Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia: Analysis and Options for Proposed Exemptions to the Commemorative Works Act

September 24, 2013 – May 8, 2023 R43241

Monuments and Memorials in the District of
Columbia: Analysis and Options for Proposed
Exemptions to the Commemorative Works Act
Updated May 8, 2023
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R43241

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

Summary
During the course of each Congress, numerous proposals to create new commemorative works
(i.e., monuments and memorials) in the District of Columbia are introduced. In evaluating each
proposal, Congress considers the subject of the proposed work; whether existing monuments and
memorials commemorate similar subjects; and whether the sponsor group has requested an
exemption from existing laws that might limit monument and memorial subjects and location
within the District of Columbia. This report focuses on options for Congress for four types of
exemptions to the Commemorative Works Act (CWA, 40 U.S.C. §§8901-8909): siting works, use
of specific materials, memorial completion deadlines, and the placement and status of museums.
The CWA was enacted in 1986 to govern all monuments and memorials to be located on federal
land in the District of Columbia under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS) or the
General Services Administration (GSA). Further, the CWA sought to preserve the L’Enfant and
McMillan plans for the capital; ensure continued public use and enjoyment of open spaces; and
preserve, protect, and maintain the open space. Pursuant to the CWA, Congress statutorily
authorizes a sponsor group to design and build a monument or memorial with the approval of
regulatory bodies: the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the U.S. Commission
of Fine Arts (CFA). Additionally, the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission
(NCMAC) was created to advise Congress, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Administrator of
General Services on the commemorative works process. Unless otherwise stated in law, the
sponsor group is responsible for funding the memorial without the use of federal funds.
Since CWA’s enactment, more than 40 commemorative works have been authorized, and
numerous others have been proposed. Among the authorized and proposed works, several sponsor
groups have sought—and some have received—exemptions from certain CWA provisions.
The CWA divides the District of Columbia into three areas for the siting of monuments and
memorials: an area where new commemorative works are prohibited (the Reserve); an area that
requires congressional authorization (Area I); and all other NPS or GSA land (Area II). Some
sponsor groups have been granted exemptions for siting monuments and memorials, and others
have been approved to add new elements to existing commemorative works.
The CWA requires that the NCPC and CFA evaluate a memorial’s proposed building materials to
ensure they are “suitable to the outdoor environment.” Some proposals have been made to require
that those materials be American made, a requirement that does not currently exist. Additionally,
sponsor groups are granted seven years in which to complete an authorized memorial or receive a
construction permit to build the memorial. In many cases, memorials have needed additional time
to be completed.
The CWA also prohibits the siting of museums on NPS- or GSA-administered land in the District
of Columbia. In 2003, however, Congress provided an exemption to the National Museum of
African American History and Culture. The granting of this exemption arguably suggests that
Congress believes the CWA applies to museums at any District location, if they are located on
NPS- or GSA-administered land. This application of the CWA to a museum would be in contrast
to the specific CWA prohibition against the placement of a museum in Area I or East Potomac
Park.
Congressional Research Service

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

Introduction
In 1986, the Commemorative Works Act (CWA) was enacted to guide the memorial and
monument creation and siting process in the District of Columbia on land under the jurisdiction
of the National Park Service (NPS) or the General Services Administration (GSA).1 As the statute
specifies, the CWA was enacted
(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-
(A) are appropriately designed, constructed, and located; and
(B) reflect a consensus of the lasting national significance of the subjects involved.2
From time to time Congress will authorize a sponsor group (i.e., an organization, often tax-
exempt, advocating for the creation of the new work) to design and build a monument or
memorial in the District of Columbia without the use of federal funds. When considering
potential new commemorative works, Congress contemplates issues of CWA interpretation,
enforcement, and the possible setting of precedent.
This report addresses five requirements of the CWA for which exemptions have been proposed.
These are:
• memorial siting, including the addition of new elements to existing
commemorative works;
• requiring the use of American materials during memorial construction;
• altering the deadline for completing an authorized memorial;
• requiring that a certain amount of time pass before a memorial is authorized; and
• the siting of new museums within the statutorily defined commemorative works
areas—where they would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to the CWA.
Each exemption addressed in this report has been discussed in legislative proposals, at
congressional hearings, or by one of the federal agencies charged with review and approval of
commemorative works: the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the U.S.
Commission of Fine Arts (CFA). Additionally, the National Capital Memorial Advisory
Commission (NCMAC) provides Congress, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Administrator of

1 40 U.S.C. §§8901-8909. For more information on the Commemorative Works Act, see CRS Report R41658,
Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice, by Jacob R. Straus.
2 40 U.S.C. §8901.
Congressional Research Service

1

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

General Services with policy and procedures advice for establishing monuments and memorials.3
This report discusses each exemption and its attendant policy considerations.
Since the CWA’s enactment, more than 40 commemorative works have been authorized, and
numerous others have been proposed.4 For the authorized and proposed monuments and
memorials, several sponsor groups have sought—and some have received—exemptions from
certain provisions of the CWA. The most common exemption requests are from provisions
involving the siting of new memorials, mandating the origin of building materials, and extending
the deadline for memorial completion. The status and placement of museums under the CWA has
also been discussed after the National Museum of African American History and Culture was
granted an exemption from the CWA.
Since its enactment, the CWA has been substantively amended three times. First, during the 103rd
Congress (1993-1994), the CWA was amended to extend the time for monument and memorial
completion from five to seven years and to make technical corrections to the act.5 Second, the
CWA was amended during the 108th Congress (2003-2004), to limit the placement of monuments
and memorials on the National Mall and to designate three distinct areas within the District of
Columbia for monument and memorial construction.6 They and their boundaries are noted below.
• The Reserve is “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.”7
• Area I is reserved for commemorative works of “preeminent historical and
lasting significance to the United States,”8 and roughly bounded by the West
Front of the Capitol; Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (between 1st and 15th Streets,
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

3 The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) was authorized by the CWA to provide Congress
and the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of General Services, as appropriate, with advice on “policy and
procedures for establishment of, and proposals to establish, commemorative works in the District of Columbia and its
environs.... ” 40 U.S.C. §8904(c).
4 For a complete list of authorized commemorative works and their status, see CRS Report R43743, Monuments and
Memorials Authorized and Completed Under the Commemorative Works Act in the District of Columbia, by Jacob R.
Straus; and 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.
5 P.L. 103-321, 108 Stat. 1793 (1994). The technical corrections provided changes to the National Capital Memorial
Commission, including restoring 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 group’s
fundraising authority if the Secretary or Administrator …determined that the group’s fundraising activities were not in
compliance with those standards.” For more information, see 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, p. 3.
6 “Authorizing Design and Construction of Visitor Center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial,” Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 149 (November 5, 2003), p. S14075.
7 40 U.S.C. §8902.
8 40 U.S.C. §8908(b)(1).
Congressional Research Service

2

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

United States Botanic Garden. An act of Congress is required for Area I
placement.9
• Area II is reserved for “subjects of lasting historical significance to the American
people,”10 and encompasses all sections of the District of Columbia and its
environs not part of the Reserve or Area I.
The area of the Reserve is considered “a substantially completed work of civic art,”11 and within
the Reserve, “to preserve the integrity of the Mall … the siting of new commemorative works is
prohibited.”12 Additionally, the placement of museums and visitor centers in the Reserve is also
prohibited under the CWA.13
During the 113th Congress (2013-2014), 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.”14 Further, donor acknowledgement was applied
retroactively to all commemorative works dedicated after January 1, 2010,15 is to be paid for by
the sponsor organization,16 and is subject to the permission of the Secretary of the Interior or the
Administrator of General Services.17 The acknowledgment also must
(A) be limited to an appropriate statement or credit recognizing the contribution;
(B) be displayed in a form in accordance with National Park Service and General Services
Administration guidelines;
(C) be displayed for a period of up to 10 years, with the display period to be commensurate
with the level of the contribution, as determined in accordance with the plan and guidelines
described in subparagraph (B);
(D) be freestanding; and
(E) not be affixed to—(i) any landscape feature at the commemorative work; or (ii) any
object in a museum collection.18
Siting Commemorative Works
All commemorative works legislation must authorize a sponsor group to raise funds to design and
build a monument or memorial. Many sponsor groups would like to place their proposed
commemorative works on unoccupied land on or near the National Mall or add an element to an
existing monument or memorial.
The CWA, however, contains provisions that prohibit the siting of new commemorative works
around the National Mall; considers monuments and memorials, once dedicated, to be completed

9 40 U.S.C. §8908(b)(1). For more information see, CRS Report R41658, Commemorative Works in the District of
Columbia: Background and Practice, by Jacob R. Straus.
10 40 U.S.C. §8908(b)(2).
11 P.L. 108-126, §202(a), 117 Stat. 1348 (2003).
12 P.L. 108-126, §202(a); and 40 U.S.C. §8908(c).
13 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(5); and 40 U.S.C. §8908(c). In 2009, the CWA was amended to make technical corrections with
the enactment of P.L. 111-11 (§7116(e), 123 Stat. 1203 [2009]).
14 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(2).
15 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(5).
16 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(3).
17 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(4).
18 P.L. 113-291, §3054(c)(1).
Congressional Research Service

3

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

works of civic art; and protects existing works from further additions or intrusions by other
memorials.19 The CWA states:
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 use, and cultural and natural resources.20
Regardless of the CWA provisions against siting new commemorative works in the Reserve and
prohibiting the placement of new elements at existing monuments and memorials, sponsor groups
continue to request exemptions from these requirements.
Current Site Location Process
To guide the site selection process, the CWA created a two-step approach. First, following
congressional authorization of a monument or memorial, the sponsor group works with the NPS
or GSA, NCMAC, NCPC, and CFA to determine which area of Washington, DC, would be the
most appropriate location for the monument or memorial.21
As part of this initial site selection process, the sponsor group may request the Secretary of the
Interior or the Administrator of General Services to approve placement of the monument or
memorial in Area I. Following this request, the Secretary or Administrator determines whether the
memorial is of “preeminent historical and lasting significance to the United States.”22 If the
Secretary or Administrator determines that an Area I site location is warranted, he or she notifies,
in writing, NCMAC, the House Committee on Natural Resources, and the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.23
Second, to place a memorial within Area I, an act of Congress approving the Secretary or
Administrator’s recommendation is required within 150 calendar days. Should the Secretary or
Administrator not recommend placement in Area I or Congress not act upon the recommendation,
the memorial can be placed in Area II without further action.24
Some commemorative works legislation has included provisions that would potentially bypass
the current commemorative works process and directly designate a site, providing an exemption
from the building prohibition within the Reserve or directly designating a site in Area I. For
example, H.R. 222 (113th Congress), as introduced, would have authorized a World War I
Memorial in the District of Columbia. In addition to authorizing the World War I Memorial
Foundation to establish a commemorative work, the bill would exempt the memorial from the
CWA prohibition against placement in the Reserve. After introduction, H.R. 222 was referred to
the House Committee on Natural Resources and was not subject to additional consideration. The

19 40 U.S.C. §8906(a).
20 Ibid.
21 40 U.S.C. §8905(a). This section states that “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.” Also, see 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(6).
22 40 USC §8908(b)(1). Adopted in 1987, and updated in 2006, the National Park Service’s 24-step outline of the
commemorative work process outlines the site selection process. For more information, see CRS Report R41658,
Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice, by Jacob R. Straus; and National
Capital Planning Commission, “Steps for Establishing a Memorial in the Nation’s Capital,” Memorials and Museums
Master Plan, September 2001, updated 2006, at http://www.ncpc.gov/DocumentDepot/Publications/2MPlan/
MemorialsandMuseumsMasterPlan_PartThree.pdf, pp. 167-168.
23 Ibid.
24 40 U.S.C. §8908(b)(2).
Congressional Research Service

4

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

World War I Memorial, however, was authorized by P.L. 113-291, which directly designated a
location in Area I—Pershing Park in Northwest Washington, DC—as the memorial site location.25
Further, other legislation authorized the placement of a new element at the site of an existing
commemorative work. For example, P.L. 113-123 authorized the placement of a plaque with the
text of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer within the area of the World War II
Memorial.26
Encroachment on Existing Works
The CWA requires that new monuments and memorials be sited to avoid interference with or
encroachment on existing works,27 unless Congress grants a waiver from this provision. Between
the passage of the CWA in 1986 and the 104th Congress (1995-1996), Congress did not authorize
the addition of any new elements at existing commemorative works sites. Since then, however,
Congress has authorized eight new commemorative works that add elements at existing
monuments and memorials:
• a statue to recognize “that President Roosevelt’s leadership in the struggle by the
United States for peace, well-being, and human dignity was provided while the
President used a wheelchair” at the President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Memorial;28
• a plaque to veterans who died as a result of service during the Vietnam War at the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial;29
• a plaque commemorating Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a
Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial;30
• a plaque to honor Senator Robert J. Dole’s leadership “in making the [World War
II] Memorial a reality on the National Mall... ”;31
• a plaque with the text of the D-Day Prayer delivered by President Franklin D.
Roosevelt at the World War II Memorial;32

25 H.R. 222 (113th Congress), introduced January 14, 2013. The World War I Memorial was authorized by P.L. 113-
291, §3091(b), 128 Stat. 3858 (2014). The law provides that the memorial will be in Pershing Park, which is located in
Area I, next to Freedom Plaza between 14th and 15th Streets, NW at Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
26 P.L. 113-123, 128 Stat. 1377 (2014). For more information on past proposals for the World War II Memorial Prayer
Act, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, World War II Memorial Prayer Act,
report to accompany S. 1044, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., March 31, 2014, S.Rept. 113-141; “World War II Memorial Prayer
Act of 2011,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 158 (January 24, 2012), pp. H131-H132; and U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Natural Resources, World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2013, report to accompany H.R. 2070,
112th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 112-368 (2012); and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, National Parks Legislation, hearing on S. 1897, S. 2158, S. 2229, S.
2267, S. 2272, S. 2273, S. 2286, S. 2316, S. 2372, S. 3078, and S. 3300, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., June 27, 2012, S. Hrg.
112-578.
27 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(2).
28 P.L. 105-29, 111 Stat. 246 (1997).
29 P.L. 106-214, 114 Stat. 335 (2000).
30 P.L. 106-365, 114 Stat. 1409 (2000).
31 P.L. 111-88, §128, 123 Stat. 2933 (2009). While the Dole plaque was an addition to a completed commemorative
work, it was authorized outside the Commemorative Works Act process. It is included here as an exemption to the
CWA because it was placed in the Reserve.
32 P.L. 113-123, 128 Stat. 1377 (2014).
Congressional Research Service

5

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

• a wall of remembrance at the Korean War Memorial;33
• commemorative elements to honor Second Infantry Division members who have
been killed in action at the Second Division Memorial in President’s Park;34 and
• commemorative elements to honor First Infantry Division members who have
been killed in action at the First Division Monument.35
Additionally, in previous Congresses, legislation to add supplementary elements to existing
commemorative works was introduced, but not enacted. For example, in the 111th Congress
(2009-2010), House and Senate companion proposals were introduced to rededicate and rename
the District of Columbia War Memorial as the “National and District World War I Memorial,”36
and add “an appropriate sculptural or other commemorative element, which shall complement
and preserve the existing memorial and its landscape.... ”37 Neither bill was voted on by the
House or Senate.
Analysis and Options for Congress
Pursuant to the site selection process, most legislation authorizing commemorative works neither
includes specific location references nor authorizes the addition of new elements to existing
monuments or memorials. Instead, site selection is generally left to the sponsor group in
consultation with the NPS, NCMAC, NCPC, and CFA—followed by an act of Congress, when
necessary.
Further, because the CWA requires that new monuments and memorials be sited to avoid
interference with or encroachment on existing works,38 allowing the placement of additional
elements at existing works generally requires an exemption from Congress. CWA provisions
prohibiting encroachment are intended not only to protect existing commemorative works, but
also to ensure that newly authorized works can be considered as “stand-alone” commemorations.
Congress, however, has authorized new elements to existing monuments and memorials, and
additional legislation has been introduced that would further that practice.
Should Congress decide to become more involved in the site selection process or provide
supplementary guidance on the addition of new elements to existing monuments or memorials,
several options exist.39 These include amending the CWA, granting individual exemptions, or
retaining the existing commemorative works process.

33 P.L. 114-230, 130 Stat. 947 (2016).
34 P.L. 115-141, Division G, §121(a)(1), 132 Stat. 661 (2018). The Second Division Memorial modification was
incorporated by reference in P.L. 115-141. For text of the measure, see S. 1460, §7130 (115th Congress).
35 P.L. 116-283, Title X, Subtitle F, §1083, 134 Stat. 3875 (2021).
36 H.R. 482, §3 (111th Congress), introduced January 1, 2009; and S. 2097 (111th Congress), introduced October 29,
2009. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing on S.
2097 on December 3, 2009. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
National Parks, National Parks Legislation, Hearing on S. 760, S. 1838, S. 2097, S. 2722, S. 2726, S. 2738, H.R. 1849,
and H.R. 2689, 111th Cong., 1st sess., December 3, 2009, S.Hrg. 111-318.
37 H.R. 482, §3(2) (111th Congress) and S. 2097, §3(2) (111th Congress).
38 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(2).
39 For more information on the legislative history of the Commemorative Works Act, see CRS Report R41658,
Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice, by Jacob R. Straus.
Congressional Research Service

6

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

Commemorative Works Act Amendment
If Congress desires more statutory involvement in the monument and memorial site selection
process, or if Congress wants to allow the addition of new elements to existing commemorative
works, the CWA could be amended to require an act of Congress for the siting of all
commemorative works—not just in Area I—or to remove the statutory prohibition against adding
new elements or features to existing commemorative works.
Siting Commemorative Works
Currently, the CWA contemplates formal congressional intervention only if the Secretary of the
Interior or Administrator of General Services recommends a monument or memorial be sited in
Area I. Congress could amend the CWA to require congressional action for siting in Area II. Such
an amendment could serve to involve Congress further in the approval of all monument and
memorial sites, not just ones to be placed in Area I.
Additionally, in instances where Congress has accepted the Secretary or Administrator’s
recommendation for monument or memorial placement in Area I, the accompanying legislation
has specified the placement in Area I. It has not, however, provided for a specific site location
within the broader area.40 Future site authorizations could contain more specific information
about the monument’s or memorial’s location, thus granting statutory approval for a specific
(instead of general) site location. Historically, the exact site location has been left up to the
sponsor group in consultation with the federal planning agencies in the District of Columbia.
Adding New Elements to Existing Commemorative Works
Removing the statutory prohibition against adding new elements to existing commemorative
works would potentially allow sponsor groups to commemorate an event or group in a manner
not contemplated by the original memorial design. For instance, the addition of the plaque to the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial site was seen as an opportunity to memorialize a group not originally
included when the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was first authorized.41
Amending the CWA to allow additional elements to be placed at existing commemorative works
could change the nature of commemoration in the District of Columbia. Instead of each
monument or memorial being considered a completed work of art upon dedication, potential
additions could be included on an individual basis. Adding such elements after the original work
is completed, however, could change the intended nature or scope of the monument or memorial.

40 For example, the joint resolution approving the location of the Vietnam Women’s Memorial stated: “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.” P.L. 101-187, 103
Stat. 1350 (1989).
41 P.L. 106-214, 114 Stat. 335 (2000) added a plaque to Vietnam Veterans Memorial (P.L. 96-297, 94 Stat. 827 [1980]).
For more information and a picture of the Veterans Who Died as a Result of Service in the Vietnam War Plaque, see
CRS Report R43743, Monuments and Memorials Authorized and Completed Under the Commemorative Works Act in
the District of Columbia, by Jacob R. Straus; or Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, “In Memory Plaque,” at
http://www.vvmf.org/InMemoryPlaque. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial was originally conceived as a memorial “to
American men and women who served and died in the Vietnam War. For more information, see U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Vietnam Veterans Memorial, report to accompany S.J.Res. 119, 96th
Cong., 2nd sess., April 24, 1980, S.Rept. 96-663, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service

7

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

Additionally, NCPC and CFA might consider limitations on the design of future additions to
ensure that the new element complements the original design.
Individual Exemptions
Should Congress choose to be involved in the site selection process for some—but not all—
commemorative works, or allow additions to specific monuments or memorials, it may recall that
past individual authorization statutes have contained exemptions from the CWA.
Siting Commemorative Works
Congress has previously granted exemptions from the CWA to site monuments or memorials at
specific locations.42 Should Congress decide that direct site designation is appropriate for future
commemorative works, it could include that designation in the authorization legislation. This
specific site location information could be included in either the original statutory language or
subsequent legislation authorizing an Area I site location.
Providing an individual exemption to the siting clause of the CWA allows Congress to be
involved, when necessary, in siting a monument or memorial. For all other authorized monuments
and memorials, the current site selection process would continue to operate. Granting individual
exemptions to some groups and not others, however, would likely require Congress to continue to
decide when an exemption is appropriate.
Adding New Elements to Existing Commemorative Works
When Congress determines that additions to existing commemorative works are desirable,
individual exemptions can continue to be granted on a case-by-case basis. Separate examination
of each proposed additional element would continue the past practice of congressional review of
such proposals. Moreover, the original sponsor group could be consulted to determine if such
additions are consistent with the commemorative work’s original purpose.
Creating individual exemptions to 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(2), however, could undermine the
commemorative works planning processes that ensure a monument or memorial is reviewed for
site location, design, fundraising, construction, and perpetual maintenance. Additionally, since the
design of completed commemorative works has been approved by the NCPC and CFA, adding
more elements could compromise the original monument or memorial’s design and could require
renewed review of the work’s design.
Continue Current Site Selection Process
Instead of amending the CWA or providing individual exemptions for certain monuments or
memorials, Congress could stop allowing new monuments and memorials to be sited in Area I
and deny requests to add new elements to existing commemorative works.
Siting Commemorative Works
Continuing the current site selection process would allow the federal planning agencies to guide
sponsor groups through this process. Additionally, since the NCPC approves of planning

42 For example, when Congress authorized the plaque to commemorate the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I
Have a Dream Speech,” it specified that the plaque be placed “in the area of the Lincoln Memorial.” P.L. 106-365, 114
Stat. 1409 (2000).
Congressional Research Service

8

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

throughout the National Capital Region43 and the CFA approves of public art work design and
location,44 these entities can provide a holistic view of monument and memorial placement.
Maintaining the status quo for site selection, however, might not stop individual memorial
sponsor groups from requesting that Congress provide exemptions to locate monuments or
memorials on specific sites. Such requests could still be considered on an individual basis.
Alternately, chamber or committee rules could be written to prohibit the consideration of
monument or memorial legislation that includes a specific site location.45
Adding New Elements to Existing Commemorative Works
Instead of providing individual exemptions for additions to existing commemorative works,
Congress could choose to prohibit these additions. Since commemorative works are considered to
be complete upon dedication, a new element added to a completed monument or memorial has
been interpreted by some as a new commemorative work. As an example of a congressional
prohibition, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, in its report to accompany the
CWA in 1986, specifically discussed its intention that new commemorative works not encroach
on open space or other monuments and memorials.
The Committee intends that consideration of site alternatives shall be inclusive of the
following: possible conflicts with other activities at that site, the visual impact of the
commemorative work on adjacent commemorative works, and the effect on the adjacent
parking, transportation, and existing open space.46
Further, the committee reiterated that the “commemorative work shall be located to prevent
interference with or encroachment upon any existing commemorative work and to protect open
space in a manner compatible with existing public use.”47

43 The National Capital Region includes the District of Columbia; Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in
Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties in Virginia; and all cities in Maryland and
Virginia in the geographic area bounded by the outer boundaries of the combined area of the counties listed above [40
U.S.C. §8702].
44 40 U.S.C. §8711; and 40 U.S.C. §§9101-9104.
45 A comparable prohibition exists in the House of Representatives for commemorative legislation that includes a
specific period of time. House Rule XII, clause 5 states: “(a) A bill or resolution, or amendment thereto, may not be
introduced or considered in the House if it establishes or expresses a commemoration. (b) In this clause the term
‘commemoration’ means a remembrance, celebration, or recognition for any purpose through the designation of a
specified period of time.” U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, 115th Congress, 2nd sess., H.Doc. 115-177
(2019), §823, pp. 620-621, at https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/HouseRulesManual116/
rule12.xml. Similarly, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works rule prohibits the consideration of
legislation naming a public facility after living and most former Members of Congress. Committee Rule 7(d) states:
“(d) Naming Public Facilities: The committee may not name a building, structure or facility for any living person,
except former Presidents or former Vice Presidents of the United States, former Members of Congress over 70 years of
age, former Justices of the United States Supreme Court over 70 years of age, or Federal judges who are fully retired
and over 75 years of age or have taken senior status and are over 75 years of age.” U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee
on Environment and Public Works, Committee Rules, 116th Cong., 1st sess., at https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm/committee-rules.
46 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Governing the Establishment of Commemorative
Works within 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, p. 6. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources expressed similar sentiments in its report on H.R. 4378. See, 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, p. 9.
47 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

9

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

Continuing to prohibit the addition of elements to existing commemorative works, however,
would probably not stop interested groups from proposing memorial additions in restricted areas.
Should Congress continue to prohibit additions, proposals to add elements would likely be treated
as proposals for new commemorative works and would, if authorized, require new site locations.
Additionally, authorizing new commemorative works with related or substantially similar topics
could create confusion as to the status of each memorial. Under this scenario, more than one
monument or memorial to a war, event, or individual could be authorized. Duplicative
monuments or memorials might detract from existing commemorative works.
Use of American Materials
Once Congress authorizes a sponsor group to build a commemorative work in the District of
Columbia, the group must work with NCPC, CFA, and either the Secretary of the Interior
(through the NPS) or the Administrator of the GSA—depending on who has jurisdiction over the
land that would house the proposed memorial—to choose a site and receive design approval for
the memorial.48 As part of this process, the NCPC, CFA, and the Secretary or Administrator
evaluate several criteria, including the proposed memorial’s surroundings, location, material, and
landscape features.49
Pursuant to current law, the only criterion related to materials requires the consideration of the
proposed material’s durability to ensure it is “suitable to the outdoor environment.”50 In recent
Congresses, at least one proposal would have required that all memorials be constructed of
material that is mined or produced in the United States or manufactured “substantially ... from
articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced or manufactured ... in the United States.”51 The
proposal would have further required that construction permits could not be issued by the
Secretary or the Administrator without contract documents demonstrating “that material to be
used in the construction of the commemorative work complies with [these] criteria ... as
determined in accordance with regulations implementing chapter 83 of title 41, United States
Code (popularly referred to as the ‘Buy American Act’).”52
Should Congress want to mandate the use of American materials for commemorative works in the
District of Columbia, there are several options available including statutorily mandating
American materials or continuing current policies which do not directly address the origin of
construction material. Mandating the use of American materials in the construction of
commemorative works could provide assurances that national memorials would be constructed of
American materials. Requiring the use of domestic products may have an economic as well as
symbolic benefit. Visitors to Washington, DC, would know that the materials used to build
national memorials came from the United States.
Mandating the use of American material, however, may not be appropriate for all commemorative
works in the District of Columbia. Several recent works—Mahatma Gandhi, Tomas G. Masaryk,

48 40 U.S.C. §8905.
49 40 U.S.C. §8905(b).
50 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(3).
51 H.R. 1619 (112th Congress), introduced April 15, 2011.
52 H.R. 1619, §2(a)(2). The Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. §§8301-8305), generally requires federal agencies to
purchase “domestic end products” and use “domestic construction materials” on contracts exceeding the micro-
purchase threshold (typically $3,000) performed in the United States. For more information on the Buy American Act
and other provisions of federal law that govern restrictions on domestic content for government contracts, see CRS
Report R43354, Domestic Content Restrictions: The Buy American Act and Complementary Provisions of Federal
Law, by David H. Carpenter
Congressional Research Service

10

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

and Victims of the Ukrainian Manmade Famine of 1932-1933—were sponsored by foreign
governments. Such memorial sponsors might prefer to use material native to their countries when
building a memorial. Further, some memorial designers might find inspiration in non-American
materials and want to use them as part of the memorial. Such design elements may or may not be
appropriate, but would likely need to be reviewed by NCPC and CFA pursuant to the CWA.
Mandating the use of American materials may also have cost implications. American-made
materials might be more or less expensive than imported materials. Further, in instances where a
new element has been authorized at an existing memorial it might be desirable to match materials
to the existing memorial, regardless of the material’s origin. For example, if a new element was
added to an existing memorial which was built from Italian marble, it might not be possible to
match materials, if necessary, from domestic sources. In this case, consideration of an exemption
to the American-made requirement might be requested by the memorial sponsor or designer.
Should Congress choose not to amend the CWA to require American-made materials, the decision
would likely continue to reside with the federal planning bodies currently charged with approving
memorial designs pursuant to the CWA.
Deadline for Memorial Completion
In 1986, when the CWA was enacted, sponsor groups were given five years from the date of
enactment to complete the memorial or receive a construction permit. If a memorial was not
completed and a construction permit was not issued within five years, the group’s authority would
expire.53 By 1991, only one of the eight memorials authorized between the 99th Congress (1985-
1986) and the 101st Congress (1989-1990)—the American Armored Force Memorial—had met
the five-year deadline.54 To address this issue, P.L. 102-216 was enacted “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.”55
In the 116th Congress, legislation (H.R. 7480) was introduced to grant all currently authorized
commemorative works an additional year because of COVID-19.56 The measure was referred to
the House Committee on Natural Resources and at the time of this writing has not received
further consideration. Providing a blanket extension would likely have the effect of amending the
requirements of CWA, but only for certain, already authorized memorials.57 A one-year extension

53 P.L. 99-652, §10, 100 Stat. 3654 (1986). For more information on the original provisions of the CWA, see CRS
Report R41658, Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice, by Jacob R. Straus.
54 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, p. 2.
55 P.L. 102-216, 105 Stat. 1666 (1991). P.L. 102-216 was introduced as H.R. 3169 (102nd Congress), August 1, 1991.
See also “Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 137, part 15 (August 1, 1991), p. 21069; 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; 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.
56 H.R. 7480 (116th Congress), introduced July 7, 2020.
57 For a discussion of currently authorized memorials, 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.
Congressional Research Service

11

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

may or may not provide enough additional time to memorial sponsors who might need additional
time to complete memorial planning and construction.
Even with a seven-year authorization for the completion of the commemorative work or the
issuance of a construction permit,58 several recent memorials have been granted statutory
extensions, had their authorizations lapse, or both.59 In an effort to ensure that memorials are
completed in a timely manner, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced H.R. 2297 (113th
Congress), which would have amended 40 U.S.C. §8903 to allow the Secretary of the Interior or
the Administrator of GSA to recommend to Congress that a sponsor group’s authorization be
terminated. H.R. 2297 stated the following:
(b) Recommendations Regarding Termination of Authority To Establish Commemorative
Work—Section 8903 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
(f) Recommendations Regarding Termination of Legislative Authority—The
Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of General Services may submit a
recommendation to Congress that the legislative authority for a commemorative work
be terminated before the expiration date applicable to the work under subsection (e) if
the Secretary or the Administrator determines the person authorized to establish the
work does not possess the capacity or resources to successfully complete the project
before that expiration date.60
H.R. 2297 was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources and its Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Environmental Regulation. It did not receive any further action.
Providing the Secretary and the Administrator with the power to recommend the termination of a
memorial’s authorization raises two potential issues: can a memorial be completed or be issued a
construction permit within seven years as required by 40 U.S.C. §8903 and what impact might a
recommendation for termination have on congressional decision-making.
Memorial Completion
Providing the Secretary and the Administrator with the power to recommend the termination of a
memorial’s authorization could reduce the need to continually extend memorials that have not
met the statutory requirement of completion or the issuance of a construction permit within seven
years. Several currently authorized memorials have received more than one extension. For
example, the John Adams and His Family’s Legacy Memorial, which was originally authorized
on November 5, 2001, had its initial authorization expire in November 2008.61 Since then,
Congress has granted a series of extensions, first to September 30, 2010,62 then until December 2,
2013,63 then until December 2, 2020,64 and most recently until December 2, 2025, with the

58 40 U.S.C. §8903(e).
59 For example, the Women in Military Service for America Memorial’s authorization was extended to 10 years from
the date of enactment by P.L. 103-321 (108 Stat. 1793 [1994]); the George Mason Memorial received an extension of
three years by P.L. 105-182 (112 Stat. 516 [1998]); and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial received a
total of three extensions, totaling 14 years (P.L. 108-125, 117 Stat. 1347 [2003]; P.L. 109-54, §134, 119 Stat. 527
[2005]; and P.L. 111-88, §129, 123 Stat. 2933 [2009]).
60 H.R. 2297, §2(b), (113th Congress), introduced June 13, 2013.
61 P.L. 107-62, 115 Stat. 411 (2001).
62 P.L. 111-88, §130, 123 Stat. 2933 (2009).
63 P.L. 111-169, 124 Stat. 1192 (2010).
64 P.L. 113-291, §3094, 128 Stat. 3880, December 19, 2014. For more information on the Adams Memorials, see CRS
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

12

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

creation of the Adams Memorial Commission and its designation as the sponsor organization.65
While the memorial to John Adams and his family continues to move forward, if it was not
making progress, the Secretary or the Administrator could recommend the termination of its
authorization and Congress could avoid using legislative time to provide for its extension.
Congressional Decisionmaking
Providing explicit power to recommend the termination of a memorial’s authorization could
potentially lead to a recommendation being made before a sponsor group has exhausted its initial
seven-year period. Some memorials take longer to select a site, raise necessary funds, and secure
approval from the NCPC and CFA. Under this option, should the Secretary or the Administrator
determine that the sponsor group “does not possess the capacity or resources to successfully
complete the project before [the] expiration date,”66 and recommend the project’s termination,
Congress could find itself under pressure from both proponents and opponents of the memorial to
allow the work its initial seven-year authorization or to terminate the project ahead of the
statutory deadline. Alternately, a recommendation by the Secretary or the Administrator could
serve as a warning to the sponsor group that the project is not on track for completion or the
issuance of a construction permit within the seven-year authorization, and that it should redouble
its efforts to complete the memorial, as a new authorization may or may not be forthcoming.
Time Requirements Prior to Authorization
Commemorative works are subject to certain time restrictions before an event can be
memorialized. The CWA states (emphasis added):
Military Commemorative Works.-A military commemorative work may be authorized
only to commemorate a war or similar major military conflict or a branch of the armed
forces. A commemorative work solely commemorating a limited military engagement or a
unit of an armed force may not be authorized. Commemorative works to a war or similar
major military conflict may not be authorized until at least 10 years after the officially
designated end of such war or conflict.
Works Commemorating Events, Individuals, or Groups.-A commemorative work
commemorating an event, individual, or group of individuals, except a military
commemorative work as described in subsection (b), may not be authorized until after the
25th anniversary of the event, death of the individual, or death of the last surviving member
of the group.
These provisions were designed to allow sufficient time to elapse to provide time to evaluate
military events or historical contributions to the United States.67 In recent years, at least one
memorial has received an exemption from the time restrictions enacted in the CWA. The Global
War on Terrorism Memorial was granted an exception from the requirement that a war cannot be
memorialized until “at least 10 years after the officially designated end of such war or conflict.”68

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.
65 P.L. 116-9, §2406(m)(2), 122 Stat. 750 (2019).
66 H.R. 2297, §2(b) (113th Congress).
67 For more information, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
Public Lands, National Parks and Forests, Reauthorization of Certain Commemorative Works, hearing on H.R. 2947, S.
1612, S. 1552, and S. 1790, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., February 10, 1994, S.Hrg. 103-572, p. 16.
68 40 U.S.C. §8903(b). P.L. 115-51, §2(b)(2), 131 Stat. 1003, August 18, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

13

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

Proponents of granting an exemption to the time requirements generally argue that veterans
should be memorialized while they are still alive and “that because the nature of war has changed,
the CWA should be amended to allow for more timely military commemorations.”69 Opponents of
granting exemptions to time requirements argue that memorializing a conflict before it concludes
does not potentially allow for the full scope of the conflict to be considered during the
memorialization design process.70
Museums and the CWA
In 1846, Congress accepted James Smithson’s gift to create the Smithsonian Institution.71 Since
then, the Smithsonian has expanded to include 17 museums in the District of Columbia, most of
which are located on or adjacent to the National Mall.72 In recent years, Congress has authorized
three new Smithsonian museums: the National Museum of African American History and
Culture,73 the American Women’s History Museum,74 and the National Museum of the American
Latino.75
The CWA applies only to land administered by the NPS or GSA in the District of Columbia.76
Thus, museums sited on non-NPS or -GSA administered land would not be subject to the CWA.
Additionally, the CWA does not include museums in its definition of commemorative works.
Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. §8902(a)(1),

69 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Global War on Terrorism War Memorial Act, report to
accompany H.R. 873, 115th Cong., 1st sess., July 28, 2017, H.Rept. 115-264, p. 2.
70 Ibid.
71 9 Stat. 102, ch. 178 (1846). Upon his death in 1829, James Smithson—a British scientist—bequeathed his estate to
the United States (Paul H. Oehser, The Smithsonian Institution (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970), p. 15). In
December 1835, President Andrew Jackson notified Congress of Mr. Smithson’s bequest. In his message, President
Jackson wrote: “I transmit to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, accompanying copies of certain papers
relating to a bequest to the United States by Mr. James Smithson, of London, for the purpose of founding ‘at
Washington an establishment under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, for the increase and diffusion of
knowledge among men.’ The Executive having no authority to take any steps for accepting the trust and obtaining the
funds, the papers are communicated with a view to such measure as Congress may deem necessary.” U.S. Congress,
Joint Committee on Printing, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Volume III (New York:
Bureau of National Literature, 1897), p. 1406.
72 The Smithsonian Institution Museums in Washington, DC, are the National Museum of African American History
and Culture, the National African Art Museum, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian American Art
Museum, the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of the American Indian, the Anacostia
Community Museum, the Arts and Industries Building, the Freer Gallery of Art, the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture
Garden, the National Zoological Park, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Portrait Gallery, the
National Postal Museum, the Renwick Gallery, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, and the Smithsonian Institution Building
(the Castle). Additionally, the Smithsonian Institution operates the National Air and Space Museum Udvar-Hazy
Center near Dulles Airport in Virginia and two museums in New York City—the National Museum of the American
Indian George Gustav Heye Center and the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum. In 2020, Congress authorized
two new Smithsonian Museums in Washington, DC—the National Museum of the American Latino and the American
Women’s History Museum. P.L. 116-260, Division T, 134 Stat. 2272 (2020).
73 20 U.S.C. §80r.
74 20 U.S.C. §80t.
75 20 U.S.C. §80u.
76 40 U.S.C. §8903(a). 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), at http://www.ncpc.gov/DocumentDepot/Publications/2MPlan/
MemorialsandMuseumsMasterPlan_PartThree.pdf, pp. 167-168.
Congressional Research Service

14

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

any statue, monument, sculpture, memorial, plaque, inscription, or other structure or
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 structures which is primarily used for other purposes.77
Further, the CWA prohibits the siting of museums in Area I or East Potomac Park. Pursuant to 40
U.S.C. §8905(b)(5),
No commemorative work primarily designed as a museum may be located on lands under
the jurisdiction of the Secretary in Area I or in East Potomac Park as depicted on the map
referenced in section 8902(2).
When authorizing the National Museum of African American History and Culture in 2003, and
the American Women’s History Museum and the National Museum of the American Latino in
2020, Congress specifically exempted each from the CWA prohibition against the creation of
museums on NPS- or GSA-administered land.78 The granting of this exemption arguably suggests
that Congress believes the CWA applies to museums at any District location, if they might be
located on NPS- or GSA-administered land.79 This application of the CWA to a museum would be
in contrast to the specific CWA prohibition against the placement of a museum in Area I or East
Potomac Park.80 Whether the CWA applies to museums, therefore, is an open question.81
To reconcile the application of the CWA to museums, Congress could choose to apply the CWA
and its process to museums.82 This could standardize the process for creating museums in the
District of Columbia. Codifying congressional intent could also streamline the museum-creation
process; set guidelines for the placement of museums in certain locations within the District of
Columbia; and clarify the role of third-party organizations for the creation, funding, and design of
future museums in a manner similar to the CWA’s requirement for monuments and memorials.
Expanding the scope of the CWA to include non-NPS or non-GSA administered land and
museums could put an additional burden on the commemorative works process. In addition to
evaluating the site location, design, and progress of monuments and memorials, the NCMAC,
NCPC, and CFA could be required to evaluate authorized museums under the same conditions as
monuments and memorials. Current commemorative work guidance, however, does not provide
direction on museums and interior spaces. The now-cancelled Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor
Center might provide precedent for the evaluation of “museum” space. The Visitor Center’s

77 40 U.S.C. §8902(a)(1).
78 P.L. 108-184, §8, 117 Stat. 2681 (2003); 20 U.S.C. §80r-6. Similar language was included in the authorization of the
American Women’s History Museum (20 U.S.C. §80t-5(d); P.L. 116-260, Division T, Title I, §107(d), 134 Stat. 2276
[2020]) and the National Museum of the American Latino (20 U.S.C. §80u(g)(4); P.L. 117-260, Division T, Title II,
§201(g)(4), 134 Stat. 2286 [2020]). For both museums, the language stated: “COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ACT.—
Chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code, shall not apply with respect to the Museum, except that the Museum shall
not be located in the Reserve (as defined in section 8902(a) of that title).”
79 For further legal questions on the application of the Commemorative Works Act, congressional clients may contact
CRS’s American Law Division (ALD). ALD contributed to this section.
80 40 U.S.C. §8905(b)(5).
81 40 U.S.C. §8902(a)(1). As previously noted, the CWA defines a commemorative work as “any statue, monument,
sculpture, memorial, plaque, inscription, or other structure or 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 structures which is primarily used for other purposes.”
82 For more information on the creation of museums in the District of Columbia, see CRS Report R43856,
Contemporary Federal Museum Authorizations in the District of Columbia: Past Practices and Options for Congress,
by Jacob R. Straus.
Congressional Research Service

15

Monuments and Memorials in the District of Columbia

authorization specifically provided that it was a commemorative work and it was treated as such
during its design process,83 before it was officially cancelled in September 2018.84
Conclusion
In recent Congresses, several bills have been introduced to authorize new commemorative works
in the District of Columbia. As new commemorative works proposals are introduced and new
exemptions from the CWA are sought, Congress will face choices on how to commemorate
events and individuals. This report analyzed five proposed exemptions: siting commemorative
works, use of American materials, deadlines for memorial completion, time requirements for new
memorial authorization, and museums under the Commemorative Works Act. For each proposed
exemption, congressional options include providing an exemption from the CWA for an
individual monument or memorial, amending the CWA and thereby providing changes applicable
to all new commemorative works, and continuing the current commemorative works process.
For each proposed exemption, the options available to Congress are not mutually exclusive. It
might be possible, for example, both to grant a one-time exemption to a sponsor group and to
amend the CWA for future monuments and memorials. Similarly, Congress could choose to be
more involved in some aspects of the commemorative works process established by the CWA or
delegate additional authority to the NCPC, CFA, or NCMAC, as appropriate.

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.

83 P.L. 108-126, 117 Stat. 1348 (2003). For more information on the Vietnam Veterans Visitor Center, see, for
example, National Capital Planning Commission, “Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center,” Commission Action,
File Number 6597, July 9, 2015, at https://www.ncpc.gov/docs/actions/2015July/
Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial_Visitor_Center_Action_6597_July2015.pdf.
84 Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, “Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund Changes Direction of Education Center
Campaign,” press release, September 21, 2018. A copy of the press release is available to congressional clients from
the author upon request.
Congressional Research Service
R43241 · VERSION 7 · UPDATED
16

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

May. 8, 2023

HTML · PDF

Sep. 21, 2020

HTML · PDF

Jun. 2, 2015

HTML · PDF

Sep. 24, 2013

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

American Law

Intelligence and National Security

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department

Raw Metadata: JSON