HR-6201-117
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 513.
Sponsored by Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ)
What it does
This bill would extend through fiscal year 2027 the legal authority of the National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish a memorial on eligible federal land in Washington, D.C. The memorial would honor enslaved and free Black individuals who served as soldiers, sailors, or civilian supporters during the American Revolution. Without this extension, the Fund's authority to site and build the memorial on federal land would expire.
Who benefits
The National Mall Liberty Fund D.C., which gains additional time to complete the memorial siting and construction process. Descendants of enslaved and free Black Revolutionary War participants, who would gain a permanent federal memorial recognizing their ancestors' contributions. Historians, educators, and students focused on African American history and the Revolutionary War era. Visitors to the National Mall who would have access to the completed memorial. The broader public interested in a more complete historical record of the American Revolution.
Who is hurt
Federal land managers, including the National Park Service, who would continue to have a portion of eligible federal land subject to potential memorial development through FY2027. Other memorial or park projects competing for the same eligible federal land could face continued delays or displacement. Taxpayers who fund any federal administrative costs associated with the extended review and approval process, though the bill does not appropriate funds for construction.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the contributions of enslaved and free Black Americans to the Revolutionary War have been historically overlooked and deserve permanent federal recognition on the National Mall alongside other memorials to that era. They contend that the memorial process — site selection, design, fundraising, and federal approvals — is inherently complex and time-consuming, and that a deadline extension is a routine, necessary step to allow the Fund to complete that process without losing its legal authority. They further argue that the bill costs the federal government nothing in direct appropriations, as the Fund raises private money for construction, making the extension a low-cost way to preserve an important historical commemoration.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the Fund has already had substantial time to advance the memorial project and that repeated deadline extensions raise legitimate questions about whether the project has sufficient organizational capacity, funding, or public support to reach completion. They contend that the National Mall is a finite and heavily managed public space, and that holding open a federal land authorization for an indefinite period imposes real opportunity costs by limiting flexibility for other uses or projects. They further argue that Congress should require the Fund to demonstrate concrete progress — such as a secured site, approved design, or fundraising milestones — before granting additional time, rather than extending authority without conditions.