HB7073 authorizes American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to provide and furnish statues for the National Statuary Hall Collection, subject to the same specifications and applicable law that govern state contributions. The bill amends the legislative-branch statutory definition of “State” to include these territories and directs the Architect of the Capitol to take the steps necessary to acquire and place the statues.
This is a narrowly focused statutory change with symbolic and administrative impacts: it formally opens a long‑standing Capitol display to non-state jurisdictions, creates new selection and logistics questions for territorial governments and the Architect’s office, and requires the Legislative Branch to absorb the work of integrating additional contributors into the Collection without specifying funding or selection mechanics.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds five U.S. territories/commonwealths to the list of jurisdictions allowed to furnish statues for the National Statuary Hall Collection and cross‑references existing statutory specifications (2 U.S.C. 2131). It also amends the definition of “State” in a Legislative Branch appropriation statute to include those jurisdictions and tasks the Architect of the Capitol with implementing the change.
Who It Affects
Territorial governments (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands), the Architect of the Capitol and Joint Committee on the Library, and offices responsible for selecting and funding statues. Cultural institutions, sculptors, and the Capitol’s curatorial and facilities teams will also be involved.
Why It Matters
The bill changes who may be represented in a prominent federal display, creating precedent for non‑state representation in the Capitol. It also shifts administrative and logistical responsibilities to the Architect’s office without attaching explicit appropriations or selection procedures.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB7073 adds the five named U.S. territories and commonwealths to the pool of jurisdictions that may provide statues to the National Statuary Hall Collection. It does this by referencing the same specifications that apply to statues donated by the states under 2 U.S.C. 2131 and by amending a legislative-branch statute so that the term “State” explicitly includes those territories.
Practically, that means territorial governments can propose, fund, and furnish sculpture intended for display in the Capitol, and those sculptures must meet the existing size, material, and quality standards established for state contributions.
The bill also gives the Architect of the Capitol a clear statutory hook to act: the Architect must take “measures necessary” to acquire the statues and carry out the Act, including work on behalf of the Joint Committee on the Library. The language is administrative rather than prescriptive — it does not set deadlines, funding streams, or specific selection rules — but it does obligate the Architect to incorporate territorial contributions into the Collection and to handle the acquisition, placement, and related logistics.Because the bill relies on existing statutory references rather than creating a detailed new process, several practical questions remain open.
The bill does not state how many statues a territory may furnish, whether the territorial legislature, governor, or another body supplies the required resolution or designation, how replacement or rotation would work, or how costs for commissioning, transporting, installing, and maintaining new statues will be allocated. Those operational matters will fall to implementing guidance from the Architect’s office, the Joint Committee, or subsequent legislation or resolutions from Congress and the territorial governments.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill explicitly names five jurisdictions—American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands—as eligible to provide statues to the National Statuary Hall Collection.
It ties territorial eligibility to the same statutory specifications that govern state contributions (citing section 1814 of the Revised Statutes, codified at 2 U.S.C. 2131).
HB7073 amends section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 U.S.C. 2132), by adding a new subsection that defines “State” to include the five territories.
The bill directs the Architect of the Capitol to take the measures necessary to acquire, accept, and place the statues and to act on behalf of the Joint Committee on the Library in doing so.
The text imposes no funding appropriation, timeline, or detailed selection procedure; implementation authority is administrative and leaves selection, funding, and placement logistics unresolved.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — Equality in the Halls of Congress Act
Section 1 names the bill, which is purely stylistic but signals the sponsor’s intent: to frame the change as an expansion of representational parity in the Capitol. It creates no legal obligations beyond providing a title for citation purposes.
Permits territories and commonwealths to furnish statues
Subsection (a) is the operative grant of authority: it lists the five territories that may "provide and furnish statues" to the National Statuary Hall Collection and explicitly subjects those statues to the same specifications applicable to state contributions under 2 U.S.C. 2131 and related law. Mechanically, this opens the door for territorial governments to initiate the process of selecting and commissioning statues; practically, it imports the technical standards and placement protocols already used for states but does not spell out the nomination or approval steps.
Conforming amendment to the statutory definition of 'State'
Subsection (b) amends the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act provision (2 U.S.C. 2132) by adding a new paragraph that treats the five territories as within the statutory meaning of "State." That change is legal plumbing: it aligns definitions across statutes so that existing language using "State" will also encompass these territories for purposes of the Statuary Hall rules. It does not, however, create separate civil‑rights or political status changes — it is limited to the narrow statutory context.
Architect of the Capitol authorized and tasked with implementation
Subsection (c) directs the Architect to take the measures necessary to acquire the statues and to carry out the Act, explicitly including actions on behalf of the Joint Committee on the Library. This clause gives the Architect administrative authority to handle acquisition, placement, and any logistical tasks but stops short of specifying funding, timing, or the internal procedures the Architect must follow. Those practical decisions will govern how quickly and under what conditions territorial statues appear on display.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Territorial governments (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands): They gain a formal route to federal representation in a prominent national display, increasing visibility for territorial historical figures and cultural narratives.
- Residents and diasporas of the territories: Expanded symbolic recognition in the Capitol can enhance public visibility of territorial histories and civic identity for millions of current and former residents.
- Local artists, sculptors, and cultural institutions in the territories: New commissioning opportunities and partnerships with the Architect’s curatorial staff for production, conservation, and interpretive work.
- The Joint Committee on the Library and congressional curators: They receive a broader, more diverse pool of candidates for the Collection, which can enrich the historical narrative presented in the Capitol.
Who Bears the Cost
- Architect of the Capitol and Capitol curatorial/facilities teams: Responsible for acquiring, accepting, installing, securing, and maintaining additional statues within existing space and budget constraints.
- Territorial governments: Expected to commission, fund, and transport statues to the Capitol unless separate funding arrangements are made; smaller territorial budgets may face material costs for commissions and logistics.
- Joint Committee on the Library and House Administration staff: Will incur administrative work to adapt approval processes, provenance reviews, and placement planning to include territorial submissions.
- Federal custodial, security, and conservation budgets: Additional items in the Collection increase long‑term maintenance and security obligations that currently lack specific funding in the bill.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims—extending symbolic representation in a national civic space versus preserving coherent, administrable rules for a finite federal collection—without resolving the trade-offs between symbolic equity and the practical limits of funding, curatorial capacity, and selection authority.
The bill is concise and administrative, which is its strength and its weakness. By relying on existing statutory cross‑references it avoids reinventing technical standards, but it also leaves key implementation questions unanswered: how many statues a territory may place (the state practice historically allows two per state), which territorial authority must make the official designation, and whether territories follow the same legislative‑resolution process that states use.
Those gaps mean the Architect’s office and the Joint Committee will need to develop guidance or request further legislation to operationalize selection and placement.
Funding and space are the most tangible implementation constraints. The bill instructs the Architect to take “measures necessary” but does not provide appropriations or authorize reimbursements to cover commissioning, transport, installation, or ongoing conservation.
Adding multiple contributors to the Collection without addressing display capacity could force curatorial tradeoffs (rotation, offsite storage, or reconfiguration of displays). Finally, the change raises precedent and political questions: treating territories as “States” for this narrow purpose improves symbolic inclusion but may invite requests for similar treatment in other contexts, prompting debates over where symbolic recognition should stop and statutory parity should begin.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.