328, Division DD, Subtitle D, Title VII,
§709 (2022)
Source: 40 U.S.C. §8903 note, and CRS analysis of memorial legislation.
Notes:
a. Authority for this memorial lapsed prior to construction permits being issued to the sponsoring group.
b. The Air Force Memorial was constructed on land not governed by the Commemorative Works Act. For
more information, see the Air Force Memorial Foundation, http://www.airforcememorial.org/.
c. In the 111th Congress, Congress authorized the placement of a plaque honoring Senator Robert J. Dole to
be placed on the World War II Memorial (P.L. 111-88, §128, 123 Stat. 2933 [2009]). The placement of the
plaque was authorized outside of the CWA process, but is included because it was placed in the Reserve.
d. P.L. 112-239, §2860 repealed an authorization to the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation to
create a Black Revolutionary War Veterans Memorial that had been authorized by P.L. 99-558 (100 Stat.
3144 [1986]). P.L. 112-239 provided a new authorization for the Slaves and Free Black Person Who Served
in the American Revolution Memorial to the National Mall Liberty Fund DC.
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 bill, 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.
Table A-1. Summary of Original Commemorative Works Act, 1986
Section
Provisions
Section 1
Outlines the purposes of the act, including the
Purposes
preservation of the L’Enfant and McMil an plans; ensuring
continued use of public spaces; preservation and
(100 Stat. 3650)
protection of open space for visitors and residents; and
ensuring that future commemorative works meet certain
standards.
Section 2
Defines terms used in the act including secretary
Definitions
(Secretary of the Interior), administrator (Administrator of
the General Services Administration [GSA]),
(100 Stat. 3650)
commemorative work, person, and District of Columbia
and its environs.
Section 3
Established that no commemorative work be established
Congressional Authorization of Commemorative
without congressional authorization; and that the
Works in the District of Columbia and its Environs
Committee on House Administration and Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee are required to solicit
(100 Stat. 3651)
the views of the National Capital Memorial Commission.
Section 4
Created the National Capital Memorial Commission to
National Capital Memorial Commission
advise the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator
of GSA on policy and procedures for commemorative
(100 Stat. 3651)
works.
Section 5
Requires that the Secretary of the Interior and the
Availability of Map Depicting Area I and Area II
Administrator of the GSA make available a map depicting
Area I and Area II for public inspection.
(100 Stat. 3651)

152 P.L. 99-652, 100 Stat. 3650 (1986); 40 U.S.C. §§8901-8909.
Congressional Research Service

26

Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

Section
Provisions
Section 6
Area I requires a commemorative work to be of
Specific Conditions Applicable to Area I and Area II
“preeminent historical and lasting significance to the
Nation” and that designations for Area I be disapproved
(100 Stat. 3651)
unless the location is approved by law within 150 days.
Area II requires a commemorative work to be of “lasting
historical significance.”
Individual or group commemorative works are not
permitted until 25 years “after the death of the individual
or last surviving group member.”
Military commemorative works can only commemorate a
war or similar military conflict or a branch of the Armed
Forces. No commemorative works to a lesser conflict or a
single Armed Forces unit are permitted. Military
commemorative works may not be authorized until at
least 10 years after the official designated end of such war
or conflict.
Section 7
Establishes requirements for individuals or groups
Site and Design Approval
authorized to create a commemorative works, including
consultation with the National Capital Memorial
(100 Stat. 3652)
Commission and site and design proposal review by the
Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning
Commission.
Section 8
Requires that the Secretary of the Interior or the
Criteria for Issuance of Construction Permit
Administrator of the GSA determine that a site has been
approved, that the soundness and durability of the work
(100 Stat. 3652)
has been verified, contracts and drawings have been
submitted to the secretary or administrator, and sufficient
funds are available to complete construction.
Requires 10% of construction costs to be set aside for
future maintenance and preservation of the work.
Section 9
Provides authority to the Secretary of the Interior to
Temporary Site Designation
create a site for the temporary display of commemorative
works “to aid in the preservation of the limited amount of
(100 Stat. 3653)
open space available….” Cost of displaying a work in a
temporary area is at the sole expense of the authorized
party.
Section 10
Complete design and construction documentation is
Miscellaneous Provisions
provided to the Secretary of the Interior or the
Administrator of the GSA;
(100 Stat. 3654)
Legislative authority for a commemorative work expires
after five years from the date of enactment, unless a
construction permit has been issued;
The Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of the
GSA assumes responsibility for works upon their
completion;
The Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of the
GSA has the authority to promulgate regulations to carry
out the act; and
The act did not apply to works authorized before the 99th
Congress.
Source: P.L. 99-652; 100 Stat. 3650 (1986).
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.153 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 sponsor seeks National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission
(NCMAC) assistance to review the requirements and process established by the
Commemorative Works Act (CWA)154 and its applicability to the proposed
memorial.
2. Memorial sponsor seeks a Senator or Representative who is willing to draft and
introduce a bill to authorize establishment of the memorial.
3. Staffs of NCMAC, Member of Congress who will introduce the bill, and
authorizing committees draft a bill that conforms to the provisions of the CWA.
4. Congressman and/or Senator introduce bill authorizing the memorial and
designating the sponsor as the entity responsible for its erection at no cost to the
federal government.
5. NCMAC considers proposed authorizing legislation to establish its view pursuant
to CWA.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 before sending it to the full House and Senate for a vote
on the bill.
7. Congress passes bill, President signs bill into law, providing memorial sponsor
seven years in which to begin construction of memorial in Area II.
8. Memorial sponsor organizes the structure of the entity that will establish the
memorial and beings planning.
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 significance156 so that Congress can consider
passage of legislation authorizing an Area I location for enactment by the
President.157

153 National Capital Planning Commission, “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.
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 150-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
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% 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
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 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’s Capital as the Commission considers appropriate.”159 The commission is comprised of
eight 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
U.S. Commission of Fine Arts
In 1910, Representative Samuel McCall introduced a bill, H.R. 19962, to create a commission on
fine arts.162 Reported by the Committee on the Library,163 the House debated the bill on February
9. During the debate, Representative McCall 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
Commemorative 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). The 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 The 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 Arts, report to accompany H.R. 19962, 61st
Cong., 2nd sess., February 8, 1910, H.Rept. 61-407 (Washington: GPO, 1910).
Congressional Research Service

31

Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

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
Speaking against the creation of the commission, Representative James Tawney argued that
creation of a Commission of Fine Arts amounted to an abdication of power over matters in the
District of Columbia.
I believe that the Congress of the United States should reserve some of its legislative
functions, some of its legislative power, and not delegate it to commissions or to any other
body. We are responsible to the people for legislation, and cannot escape that responsibility
by the appointment of commissions. …We have control by virtue of the law over the
District of Columbia. When Congress authorizes the construction of a public building and
fixes the location of that building and requires its erections within the authority and the
appropriation made therefore, or the limit of cost, I do not believe that there is any body of
men, or any man, or any executive officer, I care not how high in authority he maybe, who
should have the power, or unlawfully exercise executive power, to defeat the will of
Congress as express in the law it enacts.165
Following debate, H.R. 19962 passed the House and was referred to the Senate.166 The Senate
debated the bill on May 2 and 3, 1910. During debate, the Senate amended the bill to give the
commission the authority to “advise generally upon questions of art when required to do so by the
President, or by any committee of either House of Congress” and specified commission
staffing.167 The Senate passed the bill, as amended on May 3,168 and the House disagreed with the
Senate amendments and requested a conference.169
The conference committee issued its report on May 9,170 Congress approved the bill,171 and
President William Howard Taft signed the bill on May 17, 1910.172 Pursuant to the act, the
Commission of Fine Arts was initially charged with providing “advise upon the location of
statues, fountains, and monuments in the public squares, streets, and parks in the District of
Columbia, and upon the selection of models for statues, fountains, and monuments erected under
the authority of the United States and upon the selection of artists for the execution of the
same.”173 Comprised of seven “well-qualified judges of the fine arts, appointed by the
President,”174 the commission’s duties have subsequently been expanded to include “the selection
of models for statues, fountains, and monuments erected under the authority of the Federal
Government; the selection of artists to carry out [the creation of statues, fountains, and
monuments]; and questions of art generally when required to do so by the President or a

164 Rep. Samuel McCall, “Commission of Fine Arts,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 45, part 2
(February 9, 1910), p. 1659.
165 Rep. James Tawney, “Commission of Fine Arts,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 45, part 2
(February 9, 1910), p. 1660.
166 “Commission of Fine Arts,” Congressional Record, vol. 45, part 2 (February 9, 1910), p. 1675; and “House Bills
Referred,” Congressional Record, vol. 45, part 2 (February 10, 1910), p. 1684.
167 “Proposed Commission of Fine Arts,” Congressional Record, vol. 45, part 5 (May 2, 1910), p. 5651.
168 “Proposed Commission of Fine Arts,” Congressional Record, vol. 45, part 6 (May 3, 1910), pp. 5703-5709.
169 “Commission of Fine Arts,” Congressional Record, vol. 45, part 6 (May 4, 1910), p. 5814.
170 U.S. Congress, House Conference Committee, Commission of Fine Arts, report to accompany H.R. 19962, 61st
Cong., 2nd sess., May 9, 1910, H.Rept. 61-1292 (Washington: GPO, 1910).
171 “Commission of Fine Arts,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 45, part 6 (May 9, 1910), pp. 5960-5961;
and “Commission of Fine Arts,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 45, part 6 (May 12, 1910), p. 6151.
172 P.L. 61-183, 36 Stat. 371 (1910); 40 U.S.C. §§9101-9104.
173 Ibid.
174 40 U.S.C. §9101(b).
Congressional Research Service

32

link to page 10 Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

committee of Congress.”175 The commission does not have authority over Capitol or Library of
Congress buildings.176
National Capital Planning Commission
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
In 1952, Congress, in the National Capital Planning Act, changed the commission’s name to the
National Capital Planning Commission.179 The act also expanded the commission’s geographic
boundaries and recognized the creation of the national capital region in Maryland and Virginia. In
the House report accompanying the bill, the Committee on the District of Columbia emphasized
the new regional mission of the commission.
The bill denominates and authorizes the Commission to be the central planning agency for
the Federal and District Governments within the National Capital region (the District and
its environs) and to be the official representative of the aforesaid governments for
collaboration with the Regional Planning Council.… The bill includes additional subjects,
such as viaducts, subways, major thoroughfares, monuments and memorials, public
reservations, or property such as airports, parking areas, institutions, open spaces, public
utilities and surveys for transportation, redevelopment of obsolescent, blighted or slum
areas, and specifically adds the all-important subject of density or distribution of population
[emphasis added].180
Currently, the commission consists of 12 members. Three members are appointed by the
President, including the chair. Two of the three members appointed by the President must reside
in Virginia and Maryland, respectively. The Mayor of the District of Columbia appoints two
members who must be residents of the District. In addition, a number of regional officials serve
as ex-officio members. These include the Mayor of Washington, DC, the chair the Council of the
District of Columbia; heads of executive branch agencies with significant land holdings in the

175 40 U.S.C. §9102(a). For more information on the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, see U.S. Commission of Fine Arts,
at http://www.cfa.gov/.
176 40 U.S.C. §9102(c).
177 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, The Improvement of the Park System of the District
of Columbia, 57th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 57-166 (Washington: GPO, 1902). Also, see U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on the District of Columbia, Comprehensive Development of the Park and Playground System of the
National Capital, report to accompany S. 112, 68th Cong., 1st sess., March 12, 1924, S.Rept. 68-245 (Washington:
GPO, 1924), p. 4; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on the District of Columbia, Comprehensive Development of
the Park and Playground System of the National Capital, report to accompany S. 112, 68th Cong., 1st sess., May 14,
1924, H.Rept. 68-755 (Washington: GPO, 1924), pp. 3-4.
178 P.L. 68-202, chap. 270, 43 Stat. 463, June 6, 1924. For more information, see “Park and Playground System of the
National Capital,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 65, part 8 (May 5, 1924), pp. 7828-7830; “Park and
Playground System of the National Capital,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 65, part 9 (May 26, 1924), p.
9558; and “Development of the Park and Playground System of the National Capital,” House debate, Congressional
Record, vol. 65, part 10 (May 27, 1924), pp. 9636-9637.
179 P.L. 82-592, 66 Stat. 781 (1952).
180 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the District of Columbia, Amending the Act of June 6, 1924, as Amended,
Relating to the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, report to accompany H.R. 7502, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess.,
June 12, 1952, H.Rept. 82-2164 (Washington: GPO, 1952), p. 3.
Congressional Research Service

33

Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

District;181 and leaders of the U.S. House and Senate committees with District oversight
responsibilities.182
In addition to providing guidance and approval at multiple steps of the monument and memorial
creation process in the District of Columbia, the NCPC also operates under the authority of other
laws for planning within the National Capital Region. These include the National Capital
Planning Act,183 Height of Buildings Act of 1910,184 District of Columbia Zoning Act,185 Foreign
Missions Act,186 International Center Act,187 National Historic Preservation Act,188 National

181 Executive Branch agencies with “significant land holdings in the District,” include the Department of Defense, the
Department of the Interior, and the General Services Administration.
182 Congressional representatives include the chair, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs
and the chair, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. For a list of current members, see National
Capital Planning Commission, “Commission,” at http://www.ncpc.gov/ncpc/Main%28T2%29/About_Us%28tr2%29/
AboutUs.html.
183 40 U.S.C. §8701, et. seq. The NCPC is the central planning agency for the federal government in the National
Capital Region. “The Act provides for the agency’s essential functions, including development of a Comprehensive
Plan for the NCR; review of federal and some District of Columbia (DC) proposed developments and projects; review
of DC zoning amendments; annual review of the Federal Capital Improvements Program and the DC Capital
Improvements Program; and the development of special planning projects.” (NCPC, http://www.ncpc.gov/ncpc/
Main%28T2%29/About_Us%28tr2%29/About_Us%28tr3%29/LegislativeAuthorities.html. [Hereinafter, NCPC
Legislative Authorities]).
184 P.L. 61-196, 36 Stat (1910). The Height of Buildings Act of 1910 set maximum building heights for the District of
Columbia. “The height limit on residential streets is 90 feet. In business areas, the building height is generally limited
to the width of the adjacent street plus 20 feet. In addition, there is a general height limit of 130 feet, extended to 160
feet along certain portions of Pennsylvania Avenue” (NCPC Legislative Authority).
185 “Set forth at D.C. Code §§6-641.01 et seq., [the District of Columbia Zoning Act] authorizes the DC Zoning
Commission to regulate the location, height, bulk, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures; lot
occupancy; the sizes of open spaces; the density of population; and building and land uses. Federal buildings are
exempt from zoning controls, but the act mandates that NCPC serve on the DC Board of Zoning Adjustment, which
hears many cases involving land near, or affected by, federal landholdings. The DC Zoning Commission regulations
implementing this law may be found at http://dcoz.dc.gov/info/reg.shtm” (NCPC Legislative Authority).
186 22 U.S.C. §4301, et. seq. The Foreign Missions Act stipulates federal government jurisdiction over foreign mission
operations and establishes criteria for placement of foreign missions in the District of Columbia. NCPC’s Executive
Director serves as a member of the DC Board of Zoning Adjustment when the board considers foreign mission
applications.
187 P.L. 90-553, 82 Stat. 958 (1968); and P.L. 97-186, 96 Stat. 101 (1982). The International Center Act “authorizes the
Secretary of State to sell or lease to foreign governments and international organizations federal property located within
the International Center along Van Ness Street in Northwest Washington, DC. Development plans for all chanceries in
the 47-acre International Center are subject to NCPC’s approval” (NCPC Legislative Authorities).
188 16 U.S.C. §470. The National Historic Preservation Act created a program for preserving national historic
properties. NCPC acts as a “steward of the region’s historic buildings, districts, landscapes, and views” (NCPC
Legislative Authority).
Congressional Research Service

34

Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

Environmental Policy Act,189 District of Columbia Home Rule Act,190 and the Capper-Crampton
Act.191
State Historic Preservation Office for the District of Columbia
Created pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,192 State Historic Preservation
Officers “administer the national historic preservation program at the State level, review National
Register of Historic Places nominations, maintain data on historic properties that have been
identified but not yet nominated, and consult with Federal agencies.”193 While not a statutory part
of the memorial process, the National Capital Planning Commission recommends consultation
with the State Historic Preservation Office for the District of Columbia194 as part of the design
approval process.195
American Battle Monuments Commission
The American Battle Monuments Commission was originally created in 1923 to “prepare plans
and estimates for the erection of suitable memorials to mark and commemorate the services of the
American forces in Europe and erect memorials therein at such places as the commission shall
determine, including works of architecture and art in the American cemeteries in Europe.”196
Generally, the commission has statutory authority to design, construct, operate and maintain
permanent American cemeteries in foreign countries; establish and maintain U.S. military
memorials, monuments and markers where American armed forces have served overseas since
April 6, 1917.”197 In limited circumstances, the commission has also been tasked with creating
memorials within the United States. For example, the commission was statutorily authorized to
create the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia.198

189 42 U.S.C. §4321, et. seq. Requires the consideration of environmental impact of federal actions by federal agencies.
“Under NEPA, NCPC must undertake an environmental review to inform its analysis of project proposals.
Environment is broadly defined by the act to include social, economic, and historic impacts as well as effects on the
natural environment. Beginning at an early point in its decision-making process, NCPC considers the environmental
and historic aspects of proposed actions that it reviews” (NCPC Legislative Authorities). For more information on the
National Environmental Policy Act, see CRS Report RL33152, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
Background and Implementation, by Linda Luther.
190 P.L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774 (1973). “NCPC approves District projects in the central area of the city, reviews and
advises on other District projects and the DC elements of the Comprehensive Plan, in addition to reviewing and
advising on amendments to city zoning regulations and maps” (NCPC Legislative Authorities). For more information
on the District of Columbia, see CRS In Focus IF11571, FY2020 Appropriations: District of Columbia, by Joseph V.
Jaroscak.
191 P.L. 71-284, 46 Stat. 482 (1930), as amended by P.L. 79-699, 60 Stat. 960 (1946). The Capper-Crampton Act
provided authority to the National Capital Planning Commission to acquire land for parkway and park systems in the
National Capitol area including the George Washington Memorial Parkway and other park, parkway, and playground
land in the District of Columbia.
192 P.L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915 (1966); 16 U.S.C. §470 et. seq.
193 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, “About the ACHP,” at https://www.achp.gov/about.
194 For more information on the District of Columbia State Preservation Office, see District of Columbia, Office of
Planning, “Historic Preservation Office,” at http://planning.dc.gov/historicpreservation.
195 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.
196 P.L. 534, 42 Stat. 1509 (1923); 36 U.S.C. §2101 et seq.
197 American Battle Monuments Commission, “About Us,” at http://www.abmc.gov/about-us.
198 P.L. 103-32, 107 Stat. 90 (1993).
Congressional Research Service

35

Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

Author Information

Jacob R. Straus

Specialist on the Congress

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. 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’s institutional role. 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 the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R41658 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED
36

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

May. 8, 2023

HTML · PDF

<1% changed

Jan. 27, 2021

HTML · PDF

<1% changed

Sep. 22, 2020

HTML · PDF

71% changed