89–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–561 

TO PROVIDE FOR THE FURNISHING OF STATUES BY THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR DISPLAY IN STATUARY 

HALL IN THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL 

JULY 22, 2010.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House 

Administration, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5493] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 5493) to provide for the furnishing of statues by the 

District of Columbia for display in Statuary Hall in the United 

States Capitol, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 5493 is a bill to enhance the artistic display of sculpture in 

the United States Capitol by providing the District of Columbia 

with the right to request that no more than two statues of prominent, deceased persons associated with that jurisdiction be displayed in the National Statuary Hall Collection. The Collection was 

created by statute in 1864 (2 U.S.C. 2081) to honor distinguished 

persons chosen by the states, for display in what is now called 

Statuary Hall; in later years the statues were also displayed outside the overcrowded Hall, and, more recently, in the Capitol Visitors Center. In 2005, New Mexico submitted the 100th statue to 

complete the Collection, with two from each state. 

Choices of potential historical personages to receive the honor 

would be made by the District of Columbia government and preVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:42 Jul 23, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR561.XXX HR561

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
2 

sented to the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library. The District would bear the costs of making the statues and transporting 

them into the Capitol for display. H.R. 5493 would also provide to 

the District the ability to replace its statues, at a future time, as 

currently permitted by Federal law for existing statues in the Collection. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR H.R. 5493

Upon completion of the new House wing of the Capitol in 1857, 

the House of Representatives looked for a use for its old chamber, 

located between the Rotunda and the House wing. The idea for a 

statuary hall was proposed in April of 1864, during President Lincoln’s administration, and National Statuary Hall was created by 

law on July 2, 1864. Each state was invited to send two statues of 

worthy citizens of their choosing to the newly created National 

Statuary Hall. 

By 1933, National Statuary Hall contained 65 statues and began 

to suffer from overcrowding and safety issues involving excess 

weight, so Congress passed House Concurrent Resolution 47, to 

allow for the relocation of statues within the Capitol by the Joint 

Committee on the Library. In the 106th Congress, the efficacy of 

a House-numbered concurrent resolution beyond the Congress in 

which it had originated was discussed. As a result, the JCL’s authority was codified in legislation in 2000 (Public Law 106–554 [40 

U.S.C. 187a]), the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, which 

also gave the states the ability to replace their previous selections. 

The District of Columbia, by virtue of not being a state, was not 

included in the original 1864 statute. The Committee agrees with 

proponents of H.R. 5493 that the time has come for the contributions of residents of the District to be recognized in the same manner as those of the states. 

The need for a federal capitol that is not within a state was documented in Federalist No. 43 of The Federalist Papers and was codified in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. James Madison, 

writing in Federalist No. 43, believed the Federal government, and 

not a state, should exercise total control over the new federal capitol, which led to the District of Columbia’s unique designation. 

The area which currently comprises the District, irrespective of 

its changing governmental structure over time, has been part of 

the American republic since the formation of the United States. 

While not a state, the District of Columbia shares more in common 

with states than it does with American territories, which were acquired at various times through agreements or conquest. District 

of Columbia residents are granted the same rights and responsibilities as citizens of the 50 states under the Constitution, except the 

ability to have voting representatives in the Congress; are treated 

the same for tax purposes; and vote, pursuant to the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, for three electors to cast votes for president and vice president. 

This legislation is about art, not politics. It has nothing to do 

with the issue of D.C. voting representation in Congress and its enactment would not bolster any claims the District might have for 

the enactment of legislation on that subject, which is not within 

the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration. The 

land now comprising the District has had a history as long as the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
3 

United States has existed, originally as part of the state of Maryland, and has had many famous residents of national and international renown. 

The District has indicated that, if the bill is enacted, that it 

would expect to propose the names of Pierre L’Enfant and Frederick Douglass for inclusion in the Collection, and has already commissioned statues which are currently on display in a local government office building. The Committee takes no position on the identity of the persons who might be chosen by the District. 

The Committee intends that the Joint Committee on the Library, 

pursuant to its statutory authority, would determine appropriate 

locations within the Capitol complex for display of statues presented by the District of Columbia for inclusion in the National 

Statuary Hall Collection. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

H.R. 5493 was introduced by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of 

the District of Columbia on June 9, 2010. The Committee on House 

Administration conducted a markup of H.R. 5493 on July 14th, 

2010. The Committee considered and rejected, by voice vote, an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Rep. Lungren 

of California which would have limited the District to a single statue in the Collection, and added to the Collection a single statue 

each from the following territories of the United States: American 

Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. 

The Committee then ordered the bill reported favorably, by voice 

vote, without amendment, with a quorum being present. 

ANALYSIS OF THE BILL (AS REPORTED)

Section 1. Section 1 authorizes the President to invite the District of Columbia to provide and furnish no more than two statues 

celebrating the achievements of deceased citizens that the District 

of Columbia deems worthy of the honor. The subjects of the statues 

must be deceased for no fewer than 10 years. 

Section 2. The District of Columbia may request the Joint on the 

Library to approve the replacement of a statue that was furnished 

pursuant to Section 1. This request will be considered by the Joint 

Committee on the Library if the request has been approved by the 

Council and Mayor of the District of Columbia. This request cannot 

be made until the statue that is to be replaced has been displayed 

for at least 10 years or unless the Joint Committee on the Library 

waives this requirement for cause. If the request is approved by the 

Joint Committee on the Library, the Architect of the Capitol will 

enter into an agreement with the District of Columbia to carry out 

the replacement procedure pursuant to any conditions the Joint 

Committee may require. The new statue is subject to the same conditions set forth in Section 1 and the District of Columbia shall 

bear the entire cost of the replacement process. Upon replacement 

and subject to the approval of the Joint Committee on the Library, 

ownership of the statue being replaced will be transferred to the 

District of Columbia. The replaced statue is prohibited from being 

displayed again in the U.S. Capitol unless specifically authorized 

by Federal law. The Architect of the Capitol, upon JCL approval, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
4 

is authorized to direct and provide for the location and relocation 

of any statues. 

MATTERS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE

Constitutional authority 

Clause 3(d)(1) of House Rule XIII requires each committee report 

on a public bill or joint resolution to include a statement citing the 

specific constitutional power(s) granted to the Congress on which 

the Committee relies for enactment of the measure under consideration. 

The Committee cites the legislative power broadly granted to 

Congress under Article I. Pursuant to House Rule X, clause 1(j)(4), 

the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration includes 

statuary and pictures, and acceptance or purchase of works of art 

for the U.S. Capitol. 

Committee votes 

Clause 3(b) of House Rule XIII requires the results of each recorded vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with 

the names of those voting for and against, to be printed in the committee report. No recorded votes were taken during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 5493. 

Congressional Budget Office estimate 

Clause 3(c)(3) of House Rule XIII requires the report of a committee on a measure which has been approved by the committee to 

include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 403 of the CBA, if timely 

submitted. The Director submitted the following estimate: 

JULY 20, 2010. 

Hon. ROBERT A. BRADY, 

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5493, a bill to provide for 

the furnishing of statues by the District of Columbia for display in 

Statuary Hall in the United States Capitol. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Alan Eder and Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5493—A bill to provide for the furnishing of statues by the District of Columbia for display in Statuary Hall in the United 

States Capitol 

H.R. 5493 would authorize the President to invite the District of 

Columbia to place up to two statues of deceased citizens known for 

distinguished civic or military service in Statuary Hall in the 

United States Capitol. The bill also would require the District of 

Columbia to cover the costs of providing new statues. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5493 would have no significant imVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:42 Jul 23, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR561.XXX HR561

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
5 

pact on the federal budget. Enacting the bill would not affect direct 

spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would 

not apply. 

H.R. 5493 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Alan Eder and Matthew Pickford. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

Federal mandates 

Section 423 of the CBA requires a committee report on any public bill or joint resolution that includes a federal mandate to include 

specific information about such mandates. The Committee states 

that H.R. 5493 includes no federal mandates. 

Preemption clarification 

Section 423 of the CBA requires a committee report on any public bill or joint resolution to include a committee statement on the 

extent to which the measure is intended to preempt state or local 

law. The Committee states that H.R. 5493 is not intended to preempt any state or local law. 

Oversight findings 

Clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII requires each committee report to contain oversight findings and recommendations required pursuant to 

clause 2(b)(1) of House Rule X. Membership of the Joint Committee 

on the Library, which has jurisdiction over the placement of statues in the Collection, consists predominantly of members of the 

Committee on House Administration. The Committee has oversight 

responsibility under clause 4(d)(1)(B) of rule X for the management 

of services provided to the House by the Architect of the Capitol, 

except those that lie within jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The AoC would supervise physical 

placement, and replacement, of statues in the National Statuary 

Hall Collection. The Committee finds that the Architect and the 

JCL can find appropriate locations within the U.S. Capitol for inclusion of additional statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection. 

Statement of general performance goals and objectives 

Clause 3(c)(4) of House Rule XIII requires committee reports to 

include a statement of general performance goals and objectives. 

The Committee finds that the addition of two statues from the District of Columbia to the Collection would add to its artistic merit 

and increase its historical interest to the American people. 

Congressional ‘‘earmarks’’ 

Clause 9 of House Rule XXI requires committee reports on public 

bills and resolutions to contain an identification of congressional 

‘‘earmarks,’’ limited tax benefits, limited tariff benefits, and the 

names of requesting Members. The bill as reported contains no 

such items. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
6 

Congressional Accountability Act applicability 

Section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–1) (CAA) requires each report on a public bill or joint 

resolution relating to terms and conditions of employment or access 

to public services or accommodations to describe the manner in 

which the legislation applies to the Legislative Branch. The bill as 

reported contains no such items. 

Changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported 

H.R. 5493 would not make any changes in existing law. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
(7) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

The statues displayed throughout the Capitol complex add both 

history and beauty to the experience of visiting the United States 

Capitol. We do not object to giving the District of Columbia and the 

territories the opportunity to add to that experience by displaying 

a statue of a person of historical significance. However, there are 

unfortunately those who will distort the meaning of any legislation 

affecting only the District of Columbia to manufacture an argument that it shows support for giving the District of Columbia 

rights and status that are specifically not provided to it by the Constitution. We fear that the way the committee has treated this 

issue today will further lend support to those erroneous arguments. 

The legislation considered today authorized the District of Columbia to place two statues for display in Statuary Hall. This is the 

same number of statues that each state is allotted under the current rules. Additionally, this committee also passed legislation that 

gave the territories the right to display statues, yet each territory 

was only given authorization for one statue. H.R. 5493 seeks to 

give the District of Columbia the imprimatur of statehood by giving 

it two statues, and in the next breath, H.R. 5711 further distinguished the District of Columbia by only giving the territories one 

statue instead of two. While we do not wish to reargue other issues 

relating to the District of Columbia in this context, clearly the District of Columbia is not a state under the plain reading of the 

United States Constitution and it should not be treated as such. 

Ranking Member Lungren offered an amendment to make clear 

that this bill was designed to include the District of Columbia and 

the territories in the Capitol’s statuary collection rather than as an 

exercise in political gamesmanship to advance an unrelated agenda 

relating to the District of Columbia. The amendment provided for 

both the territories and the District of Columbia to display one 

statue each. This change would have allowed members to support 

this bill without fear that their vote would be used to advance another agenda. However this amendment was defeated in committee. 

While we do not object to—and in fact support—the District of 

Columbia and the territories having the opportunity to display a 

statue, we do object to using this process as a political pawn in the 

game to grant the District of Columbia de facto statehood without 

going through the proper and necessary process of amending the 

Constitution. 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN. KEVIN MCCARTHY. GREGG HARPER. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS