Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process
and Current Legislation
Ida A. Brudnick
Analyst on the Congress
February 16, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41074
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
Summary
The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for “the maintenance, operation, development,
and preservation of 16.5 million square feet of buildings and more than 450 acres of land
throughout” the United States Capitol Complex.
The Architect is appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation. The Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act, 1990, established a 10-year term for the Architect as well as a
bicameral, bipartisan congressional commission to recommend candidates to the President. As
amended, this commission consists of 14 Members of Congress, including the Speaker of the
House, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the House and Senate majority and minority
leaders, and the chair and ranking minority members of the Committee on House Administration,
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Alan M. Hantman was the first Architect appointed under the 1989 act. He declined to seek
reappointment and served from January 30, 1997, to February 4, 2007. Stephen T. Ayers currently
serves as Acting Architect of the Capitol.
During recent Congresses, multiple bills have been introduced that would alter the AOC
appointment process and require the appointment to be made by the leadership of Congress rather
than the President. One of these bills, H.R. 2843, the Architect of the Capitol Appointment Act of
2010, passed the House on February 3, 2010.
For additional information on the AOC, please see CRS Report RL31121, The Capitol Visitor
Center: An Overview, by Stephen W. Stathis; and CRS Report RL34694, Administering Green
Programs in Congress: Issues and Options, by Jacob R. Straus.
Congressional Research Service
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
Contents
Current Appointment Process ...................................................................................................... 1
Changing the Current Procedure for Selecting the Architect: Comparison of Recent
Legislation ............................................................................................................................... 3
Initial Implementation of the 1989 Architect of the Capitol Selection Act .................................... 4
Filling the Current AOC Vacancy ................................................................................................ 5
Evaluation of the Current Bicameral Congressional Commission Process In Choosing the
AOC ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Time Frame for Filling a Vacancy ......................................................................................... 5
Internal Operations of the Commission.................................................................................. 6
Process of the Reappointment of an Incumbent AOC............................................................. 6
Increasing Congressional Involvement in the AOC Appointment: Discussion Preceding
the Current Process .................................................................................................................. 6
Discussion Regarding the Qualifications of the AOC................................................................. 11
Tables
Table 1. Proposals to Alter the Appointment of the Architect: 1959-Present ................................. 9
Appendixes
Appendix. Architects of the Capitol Since 1793......................................................................... 13
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 13
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 13
Congressional Research Service
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
he Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for “the maintenance, operation,
development, and preservation of 16.5 million square feet of buildings and more than 450
T acres of land throughout the Capitol complex. This includes the House and Senate office
buildings, the Capitol, Capitol Visitor Center, the Library of Congress buildings, the Supreme
Court building, the U.S. Botanic Garden, the Capitol Power Plant, and other facilities.”1 The AOC
carries out its bicameral, nonpartisan responsibilities using both its own staff and contracting
authority for architectural, engineering, and other professional services.
Since 1989, the Architect has been appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the
Senate, following the forwarding of recommendations to the President from a bicameral
commission consisting of Members of Congress. The position has been vacant since February 4,
2007.2
The appointment of the Architect has been a subject of periodic consideration for at least 50
years. It is a topic that has received increased attention during periods in which there has been a
vacancy in the position and periods of congressional dissatisfaction with either the work of the
incumbent or the involvement of the President in what some Members view as an internal
legislative branch matter. The 111th Congress has considered changes to the appointment of the
Architect, with one bill (H.R. 2843) reported and passed in the House.
This report discusses the history of the selection of the AOC and recent legislation. An Appendix
provides websites for brief biographical information about each of the 10 individuals who have
served as Architect of the Capitol.
Current Appointment Process
The Architect is “appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate for
a term of 10 years.”3 This procedure was established by the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act, 1990, which also created a congressional commission responsible for recommending at least
three individuals to the President for the position of Architect of the Capitol.4 The commission
1 Architect of the Capitol, “About Us,” available at http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/index.cfm. The legal responsibilities of the
Architect of the Capitol are dispersed through several titles of the United States Code. References to AOC duties are
included in Title 2 (Congress), Title 5 (Government Organization and Employees), Title 36 (Patriotic Societies and
Observances), Title 40 (Public Buildings, Property, and Works), Title 41 (Public Contracts), and Title 42 (Public
Health and Welfare). U.S. Architect of the Capitol, 2008 Performance And Accountability Report, available at
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/cfo/upload/AOC-2008-Performance-and-Accountability-Report-7.pdf, p. iv. These buildings
include the U.S. Capitol; Capitol Visitor Center; Russell Senate Office Building; Dirksen Senate Office Building; Hart
Senate Office Building; Webster Hall; Cannon House Office Building; Longworth House Office Building; Rayburn
House Office Building; Ford House Office Building; House Page Dorm; Botanic Garden Conservatory; Botanic
Garden Administration Building; National Garden; Thomas Jefferson Building; John Adams Building; James Madison
Building; Special Facilities Center; Supreme Court Building; Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building; Capitol
Power Plant Complex; Eney, Chesnut, Gibson Memorial Building; the Senate Childcare Center; Alternate Computer
Facility; Ft. Meade Building; National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, VA; U.S. Capitol Police
Buildings; U.S. Capitol Police Training Facility; and the U.S. Capitol Police Dog Kennel and Training Facility. Leased
facilities, which according to AOC account for approximately 500,000 square feet of space, include Postal Square,
GPO Building, U.S. Capitol Police Maintenance Facility, Fairchild Building, the U.S. Capitol Police Off-Site Delivery
Center, and Storage/Logistics Warehouse, all located in Washington, D.C (Ibid., p. 4).
2 Obtained from http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/hantman.cfm.
3 2 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1).
4 P.L. 101-163, November 21, 1989, 103 Stat. 1068, 2 U.S.C. 1801.
Congressional Research Service
1
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
originally consisted of 10 Members (including the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority and minority leaders of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, and the chairs and the ranking minority members of the
Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Rules and Administration of the Senate).
In considering the FY1990 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, the Senate Appropriations
Committee proposed revising the process by having the President nominate the AOC for a 10-
year term, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Previously, the position did not require
Senate confirmation. In the report accompanying H.R. 3014, the Senate Appropriations
Committee stated the following:
These changes will conform the process of the appointment of the Architect more closely to
the appointment procedure followed for other officers of similar stature. The Committee
believes this will accord proper recognition to the importance of the functions of this office
and help to promote greater accountability in their performance.5
During the limited Senate discussion on the provision, Senator Harry Reid, chairman of the
Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee, declared that the committee’s amendment “better
reflects the institutional status of the Architect as an officer of the legislative branch and should
make the lines of accountability in the performance of his duties much less ambiguous.”6 Senator
Don Nickles, ranking member of the subcommittee, noted the fixed term of the AOC would be
similar to that of the Comptroller General, who is confirmed for a 15-year term.7
In conference, House and Senate negotiators agreed to a compromise that reflected the absence in
the Senate proposal of any formal role for the House in the selection of a future AOC. The
compromise expanded the Senate’s language by providing for a bicameral congressional advisory
commission. The conference report does not provide additional information on this decision or
any other options considered.8 The compromise was accepted in both Houses without debate and
the measure was signed into law on November 21, 1989.9
The commission was expanded in 1995 to include the chairs and ranking minority members of
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.10
5 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 1990, report to accompany
H.R. 3014, 101st Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 101-106 (Washington: GPO, 1989), pp. 37-38.
6 Sen. Harry Reid, “Legislative Branch Appropriations, 1990,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 135,
September 6, 1989, p. 19591.
7 Sen. Don Nickles, “Legislative Branch Appropriations, 1990,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol.
135, September 6, 1989, p. 19593.
8 U.S. Congress, Making Appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1990,
and for other purposes, report to accompany H.R. 3014, H. Rept. 101-254 (Washington, GPO: 1989), p. 19.
9 “Conference Report on H.R. 3014, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1990,” Vote in the House, Congressional
Record, vol. 135, September 28, 1989, pp. 22270-22271; “Legislative Branch Appropriations, 1990 – Conference
Report,” Vote in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 135, November 9, 1989, p. 28052; and P.L. 101-163, 103 Stat.
1068, 2 U.S.C. §1801.
10 P.L. 104-19, July 27, 1995, 109 Stat. 220. The official record provides little additional information on the changes
considered in 1995. Additional membership on the commission was first agreed to as part of the conference report on
H.R. 1158, the Second Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act, 1995, which was vetoed by President
Clinton on June 7, 1995. The joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference committee report did not
indicate why the provision was added. Subsequently in the same Congress, the provision was included in the original
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
Changing the Current Procedure for Selecting the
Architect: Comparison of Recent Legislation
Since the enactment of the new procedure in 1989, a few bills have been introduced to change the
process of appointing the AOC. These proposals would shift AOC appointment responsibility
from the President to specified Members of Congress. As with earlier bills, statements in the
Congressional Record by bill sponsors have cited an interest in using the appointment process to
protect the prerogatives of, and ensure accountability to, the legislative branch. Some discussions
also have addressed the appropriate role of the House of Representatives, which does not play a
formal role in the confirmation of Presidential nominees.
In the 111th Congress, two measures (H.R. 2185 and H.R. 2843) have been introduced to remove
the President from the AOC appointment process and shift it to the congressional leaders and
chairs and ranking members of specific congressional committees. Under both measures, which
were introduced by House Appropriations Committee Legislative Branch Subcommittee chair,
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the AOC would still serve a 10-year term. Under H.R.
2843, as reported, the AOC would be appointed jointly by the same 14-member panel that
currently is responsible for recommending candidates to the President. This bill was reported by
the Committee on House Administration (H.Rept. 111-372) on December 10, 2009. It was
discharged by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure the same day. The House
agreed to the bill, as amended to include an 18-member panel,11 by voice vote on February 3,
2010. It was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Under H.R. 2185, which was introduced on April 30, 2009, the AOC would be appointed jointly
by the Speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader, the minority leaders in the House and
Senate, the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, and the chairs and ranking minority members of the Committee on House
Administration and Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Similar legislation (H.R.
6656), with the same 12-member appointing panel, was introduced in the 110th Congress and
referred to two committees, although no further action was taken.
During the 109th Congress, former Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois sponsored H.R. 4446 to
establish a uniform appointment process and 10-year term of service for the AOC, the
Comptroller General, and the Librarian of Congress. This proposal provided for joint appointment
by four Members, including the Speaker, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the Minority
Leaders of the House of Representatives and Senate.
(...continued)
version of H.R. 1944, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Additional Disaster Assistance, for Anti-
terrorism Initiatives, for Assistance in the Recovery from the Tragedy that Occurred at Oklahoma City, and Rescissions
Act, 1995, which was introduced on June 28. It passed the House the next day following the adoption of one
amendment agreed to by voice vote and passed the Senate without amendment on July 21. It became P.L. 104-19 on
July 27, 1995.
11 The bill, as amended, would include in addition to the original 14-member panel: the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, a member of the
Senate to be designated by the majority leader of the Senate, and a member of the Senate to be designated by the
minority leader of the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
3
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
Initial Implementation of the 1989 Architect of the
Capitol Selection Act
The appointment process established by the 1989 act has been fully implemented once. Following
the decision of George White, who served as Architect from January 27, 1971, until November
21, 1995, not to seek reappointment under the new process, former Architect of the Capitol Alan
Hantman was nominated under the new procedure to a 10-year term by President Clinton on
January 6, 1997.12 Following a hearing on January 28, 1997, the Senate Rules and Administration
favorably reported his nomination. Hantman was confirmed by the Senate by voice vote on
January 30, 1997.13 Declining to seek reappointment, Hantman retired on February 4, 2007.
Stephen T. Ayers has since been serving as Acting Architect of the Capitol.
During Hantman’s service, GAO and some Members of Congress criticized his office for its
management practices, rising costs, and missed deadlines associated with the U.S. Capitol Visitor
Center (CVC) and other projects, and alleged health and safety violations in the utility tunnels
beneath the Capitol Complex.14 The criticism culminated in a provision in the House-passed
version of the FY2007 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill (H.R. 5521, 109th Congress) to strip
Hantman of his responsibilities and give them to the Comptroller General or his designee.15
Although the language was included in H.R. 5521 when it passed the House on June 7, 2006, this
language was not included in the substitute amendment reported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee on June 22, 2006. No further action was taken on this bill in the 109th Congress. The
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (H.J.Res. 20, P.L. 110-5), which was
enacted on February 15, 2007, and funded the legislative branch for the remainder of FY2007,
also did not contain this language. The episode, however, drew more attention to this position and
to its appointment.
12 The 1989 act required Mr. White to be reappointed under the new procedure no later than the sixth anniversary of the
enactment of the law if he chose to remain in office. (P.L. 101-163, sec. 319(b), November 21, 1989, 103 Stat. 1068).
13 “Executive Calendar,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 143, January 30, 1997, pp. 1304-1307,
1312. From the retirement of Mr. White until the confirmation of Mr. Hantman, William L. Ensign served as Acting
Architect of the Capitol.
14 See, for example, testimony of David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. Government Accountability Office,
before the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Priority Attention Needed to
Manage Schedules and Contracts, GAO-05-714T (Washington: May 17, 2005); U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Progress of Construction of the Capitol Visitors Center,
2005, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 2005 (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 9-11; U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 2007, report to accompany H.R. 5521, 109th
Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-485 (Washington: GPO, 2006), pp. 15-16, 25-26, 49-51; U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2007, report to accompany H.R. 5521, 109th Cong.,
2nd sess., S.Rept. 109-267 (Washington: GPO, 2006), pp. 29, 34.
15 The language stated: “Sec. 210. For fiscal year 2007 only, all authorities previously exercised by the Architect of the
Capitol, including but not limited to the execution and supervision of contracts; and the hiring, supervising, training,
and compensation of employees, shall be vested in the Comptroller General of the United States or his designee:
Provided, That this delegation of authority shall terminate with the confirmation of a new Architect of the Capitol.”
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2007, report to accompany
H.R. 5521, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-485 (Washington: GPO, 2006), pp. 49-50.
Congressional Research Service
4
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
Filling the Current AOC Vacancy
There have been few congressional announcements regarding the status of the current AOC
vacancy or the submission of the recommendations to the President.
During a hearing on the FY2008 appropriations request on April 24, 2007, before the House
Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, Acting Architect Stephen Ayers responded to a
question about the status from ranking member Representative Zach Wamp:
I did speak to the [Senate] Rules Committee about the selection process…. They have told
me that their executive recruiter is currently interviewing potential candidates, and I surmise
that they would give them that list of potential candidates in a month or two. So that is about
the extent of my knowledge of that.16
Later, in its activities report, the Committee on House Administration summarized what had
transpired during the 110th Congress and indicated concern about the current process:
Although the commission forwarded three candidates [to the President], complex
circumstances prevented final selection and confirmation of the Architect. The Committee
anticipates completion of the appointment process in the 111th Congress, but in the meantime
is reviewing whether the process is simply broken and requires new legislation.17
The three-year period since the retirement of the former Architect was also noted in the February
3, 2010, debate in the House on passage of the bill.18
Evaluation of the Current Bicameral Congressional
Commission Process In Choosing the AOC
The initial selection process, as well as the current search for a successor, have raised a number of
potential issues for consideration. These issues, which are discussed below, include the length of
the commission’s work and the potential for extended vacancies in the position; the operation of
the commission; and what would happen in the event an incumbent seeks reappointment as
Architect.
Time Frame for Filling a Vacancy
Although the commission may transmit names whenever there is a vacancy, it is not clear from
either the statute or the legislative history exactly when the commission proceeds. The act sets no
time parameters on the bicameral congressional commission’s work, including whether or not it
may begin before the incumbent Architect’s departure. In addition, the statute is silent on any
16 U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2008, hearings, pt. 3, 110th
Cong., 1st sess., April 24, 2007 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 300.
17 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of the Committee on House
Administration During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO,
2008), p. 18.
18 Congressional Record, February 3, 2010, pp. H480-H482.
Congressional Research Service
5
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
time frame for the commission’s forwarding of recommendations following a retirement,
presidential action on the commission’s recommendation, or congressional action once a
nomination has been received.
Internal Operations of the Commission
The statute provides no guidance on how the commission should operate, including who presides
over its meetings, where and how meetings are called, how many members of the commission
constitute a quorum, if nominees need unanimous approval, or how the commission receives
administrative or financial support. If the commission has rules of procedure, they have not been
made public nor have the criteria for choosing potential nominees.
When former AOC Alan Hantman was chosen, press reports were the only source of information
that he was among the candidates whose names were forwarded to President Clinton for
consideration.19 One press account indicated that “Hantman is the ‘primary choice’ of the 14-
Members of Congress appointed to find the Capitol’s tenth Architect.”20 This same press account
reported: “According to a letter from the chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration
Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA), Hantman was the first choice of the Members ‘by a
substantial margin.’”21 The account quotes an aide as reporting that “all 14 commission members
voted either by ballot or proxy for the nominees,” although the votes were not published.22
Process of the Reappointment of an Incumbent AOC
There are also unresolved questions should an incumbent AOC decide to seek reappointment
under the current process established in 1989. It is not clear if or when the commission would
form under this circumstance or if the incumbent AOC would need to be chosen again among at
least two other potential candidates. Should the President choose not to reappoint the incumbent,
it is unclear if formal notification would be required before the commission could begin its work
or how this would be accomplished.
Increasing Congressional Involvement in the AOC
Appointment: Discussion Preceding the Current
Process
Prior to 1989, the Architect was selected by the President for an unlimited term without any
formal involvement of Congress. Paul Rundquist, congressional scholar and former specialist at
the Congressional Research Service, noted in testimony before the Senate Rules and
Administration Committee in 1996 that “the fact that the Architect of the Capitol was a
19 Juliet Eilperin, “Rockefeller Center Architect Top Pick For Capitol Position,” Roll Call, September 23, 1996, pp. A-
1, A-28.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
6
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
congressional agent nominated by the President without confirmation by the Senate does not
seem to have troubled Congress until recent years.”23
Bills related to the qualifications and appointment of the AOC have been periodically introduced
since at least the 1950s, however, little action was taken on these proposals. Table 1 provides
information on these bills.
Bills proposing a new appointment process have varied in their approach. Two changes ultimately
enacted include requiring the advice and consent of the Senate and establishing a commission to
recommend names to the President. In addition to the proposals contained in recent legislation,
bills making the Architect a congressional appointee have proposed a joint appointment by the
Speaker and President pro tempore; alternating appointment between the Speaker and President
pro tempore; and a commission of Members recommending candidates to the Speaker and
President pro tempore, with ratification by the chambers. The bills also varyingly address the
term of office, eligibility for reappointment, procedure for removal, and procedures following
early vacancies. While some of these bills have focused only on the AOC, many of the bills
beginning in the early 1970s also addressed the appointment of the other presidential appointees
in the legislative branch, including the Librarian of Congress, the Comptroller General and the
Deputy Comptroller,24 and the Public Printer. A number of questions periodically have been
raised about the ability of Congress to remove the President from the appointment process. These
include the implication or interpretation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and
whether or not this would require any revision in the powers and duties currently vested with the
Architect.
In addition to the buildings and grounds of Congress and the legislative branch, the AOC’s
responsibilities include functions that extend beyond the legislative branch. For example, the
AOC is responsible for “non-legislative branch” facilities, including the Supreme Court and the
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building. Moreover, the AOC serves as a member of
several “non-legislative branch” governing or advisory bodies, including the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, the District of Columbia Zoning Commission, the National Capital
Memorial Commission, and the Art Advisory Committee to the Washington Metropolitan Transit
Authority. These responsibilities raise a question as to whether the AOC is an “Officer of the
United States” such that his appointment must comply with the requirements of the Appointments
Clause of the Constitution.25
Supreme Court jurisprudence establishes that “any appointee exercising significant authority
pursuant to the laws of the United States is an Officer of the United States, and must, therefore, be
23 U.S. Congress, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., February 29, 1996 (unpublished),
but available from FDCHeMedia, Inc. Dr. Rundquist gave testimony before the Senate Rules and Administration
Committee during a review of the operations of various Senate officers and a study of criteria for the selection of a new
AOC.
24The Deputy Comptroller General position has been vacant since 1980. For additional information, see CRS Report
RL30349, GAO: Government Accountability Office and General Accounting Office, by Frederick M. Kaiser.
25 U.S. Constitution. Art. II, § 2, cl. 2 (stating that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall
be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think
proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments”). Portions of this section authored
by Todd B. Tatelman, Legislative Attorney in the American Law Division.
Congressional Research Service
7
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
appointed in the manner prescribed by §2, cl. 2, of that Article.”26 If, however, the individual does
not qualify as an “officer,” then Congress may deviate from the strictures of the Appointments
Clause. Given that modern Supreme Court jurisprudence has established that the separation of
powers doctrine is implicated chiefly in instances where the core constitutional functions of the
branches are involved,27 it is not clear that the “non-legislative branch” functions of the AOC are
significant enough to raise constitutional concerns. Thus, it would appear that the method of
appointment of the AOC might be changed to provide for congressional appointment without
raising separation of powers questions.28 Conversely, in the event that the “non-legislative
branch” functions of the AOC were to be considered by a reviewing court significant enough to
raise constitutional concerns, the functions of the AOC could be modified, and any “non-
legislative branch” duties could be legislatively designated elsewhere.29
Statements from Members introducing legislation frequently cited a desire to preserve
congressional prerogatives and ensure congressional accountability, although some Members
acknowledged that such a move might raise additional issues or questions. For example, in his
remarks on S. 1658, which related to the AOC appointment, Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois
noted on April 1, 1965, that there “may be constitutional problems with respect to congressional
appointment of an officer of the Congress.”30 A decade later, in his statement accompanying H.R.
8616, which addressed the appointment of the Public Printer, Librarian of Congress, Comptroller
General, and Architect of the Capitol, Representative Jack Brooks of Texas said,
It is hard for me to understand how earlier Congresses could decide to leave … appointment
[of officers of Congress] to the President…. The doctrine of separation of powers is basic to
our government and Congress contributes to the weakening that system when it permits the
President to exercise authority in the legislative domain.31
In 1980, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia sponsored legislation to have any future
presidential nominee for AOC be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The bill, S.
2760, was reported by the Senate Rules and Administration Committee and passed the Senate late
in the 96th Congress by voice vote.32 Prior to Senate passage, Senator Byrd noted that of the
26 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 125-126 (1976).
27 See, e.g., Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380-81 (1989).
28 It should be noted that while Congress may abolish and create offices, it may not use this power in such a manner as
to usurp the President’s power to remove an officer. See Richard A. Cirillo, “Abolition of Federal Offices as an
Infringement on the President’s Power to Remove Federal Executive Officers: A Reassessment of Constitutional
Doctrines,” Fordham Law Review, vol. 42, March 1974, pp. 562, 588-93.
29 Likewise, it is possible that a reviewing court would determine that duties of the AOC in the judicial and executive
contexts are permissible in light the Supreme Court’s declaration that potential separation of powers conflicts may be
ignored where they are part of a framework resulting in a “de minimis” violation. See, e.g., Commodity Futures
Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 856 (1986).
30 Sen. Paul Douglas, “The Architect of the Capitol Should be a Qualified Architect and Should be Appointed by the
Congress,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 111, April 1, 1965, p. 6523.
31 Rep. Jack Brooks, “Toward Restoring Power and Prestige of Congress,” remarks in the House, Congressional
Record, vol. 121, July 14, 1975, pp. 22668-22669.
32 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Providing That The Architect of the Capitol Shall Be
Appointed By The President By And With The Advice And Consent Of The Senate, report to accompany S. 2760, 96th
Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 96-818 (Washington: GPO, 1980); and “Appointment of the Capitol Architect,” Congressional
Record, vol. 126, November 24, 1980, p. 31019.
Congressional Research Service
8
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
legislative branch officers appointed by the President, the AOC was the only one not subject to
Senate confirmation.33 There was no House action on this bill.
Table 1. Proposals to Alter the Appointment of the Architect: 1959-Present
Term of
Date of
Congressional
Office (if
Bill
Introduction
Action (if any)
Process
specified)
H.R. 2843, June 12, 2009
Reported by
appointed jointly by 18 Members,
10 years
111th
Committee on
including the Speaker of the House, the
Cong.
House
President pro tempore of the Senate, the
Administration
House and Senate majority and minority
(12/10/2009)
leaders, a member of the Senate to be
designated by the majority leader of the
H.Rept. 111-372 Senate, a member of the Senate to be
Passed House
designated by the minority leader of the
(2/3/2010)
Senate, and the chair and ranking
minority members of the Committee on
House Administration, the House
Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration, and the House
and Senate Committees on
Appropriations
H.R. 2185, April 30, 2009
appointed jointly by 12 Members,
10 years
111th
including the Speaker of the House, the
Cong.
majority leader of the Senate, the House
and Senate minority leaders, and the
chair and ranking minority members of
the Committee on House
Administration, the Senate Committee
on Rules and Administration, and the
House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations
H.R. 6656, July 30, 2008
appointed jointly by 12 Members,
10 years
110th
including the Speaker of the House, the
Cong.
majority leader of the Senate, the House
and Senate minority leaders, and the
chair and ranking minority members of
the Committee on House
Administration, the Senate Committee
on Rules and Administration, and the
House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations
H.R. 4446, December 6,
appointed jointly by 4 Members, including 10 years
109th
2005
the Speaker of the House, the Majority
Cong.
Leader of the Senate, and the House and
Senate Minority Leaders
33 Sen. Robert Byrd, “Appointment of the Capitol Architect,” Remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 126,
November 24, 1980, p. 31019. The same year, the General Accounting Office Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-226, 31 U.S.C
§703) was enacted, creating a commission composed of the congressional leadership to recommend to the President not
less than three names to be considered for the Comptroller General position to be appointed for a 15-year term with the
advice and consent of the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
9
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
Term of
Date of
Congressional
Office (if
Bill
Introduction
Action (if any)
Process
specified)
H.R. 1944, June 28, 1995
P.L. 104-19
added chair and ranking minority
104th
members from of the House and Senate
Cong.
Appropriations Committees to
commission established by P.L. 101-163,
increasing the number of Members of the
commission to 14.
H.R. 3014, November
P.L. 101-163
commission of 10 Members (including
10 years
101st
21, 1989
the Speaker, President pro tempore,
Cong.
Majority and Minority leaders of the
House and Senate, and the chair and
ranking minority members of the
Committee on House Administration
and the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration) recommends candidates
to the President for nomination with
consent of the Senate
S. 2760,
May 22, 1980
Passed Senate
President nominates subject to advice
96th Cong.
11/24/1980 and consent of the Senate
S. Rept. 96-818
H.R. 8616, July 14, 1975
commission of 10 Members (including
5 years
94th Cong.
the Speaker, President pro tempore,
Majority and Minority leaders of the
House and Senate, and the chair and
ranking minority members of the
Committee on House Administration
and the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration) nominate candidates, and
the Speaker and President pro tempore,
following confirmation by a majority vote
in each House, shall appoint
S. 2205,
July 29, 1975
appointed by the Speaker of the House
7 years
94th Cong.
and Majority Leader of the Senate after
considering recommendations from the
majority and minority leadersa
S. 1278,
March 19,
appointment alternating between
93rd Cong. 1973
Speaker and President pro tempore
H.R. 63,
January 3,
appointment alternating between
93rd Cong. 1973
Speaker and President pro tempore
H.R.
October 12,
appointment alternating between
17102,
1972
Speaker and President pro tempore
92nd Cong.
S. 1658,
April 1, 1965
joint appointment by Speaker and
term expires
89th Cong.
President pro tempore
first day of
odd-
numbered
Congresses
S. 1800,
June 26, 1963
joint appointment by Speaker and
term expires
88th Cong.
President pro temporeb
first day of
odd-
numbered
Congresses
Congressional Research Service
10
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
Term of
Date of
Congressional
Office (if
Bill
Introduction
Action (if any)
Process
specified)
S. 1847,
April 30, 1959
joint appointment by Speaker and
term expires
86th Cong.
President pro tempore
first day of
odd-
numbered
Congresses
Source: CRS survey of legislation.
Notes: This table includes all legislation identified by CRS as of the date of this report. Additional bills will be
added if identified. Copies of the bills are available from the author of this report.
a. S. 2206, 94th Cong., was introduced the same day and addressed the appointment of the Comptrol er
General and Deputy Comptroller General.
b. Under S. 1806 (88th Cong.), which was introduced the day after S. 1800, the Architect would be unable to
“evaluate, review, give preliminary approval to, or otherwise pass judgment” on construction or renovation
of the Capitol buildings and grounds.
Discussion Regarding the Qualifications of the
AOC
Many of the introduced bills and congressional hearings related to appointment have addressed
the fact that not all of those who have held the position of Architect of the Capitol have been
trained architects. Some proposed legislation in the 1950s and 1960s would have required all
future nominees to be trained architects.34 Alternatively, at least one bill—introduced in 1968
during a period of congressional concern over plans for the expansion of the west front of the
Capitol—sought to change the title of the office to “Superintendent of the Capitol Buildings and
Grounds” to reflect the fact the then-Architect did not have this training.35
When Architect White announced his retirement in 1995, concerns were voiced within Congress,
the media, and professional groups about the necessary qualifications for any successor. There
was considerable discussion about the necessity of the new AOC being a licensed architect and
the type of professional management training and experience needed for the position.
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) expressed its preference for a licensed architect with
experience in management, procurement, and historic restoration.36 In 1995, the AIA sent
congressional leaders a list of nine potential AOC nominees for consideration.37 The following
year, Raj Barr-Kumar, the president-elect and a fellow of The American Institute of Architects,
34 S. 1847 (86th Cong.), S. 1806 (88th Cong.), S. 1658 (89th Cong.).
35 H.R. 19127 (90th Cong.). Rep. Kupperman, “Introduction of Bill to Change the Title of the Office of the ‘Architect of
the Capitol’ to ‘Superintendent of the Capitol Building and Grounds,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record,
vol. 114, July 31, 1968, p. 24430.
36 American Institute of Architects, “The Architect of the Capitol Should Be An Architect” http://www.aia.org/
advocacy/federal/AIAS076656?dvid=4294965385&recspec=AIAS076656, December 4, 2008; American Institute of
Architects, “Make the Next Architect of the Capitol A Licensed Professional Architect,” Issue Brief, February 2008,
http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aias076076.pdf.
37 American Institute of Architects, “Suggested Candidates for Appointment as Architect of the Capitol,” April 2, 1995.
Congressional Research Service
11
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
described the process by which the AIA arrived at these names and qualifications and
responsibilities it identified in a February 29, 1996, hearing of the Senate Rules and
Administration Committee.38
To fill the current AOC vacancy, the AIA has again urged the selection of a licensed architect.39
Others, including some Members of Congress, have emphasized a background in management
because the job responsibilities, particularly with the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center, are
broader than building design and construction and include some duties not necessarily associated
with typical architectural practice.
38 U.S. Congress, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, FY97 Senate Budget, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., February
29, 1996 (unpublished), but available from FDCHeMedia, Inc.
39 American Institute of Architects, “Tell the President to Choose an Architect,” The Angle, vol. 5, no. 22, October 11,
2007.
Congressional Research Service
12
Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation
Appendix. Architects of the Capitol Since 1793
Ten persons have held the position currently known as the Architect of the Capitol.40 Each
incumbent is listed below.
Name
Dates of Service
Biographical Information
William Thornton
1793 http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/thornton.cfm
Benjamin Latrobe
1803-1811
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/latrobe.cfm
1815-1817
Charles Bulfinch 1818-1829
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/bulfinch.cfm
Thomas Walter
1851-1865
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/walter.cfm
Edward Clark
1865-1902
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/clark.cfm
Elliott Woods
1902-1923 http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/woods.cfm
David Lynn
1923-1954
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/lynn.cfm
J. George Stewart
1954-1970 http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/stewart.cfm
George White
1971-1995
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/white.cfm
Alan Hantman
1997-2007
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/hantman.cfm
Source: U.S. Architect of the Capitol, Architects of the Capitol since 1793, http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/
index.cfm; and William Allen, History of the United States Capitol (Washington: GPO, 2001).
Author Contact Information
Ida A. Brudnick
Analyst on the Congress
ibrudnick@crs.loc.gov, 7-6460
Acknowledgments
Portions of this report were previously authored by Mildred Amer, formerly a Specialist on the Congress.
The listed author has updated the report and may be contacted with any questions. Todd B. Tatelman,
Legislative Attorney in the American Law Division, contributed to the section on the “Increasing
Congressional Involvement in the AOC Appointment: Discussion Preceding the Current Process.” Jared
Nagel and Terrence Lisbeth of the Knowledge Services Group assisted with the collection of congressional
documents.
40 The term Architect of the Capitol also refers to some of the early occupants of the office who were known as
Commissioner, Surveyor of Public Buildings, or Superintendent of the Capitol. For more information, see William
Allen, History of the United States Capitol (Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. 27, 50-51, 398, and 400-401.
Congressional Research Service
13