Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and
September 1, 2021
Implementation of the Appointment
Ida A. Brudnick
Procedure
Specialist on the Congress

According to its website, the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible “for the operations
and care of more than 18.4 million square feet of facilities, 570 acres of grounds and thousands of

works of art.”
Pursuant to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1990, the Architect is appointed by the President with the advice and
consent of the Senate. Prior to the enactment of this law, the President appointed the Architect for an unlimited term with no
formal role for Congress.
The act also established a 10-year term for the Architect as well as a bicameral, bipartisan congressional commission to
recommend candidates to the President. As subsequently amended in 1995, this law provides for a commission consisting 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. An Architect may
be reappointed.
Alan M. Hantman was the first Architect appointed under the revised appointment procedure. He declined to seek
reappointment and served from January 30, 1997, to February 4, 2007.
Stephen T. Ayers, who served as Acting Architect of the Capitol following Mr. Hantman’s retirement, was nominated by
President Obama on February 24, 2010, for a 10-year term. The nomination was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules
and Administration. The committee held a hearing on April 15, 2010, during which the chair and ranking member praised
Mr. Ayers for his work as acting Architect and congratulated him on the nomination. Mr. Ayers was confirmed by voice vote
in the Senate on May 12, 2010.
Upon Mr. Ayers’s retirement on November 23, 2018, Christine Merdon, the Deputy Architect of the Capitol/Chief Operating
Officer, became the Acting Architect of the Capitol. After her resignation in August 2019, Thomas J. Carroll served as
Acting Architect of the Capitol.
J. Brett Blanton was nominated to be Architect of the Capitol by President Donald J. Trump on December 9, 2019. The
nomination was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The committee held a hearing on December
12, 2019, and Mr. Blanton was confirmed by voice vote in the Senate on December 19, 2019.
Since at least the 1950s , 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. Some of the Architect’s current duties,
however, may potentially raise a question as to whether the Architect is an “Officer of the United States” such that his or her
appointment must comply with the requirements of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
For additional information and a comparison of appointments in the legislative branch, see CRS Report R42072, Legislative
Branch Agency Appointments: History, Processes, and Recent Actions, by Ida A. Brudnick.
Congressional Research Service

Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

he Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible “for the operations and care of
more than 18.4 mil ion square feet of facilities, 570 acres of grounds and thousands of works
T of art.”1 This includes the House and Senate office buildings, the Capitol, the Capitol Visitor
Center, the Library of Congress buildings, the Supreme Court building, the U.S. Botanic Garden,
the Capitol Power Plant, and other facilities. The AOC carries out its bicameral, nonpartisan
responsibilities using both its own staff and contracting authority for architectural, engineering, and
other professional services.
Since the enactment of a 1989 law altering the appointment procedure, the position of Architect has
been fil ed through appointment 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 Architect is appointed for a 10-year term and may be
reappointed.
Alan M. Hantman was the first Architect appointed under the revised appointment procedure. He
declined to seek reappointment and served from January 30, 1997, to February 4, 2007.2 The
position was vacant for more than three years following his retirement. On February 24, 2010,
President Barack Obama nominated Stephen T. Ayers, who had been serving in an acting capacity
during the vacancy, to a 10-year term. The nomination was referred to the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration, which held a hearing on April 15, 2010. The Senators in attendance at
the hearing praised Mr. Ayers and congratulated him on the nomination. Mr. Ayers was confirmed
by voice vote in the Senate on May 12, 2010. Mr. Ayers announced his intention to retire on
November 23, 2018.
Upon Mr. Ayers’s retirement, Christine Merdon, the Deputy Architect of the Capitol/Chief
Operating Officer, became the Acting Architect of the Capitol. After her resignation in August 2019,
Thomas J. Carroll served as Acting Architect of the Capitol.
J. Brett Blanton was nominated to be Architect of the Capitol by President Donald J. Trump on
December 9, 2019. The nomination was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration. The committee held a hearing on December 12, 2019, and Mr. Blanton was
confirmed by voice vote in the Senate on December 19, 2019.
The appointment of the Architect has been a subject of periodic consideration for at least 60 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.
This report discusses the history of the selection of the Architect and contains tables on related
legislation introduced over the past 60 years.
For additional information and a comparison of appointments in the legislative branch, see CRS
Report R42072, Legislative Branch Agency Appointments: History, Processes, and Recent Actions,
by Ida A. Brudnick.

1 Architect of the Capitol, “About Us,” available at https://www.aoc.gov/defining-aoc. T he 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 T it le 2 (Congress), T itle 5 (Government Organization and Employees), T itle 36 (Patriotic Societies and
Observances), T itle 40 (Public Buildings, Property, and Works), T itle 41 (Public Contracts), and T itle 42 (Public Health
and Welfare).
2 Obtained from https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/alan-m-hantman-faia.
Congressional Research Service

1

Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

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 original y
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 Architect 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 brief Senate debate on the provision, Senator Harry Reid, then-chairman of the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, declared that the committee’s amendment “bet er
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, then-ranking member of the subcommittee, noted the fixed term of the Architect
would be similar to that of the Comptroller General, who is appointed for a single 15-year term.7
The legislative history does not appear to indicate why the shorter term was chosen for the
Architect.
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 Architect. 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

3 2 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1).
4 P.L. 101-163, November 21, 1989, 103 Stat . 1068, 2 U.S.C. 1801.
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
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 15 Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

The commission was expanded in 1995 to include the chairs and ranking minority members of the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees.10
A commission process is also used for fil ing vacancies in the position of Comptroller General, who
leads the Government Accountability Office (GAO).11 The commission procedure for GAO, which
also cal s for a recommendation to the President of at least three individuals, was established in
1980.
Increasing Congressional Involvement in the
Architect Appointment: Discussion Prior to the 1989
Act
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 congressional agent
nominated by the President without confirmation by the Senate does not seem to have troubled
Congress until recent years.”12
Bil s related to the qualifications and appointment of the Architect have been periodical y
introduced since at least the 1950s; however, little action was taken on these proposals until the
1980s.
Appendix A provides information on these bil s.
Bil s proposing a new appointment process have taken various approaches. Two changes ultimately
enacted include requiring the advice and consent of the Senate and establishing a commission to
recommend names to the President.
Other bil s proposed making the Architect a congressional appointee. These included proposals to
make the Architect subject to 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.

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. T he official record provides little additional information on the changes
considered in 1995. Additional membership on the commission was first agreed to in 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. T he 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 version of H.R. 1944, the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Additional Disaster Assistance, for Anti-terrorism Initiatives, for Assistance
in the Recovery from the T ragedy 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 31 U.S.C. 703.
12 U.S. Congress, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, 104 th Cong., 2nd sess., February 29, 1996 (unpublished).
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.
Congressional Research Service

3

Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

The introduced bil s also varyingly addressed the term of office, eligibility for reappointment,
procedure for removal, and procedures following early vacancies.
Whereas some of these bil s focused only on the Architect, many of the bil s introduced from the
early 1970s forward 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,13 and the Public Printer.
Questions have previously been raised about the authority of Congress to vest itself, or more
specifical y congressional leadership, with the power to appoint the Architect. These questions
general y relate to whether the AOC’s nonlegislative functions—including facility responsibilities
for the Supreme Court and the Thurgood Marshal Federal Judiciary Building and membership on
several nonlegislative governing or advisory bodies14—make the Architect an “Officer of the
United States” such that his or her appointment cannot be made by Congress consistent with the
requirements of the Appointments Clause (Clause) of the Constitution.15 Under the Clause, “officers
of the United States,” defined primarily as officials that exercise “significant authority” in a
“continuing” office, must either be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate, or, in the case of “inferior officers,” by the “President alone, [] the Courts of Law, or [] the
Heads of Departments.”16
Whether the functions and responsibilities exercised by a government official rise to the level of
“significant authority” is not easily determined.17 Consistent with this ambiguity, it does not appear
that Congress has adopted a uniform interpretation of the Clause’s applicability to the Architect.18
Nonetheless, the executive branch has previously concluded that “functions simply involving the
management of governmental property” are general y not considered significant for purposes of the
Clause.19 Thus, to the extent that concerns over congressional appointment of the Architect relate to
his management of nonlegislative property, it would appear that such functions may not, on their
own, prevent Congress from choosing to retain the power of appointment for itself.

13 T he Deputy Comptroller General position has been vacant since 1980.
14 T hese bodies include 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 Area T ransit
Authority.
15 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”).
16 Id. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 126 (1976). In Buckley, the Supreme Court held that functions undertaken “merely in
aid of congressional authority” may be performed by nonofficers appointed by Congress. Id. at 139-41.
17 Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. __, 6 (2018) (noting that the “significant authority standard” is “no doubt framed in general
terms”).
18 See Sen. Paul Douglas, “T he 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 (stating that “ there “may be
constitutional problems with respect to congressional appointmen t of an officer of the Congress”); Rep. Jack Brooks,
“T oward Restoring Power and Prestige of Congress,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 121, July 14,
1975, pp. 22668-22669 (“ It is hard for me to understand how earlier Congresses could decide to leave … appointme nt [of
officers of Congress] to the President…. T he 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 .”).
19 See Officers of the United States Within the Meaning of the Appointments Clause, April 16, 2007, Opinions of the
Office of Legal Counsel, pp. 89-90.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 9 link to page 9 Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

Legislation Introduced Since the 1989 Act to Change
the Appointment Process
Since the enactment of the new procedure in 1989, a few bil s have been introduced to change the
process of appointing the Architect. These proposals would shift the Architect appointment
responsibility from the President to specified Members of Congress. As with earlier bil s,
statements in the Congressional Record by bil 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.
The only change enacted since 1989, as stated above, occurred in 1995, when the commission
charged with recommending names to the President expanded to include the chairs and ranking
minority members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.20
Table 1 compares the Members involved in appointment under current law and bil s introduced
since the 1989 act.
109th Congress (2005-2006)
During the 109th Congress, one bil (H.R. 4446) was introduced to establish a uniform appointment
process and 10-year term of service for the Architect, the Comptrol er 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. No further action was taken.
110th Congress (2007-2008)
A bil (H.R. 6656), which would provide for a 12-member congressional appointing panel, was
introduced in the 110th Congress and referred to two committees, although no further action was
taken.
111th Congress (2009-2010)
In the 111th Congress, two measures (H.R. 2185 and H.R. 2843) were introduced to remove the
President from the Architect appointment process and shift it to the congressional leaders and chairs
and ranking members of specific congressional committees. Under both measures, the Architect
would stil be appointed for a 10-year term.
Under H.R. 2185, which was introduced on April 30, 2009, and referred to the Committee on House
Administration and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Architect would be
appointed by a 12-member congressional appointing panel. No further action was taken during the
111th Congress.
Under H.R. 2843, as reported, the Architect would be appointed jointly by the same 14-member
panel that currently is responsible for recommending candidates to the President. This bil was
reported by the Committee on House Administration (H.Rept. 111-372), and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure was discharged from further consideration of the bil . The House
agreed to the bil , as amended to include 18 rather than 14 Members of Congress (see Table 1), by

20 P.L. 104-19, July 27, 1995, 109 Stat. 220.
Congressional Research Service

5

Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

voice vote. It was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Rules and
Administration, and no further action was taken during the 111th Congress.
Table 1. Members Included in the Commission Recommending Individuals as
Architect Under Current Law and in Legislation Subsequently Introduced
H.R. 2843,
H.R. 2843,
111th Cong.,
Current Law:
H.R. 4446,
H.R. 6656,
H.R. 2185,
111th Cong.,
as Passed by

2 U.S.C. 1801
109th Cong.
110th Cong.
111th Cong.
as reported
the House
Speaker
1
1
1
1
1
1
President pro Tempore
1

1
1
House majority Leader
1

1
1
Senate Majority Leader
1
1
1
1
1
1
House Minority Leader
1
1
1
1
1
1
Senate Minority Leader
1
1
1
1
1
1
Chair and Ranking
2

2
2
2
2
Member Committee on
House Administration
Chair and Ranking
2

2
2
2
2
Member Committee on
Senate Rules and
Administration
Chair and Ranking
2

2
2
2
2
Member Committee on
House Appropriations
Chair and Ranking
2

2
2
2
2
Member Committee on
Senate Appropriations
Chair and Ranking

2
Member Committee on
House Committee on
Transportation and
Infrastructure
A Member of the Senate

2
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
Total Number of
14
4
12
12
14
18
Members of Congress
Source: CRS survey of legislation.
Congressional Research Service

6

Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

Options for Removal Under Proposed Congressional
Appointment
The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1990, which established the current appointment
procedure, did not address the possibility of the removal of an Architect. The Architect, then,
presumably serves at the pleasure of the President.21
A few of the bil s introduced over the last 50 years providing for appointment by Members of
Congress have contained provisions specifical y addressing removal. H.R. 8616 (94th Congress)
proposed that the Architect could be removed by concurrent resolution. S. 2205 (94th Congress)
provided for removal by resolution in either the House or Senate.
Statutes related to the selection of two legislative branch agency heads also address removal. Like
the Architect of the Capitol, the Comptroller General (CG) is appointed by the President for a fixed
term of office (for the CG, this term is 15 years) with the advice and consent of the Senate. The CG
may be removed only by “(A) impeachment; or (B) joint resolution of Congress, after notice and an
opportunity for a hearing” and only by reason of permanent disability; inefficiency; neglect of duty;
malfeasance; or a felony or conduct involving moral turpitude.22 The Director of the Congressional
Budget Office, who is appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President
pro tempore of the Senate after considering recommendations received from the Committees on the
Budget of the House and the Senate, “may be removed by either House by resolution.”23
Filling the First Vacancy After the 1989 Act: 1995-1997
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, Alan Hantman was
nominated under the new procedure to a 10-year term by President Clinton on January 6, 1997.24
Following a hearing on January 28, 1997, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
favorably reported his nomination. Mr. Hantman was confirmed by the Senate by voice vote on
January 30, 1997.25 Declining to seek reappointment, Mr. Hantman retired on February 4, 2007, and
Stephen T. Ayers, then-Deputy Architect, began service as the Acting Architect of the Capitol.26

21 It has long been recognized that “the power of removal [is] incident to the power of appointment.” Ex Parte Hennen, 38
U.S. (13 Pet.) 230, 259 (1839).
22 31 U.S.C. 703.
23 2 U.S.C. 601. For additional information, see CRS Report RL31880, Congressional Budget Office: Appointment and
Tenure of the Director and Deputy Director, by Megan S. Lynch.
24 T he 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).
25 “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.
26According to the biography provided by the AOC, Mr. Ayers “ joined the Architect of the Capitol as an Assistant
Superintendent for the Senate Office Buildings. He served in several capacities over the next decade, including Deputy
Superintendent for the Senate Office Buildings, Superintendent of the Library Buildings and Grounds, Acting Deputy
Architect/Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer ” (https://www.aoc.gov/architect -of-the-
capitol/stephen-t-ayers-faia-ccm-leed-ap). Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 1804, the Deputy Architect “shall act as Architect of the
Capitol during the absence or disability of that official or whenever there is no Architect.”
Congressional Research Service

7

Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

Filling the Second Vacancy: 2007-2010
As discussed above, Mr. Ayers was confirmed and appointed as Architect three years later, in 2010.
Between the announcement that Mr. Hantman would retire and the nomination and confirmation of
Mr. Ayers, few congressional announcements were made regarding the status of the Architect
vacancy and 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.27
Although the list of names was reportedly transmitted to President George W. Bush in summer
2007, the identity of the candidates was not publicly released by the commission.28
In its activities report on the 110th Congress (2007-2008), the Committee on House Administration
summarized congressional actions 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.29
The three-year period following the retirement of the former Architect was also noted in the
February 3, 2010, debate in the House on passage of the H.R. 2843 (111th Congress), the Architect
of the Capitol Appointment Act.30 Mr. Ayers was confirmed by the Senate on May 12, 2010.31
Filling the Third Vacancy After the 1989 Act: 2018-
2019
Following Mr. Ayers’s retirement on November 23, 2018, Christine Merdon, the Deputy Architect
of the Capitol/Chief Operating Officer, became the Acting Architect of the Capitol. After her
resignation in August 2019, Thomas J. Carrol served as Acting Architect of the Capitol.
Reportedly, an executive search firm was hired to lead the search for a new Architect.32 The identity
of potential candidates was not publicly released by the commission.

27 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.
28 “Finalists for AOC’s T op Job Delivered to President Bush,” by John McArdle, Roll Call, August 13, 2007.
29 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of the Committee on House
Adm inistration During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO,
2008), p. 18.
30 Congressional Record, February 3, 2010, pp. H480-H482. No further action was taken on H.R. 2843 in the 111th
Congress.
31 Congressional Record, May 12, 2010, p. S3662.
32 Katherine T ully-McManus, “Ready to manage a world-famous building and grapple with a billion-dollar backlog? T his
job’s for you,” Roll Call, January 10, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

8

Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

J. Brett Blanton was nominated to be Architect of the Capitol by President Trump on December 9,
2019.33 The nomination was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The
committee held a hearing on December 12, 2019, and Mr. Blanton was confirmed by voice vote in
the Senate on December 19, 2019.
Evaluation of the Current Bicameral Congressional
Commission Process in Choosing the Architect
The initial selection process, as wel as the subsequent searches for successors, 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 does not
address the possibility of the bicameral congressional commission beginning its work before an
incumbent’s departure. In addition, the statute is silent on any 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.
From the retirement of George White until the Senate confirmation of Alan Hantman, 436 days
elapsed.
Some 1,193 days elapsed from the retirement of Alan Hantman until the Senate confirmation of his
successor, Stephen T. Ayers. This period included a change in presidential Administration.
The Senate confirmation of J. Brett Blanton occurred 391 days after the retirement of Mr. Ayers.
Internal Operations of the Commission
The statute provides no guidance on how the commission should operate. If the commission has
rules of procedure or criteria for choosing potential nominees, they have not been made public nor
would they be binding for a future selection. In comparison, the statute establishing a commission
to recommend individuals to serve as Comptroller General similarly does not address commission
procedure.
Potential questions related to commission procedures include
 who presides over its meetings;
 where and how meetings are cal ed;
 how many members of the commission constitute a quorum;

33 See https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-nominate-
individuals-key-administration-posts-23/ and https://www.congress.gov/nomination/116th-congress/1324.
Congressional Research Service

9

Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

 what constitutes agreement by Members of the commission regarding nominees,
including whether nominees need approval of a majority or al of the Members; and
 how the commission receives administrative or financial support (i.e., any staffing
expenses, travel expenses, or other expenses related to the search and evaluation of
candidates).
When former Architect 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.34 One press account indicated that “Hantman is the ‘primary choice’ of the 14-
Members of Congress appointed to find the Capitol’s tenth Architect.”35 This same press account
reported the following: “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.’”36 The account quotes an aide as reporting that “al 14
commission members voted either by bal ot or proxy for the nominees,” although the votes were
not published.37
As stated above, following Mr. Hantman’s term of office, the commission reportedly forwarded a
list of names to President George W. Bush in August 2007.38 President Bush did not forward a
nomination to the Senate prior to the end of his term. This period also encompassed the end of the
110th Congress, with resultant changes in membership of the commission at the start of the 111th
Congress. The 1989 act does not address a change in the membership of the commission while
there is a vacancy in the position.
Limited information regarding the commission’s operations to fil the third vacancy was made
publicly available.
Process for the Reappointment of an Incumbent Architect
There are also unresolved questions should an incumbent Architect 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 Architect 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.
Discussion Regarding the Qualifications of the
Architect
Many of the introduced bil s and congressional hearings related to appointment have addressed the
fact that not al of those who have held the position of Architect of the Capitol have been trained
architects.39 Some proposed legislation in the 1950s and 1960s would have required al future

34 Juliet Eilperin, “Rockefeller Center Architect Top Pick For Capitol Position,” Roll Call, September 23, 1996, pp. A-1,
A-28.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 “Finalists for AOC’s T op Job Delivered to President Bush,” by John McArdle, Roll Call, August 13, 2007.
39 For a comparison to statutory qualifications in other positions, see the Appendix in CRS Report RL33886, Statutory
Congressional Research Service

10

Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

nominees to be trained architects.40 Alternatively, at least one bil —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.41
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 Architect 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. In 1995, the AIA sent
congressional leaders a list of nine potential Architect nominees for consideration.42 The following
year, Raj Barr-Kumar, the president-elect and a fel ow of the American Institute of Architects,
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.43
To fil the second Architect vacancy after the 1989 act, the AIA again urged the selection of a
licensed architect.44 Others, including some Members of Congress, 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.
This discussion continued during the third vacancy, and the AIA again expressed its preference for a
licensed architect.45 The qualifications listed by JDG Associates, the executive search firm, listed
“Architectural training and licensure a plus.”46 Mr. Blanton is “a Licensed Professional Engineer in
Civil Engineering and a Certified Energy Manager.”47

Qualifications for Executive Branch Positions, by Henry B. Hogue.
40 S. 1847 (86th Cong.), S. 1806 (88th Cong.), S. 1658 (89th Cong.).
41 H.R. 19127 (90th Cong.). Rep. Kupperman, “Introduction of Bill to Change the T itle 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.
42 American Institute of Architects, “Suggested Candidates for Appointment as Architect of the Capitol,” April 2, 1995 .
43 U.S. Congress, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, FY97 Senate Budget, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., February 29,
1996 (unpublished).
44 American Institute of Architects, “Tell the President to Choose an Architect,” The Angle, vol. 5, no. 22, Oct ober 11,
2007. American Institute of Architects, “ The Architect of the Capitol Should Be An Architect ,” December 4, 2008;
American Institute of Architects, “Make the Next Architect of the Capitol A Licensed Professional Architect,” Issue
Brief, February 2008.
45 Ned Cramer, “T he Architect of the Capitol Should Be an Architect,” Architect, March 2019; Katherine T ully-
McManus, “Ready to manage a world-famous building and grapple with a billion-dollar backlog? T his job’s for you,”
Roll Call, January 10, 2019; William Bates and Jane Frederick, “ Lawmakers should consider experience, diversity in
choosing the next Architect of the Capitol,” The Hill, May 19, 2019.
46 Katherine T ully-McManus, “Ready to manage a world-famous building and grapple with a billion-dollar backlog? T his
job’s for you,” Roll Call, January 10, 2019; JDG Associates, Ltd., “T he United States Congress Architect of the Capitol,”
p. 4.
47 See https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/j-brett-blanton.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 link to page 16 Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

Appendix A. Legislation to Alter the Architect of the
Capitol Appointment Process
Table A-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)
S. 1847,
April 30, 1959

joint appointment by Speaker of the House
term expires
86th Cong.
and President pro tempore of the Senate
first day of
odd-numbered
Congresses
S. 1800,
June 26, 1963

joint appointment by Speaker and President
term expires
88th Cong.
pro temporea
first day of
odd-numbered
Congresses
S. 1658,
April 1, 1965

joint appointment by Speaker and President
term expires
89th Cong.
pro tempore
first day of
odd-numbered
Congresses
H.R. 17102, October 12,

appointment alternating between Speaker

92nd Cong.
1972
and President pro tempore
H.R. 63,
January 3, 1973

appointment alternating between Speaker

93rd Cong.
and President pro tempore
S. 1278,
March 19, 1973
appointment alternating between Speaker

93rd Cong.
and President pro tempore
H.R. 8616,
July 14, 1975

commission of 10 Members (including the
5 years
94th Cong.
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, fol owing confirmation by a
majority vote in each house, shal appoint
S. 2205,
July 29, 1975

appointed by the Speaker and majority
7 years
94th Cong.
leader of the Senate after considering
recommendations from the majority and
minority leadersb
S. 2760,
May 22, 1980
Passed Senate
President nominates subject to advice and

96th Cong.
11/24/1980
consent of the Senate
S.Rept. 96-818
H.R. 3014,
November 21,
P.L. 101-163
commission of 10 Members (including the
10 years
101st Cong.
1989
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) recommends
candidates to the President for nomination
with consent of the Senate
Congressional Research Service

12

Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

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 members

104th Cong.
of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees to commission established by
P.L. 101-163, increasing the number of
Members of the commission to 14
H.R. 4446,
December 6,

appointed jointly by 4 Members, including
10 years
109th Cong.
2005
the Speaker, the Senate majority leader, and
the House and Senate minority leaders
H.R. 6656,
July 30, 2008

appointed jointly by 12 Members, including
10 years
110th Cong.
the Speaker, the Senate majority leader, 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. 2185,
April 30, 2009

appointed jointly by 12 Members, including
10 years
111th Cong.
the Speaker, the Senate majority leader, 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. 2843,
June 12, 2009
Reported by
appointed jointly by 18 Members, including
10 years
111th Cong.
Committee on
the Speaker, the President pro tempore, the
House
House and Senate majority and minority
Administration
leaders, a member of the Senate to be
(12/10/2009)
designated by the majority leader of the
H.Rept. 111-372
Senate, a member of the Senate to be
designated by the minority leader of the
Passed House
Senate, and the chair and ranking minority
(2/3/2010)
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
Source: CRS survey of legislation.
Notes: This table includes al legislation identified by CRS as of the date of this report. Additional bil s wil be
added if identified.
a. Under S. 1806 (88th Congress), 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
b. S. 2206, 94th Congress, was introduced the same day and addressed the appointment of the Comptrol er
General and Deputy Comptrol er General.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 17 link to page 17 Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

Appendix B. Architects of the Capitol Since 1793
Since 1793, 12 persons have held the position currently known as the Architect of the Capitol.48 Of
these, two served for more than three decades and two others served for more than two decades.
As stated above, pursuant to the 1989 act, any subsequent appointments would be for a term of 10
years, with the possibility of reappointment.
Table B-1 lists the individuals who have served as Architect, including names, dates of service, and
links to biographical information.
Table B-1. Architects of the Capitol
Name
Dates of Service
Biographical Information
Wil iam Thornton
1793
https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/dr-
wil iam-thornton
Benjamin Latrobe
1803-1811
https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/
1815-1817
benjamin-henry-latrobe
Charles Bulfinch
1818-1829
https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/
charles-bulfinch
Thomas Walter
1851-1865
https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/
thomas-ustick-walter
Edward Clark
1865-1902
https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/
edward-clark
El iott Woods
1902-1923
https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/
el iott-woods
David Lynn
1923-1954
https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/
david-lynn
J. George Stewart
1954-1970
https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/j-
george-stewart
George White
1971-1995
https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/
george-m-white-faia
Alan Hantman
1997-2007
https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/
alan-m-hantman-faia
Stephen T. Ayers
2010-2018
https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/
stephen-t-ayers-faia-leed-ap
J. Brett Blanton
2020-presenta
https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/architects-of-the-capitol/j-
brett-blanton
Sources: U.S. Architect of the Capitol, Architects of the Capitol since 1793, https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/history/
architects-of-the-capitol; and Wil iam Al en, History of the United States Capitol (Washington: GPO, 2001).
a. Mr. Blanton’s nomination was confirmed by the Senate on December 19, 2019, but he was sworn in as
Architect on January 16, 2020.

48 T he 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

14

Architect of the Capitol: Evolution and Implementation of the Appointment Procedure

Author Information

Ida A. Brudnick

Specialist on the Congress

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.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its
entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy
or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R41074 · VERSION 8 · UPDATED
15