HR-9047-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Donald Beyer (D-VA)
What it does
This bill would permanently prohibit the construction or establishment of any triumphal arch — defined as a monumental freestanding archway or substantially similar structure — within Lady Bird Johnson Park in Washington, D.C., regardless of funding source. It would also bar any triumphal arch taller than 50 feet on land administered by the National Park Service's National Capital Region office unless Congress explicitly authorizes it. No federal funds could be used for any prohibited arch in Lady Bird Johnson Park.
Who benefits
Visitors to Arlington National Cemetery and nearby parkland who value unobstructed sightlines to the cemetery. Preservation and historic landscape advocacy groups who prioritize the visual character of the National Mall area. Residents of the Washington, D.C. metro area who use Lady Bird Johnson Park for recreation. Veterans' organizations and families of those interred at Arlington who consider the cemetery's visual setting part of its commemorative dignity. Members of Congress who wish to retain legislative control over large monument decisions in the capital region.
Who is hurt
The executive branch, which would lose discretionary authority to approve or construct such structures in the covered areas without returning to Congress. Any private or governmental entity that has proposed or may propose a triumphal arch in these locations. Architects, construction firms, and contractors who might otherwise compete for such a project. Donors or organizations that might wish to fund a commemorative arch through private means, as the bill prohibits construction regardless of funding source. Future administrations that may wish to use monumental architecture in the capital region for commemorative purposes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Lady Bird Johnson Park sits directly across the Potomac River from Arlington National Cemetery, and that a large triumphal arch in that location would permanently alter the solemn visual character of one of the nation's most sacred burial grounds. They contend that decisions about monumental structures of this scale in the capital region — which affect millions of visitors and carry lasting symbolic weight — should require explicit congressional authorization rather than executive discretion alone, consistent with Congress's constitutional authority over the District of Columbia and federal lands.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill targets a specific, narrow category of structure in a limited geographic area, effectively legislating against a particular design concept rather than establishing a principled framework for monument review. They contend that existing processes — including the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the National Environmental Policy Act — already provide robust multi-agency review of proposed monuments, making a categorical statutory ban redundant and inflexible. Critics may also argue the bill's broad definition of "triumphal arch" or "substantially similar structure" could create ambiguity that chills legitimate commemorative design proposals.