DOCSLIB.ORG

Architect of the Capitol U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Architect of the Capitol U.S LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 43 For further information concerning the United States Senate, contact the Secretary of the Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC 20510. Phone, 202±224±2115. For further information concerning the House of Representatives, contact the Clerk, The Capitol, Washington, DC 20515. Phone, 202±225±7000. Telephone directories for the United States Senate and the House of Representatives are available for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, DC 20515 Phone, 202±228±1793 Architect of the Capitol GEORGE M. WHITE The Architect of the Capitol is responsible for the care and maintenance of the U.S. Capitol and nearby buildings and grounds while implementing reconstruction and landscape improvement projects according to the original intent of the Capitol's designers. The Architect of the Capitol is charged House office buildings and the Capitol with operating and maintaining the Power Plant, his activities are subject to buildings of the Capitol committed to his the approval and direction of the House care by Congress. Permanent authority Office Building Commission. The for these functions was established by Architect is under the direction of the the act of August 15, 1876 (40 U.S.C. Speaker in matters concerning the House 162, 163). The Architect's duties include side of the Capitol. Also, the Architect of the mechanical and structural the Capitol serves as the Acting Director maintenance of the Capitol, the of the United States Botanic Garden conservation and care of works of art in under the Joint Committee on the the building, the upkeep and Library. improvement of the Capitol grounds, and Until 1989 the position of Architect of the arrangement of inaugural and other the Capitol was filled by Presidential ceremonies held in the building or on appointment for an indefinite term. the grounds. Legislation is enacted from Legislation enacted in 1989 provided time to time providing for additional that the Architect be appointed by the buildings and grounds to be placed President for a 10-year term, with the under the jurisdiction of the Architect of advice and consent of the Senate, from the Capitol. a list of 3 candidates recommended by a In addition to the Capitol, the congressional commission. Upon Architect is responsible for the upkeep of confirmation by the Senate, the Architect all of the congressional office buildings, becomes an official of the legislative the Library of Congress buildings, the branch as an officer and agent of United States Supreme Court building, Congress and is eligible for the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary reappointment after completion of his Building, the Capitol Power Plant, the term. Capitol Police headquarters, and the The Architect, whose original duties Robert A. Taft Memorial. The Architect were limited to designing and performs his duties in connection with supervising the construction of the the Senate side of the Capitol, the Senate Capitol, has assumed additional office buildings, and the operation of the responsibilities for activities that have Senate restaurants subject to the been assigned to the office by Congress. approval of the Senate Committee on Today, in light of the widespread Rules and Administration. In matters of activities under the jurisdiction of the general policy in connection with the Architect of the Capitol, the 44 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL administrative function challenges the the Brumidi corridors in the Capitol, a architectural and engineering functions substantial barrier-removal program of the office. throughout the Capitol Complex, and the Projects carried out by the Architect of east monumental stairs on the Capitol's the Capitol in recent years include House wing. renovation and restoration of the Statue The Architect of the Capitol also of Freedom, the Rotunda and other areas serves as a member of numerous in the Capitol, and the Library of governing or advisory bodies, including: Congress; procurement and installation Capitol Police Board, Capitol Guide of television and broadcasting facilities Board, House of Representatives Page for the House and Senate chambers and Board, District of Columbia Zoning hearing rooms; improvement to building Commission, Board of Directors of the utility, energy-management, and security Pennsylvania Avenue Development systems; installation of a Senate subway Corporation, Advisory Council on system; development and Historic Preservation, National Capital implementation of the Legislative Branch Memorial Commission, Art Advisory Telecommunications Network; plans for Committee to the Washington the complete renovation of the U.S. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and Botanic Garden Conservatory; the design the National Institute for Conservation of of a National Garden adjacent to the Cultural Property. He is also an ex Conservatory; and plans for a new officio member of the United States Capitol Visitor Center. The Architect also Capitol Preservation Commission and the oversaw the design and construction of Commission on the Bicentennial of the the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary United States Capitol. In addition, he Building for the U.S. courts. Ongoing serves as the Coordinator of Civil conservation/renovation projects include Defense for the Capitol complex. For further information, contact the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, DC 20515. Phone, 202±228±1793. UNITED STATES BOTANIC GARDEN Office of Executive Director, 245 First Street SW., Washington, DC 20024 Phone, 202±225±8333 Conservatory, Maryland Avenue, First to Second Streets SW., Washington, DC 20024 Phone, 202±225±6646 Production Facility, 4700 Shepherd Parkway SW., Washington, DC 20032 Phone, 202±563±2220 Director (Architect of the Capitol) GEORGE M. WHITE, Acting Executive Director JEFFREY P. COOPER-SMITH The United States Botanic Garden is an educational and scientific display garden. It informs and educates visitors about the importance, and irreplaceable value, of plants to the well-being of humankind and to the fragile ecosystems that support all life. The Botanic Garden's indoor and plants worldwide. outdoor displays convey information on the aesthetic, cultural, economic, The Conservatory, one of the largest therapeutic, and ecological value of structures of its kind in this country,.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Advice and Dissent: Due Process of the Senate
    DePaul Law Review Volume 23 Issue 2 Winter 1974 Article 5 Advice and Dissent: Due Process of the Senate Luis Kutner Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Luis Kutner, Advice and Dissent: Due Process of the Senate, 23 DePaul L. Rev. 658 (1974) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol23/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ADVICE AND DISSENT: DUE PROCESS OF THE SENATE Luis Kutner* The Watergate affair demonstrates the need for a general resurgence of the Senate's proper role in the appointive process. In order to understand the true nature and functioning of this theoretical check on the exercise of unlimited Executive appointment power, the author proceeds through an analysis of the Senate confirmation process. Through a concurrent study of the Senate's constitutionally prescribed function of advice and consent and the historicalprecedent for Senatorial scrutiny in the appointive process, the author graphically describes the scope of this Senatorialpower. Further, the author attempts to place the exercise of the power in perspective, sug- gesting that it is relative to the nature of the position sought, and to the na- ture of the branch of government to be served. In arguing for stricter scrutiny, the author places the Senatorial responsibility for confirmation of Executive appointments on a continuum-the presumption in favor of Ex- ecutive choice is greater when the appointment involves the Executive branch, to be reduced proportionally when the position is either quasi-legis- lative or judicial.
    [Show full text]
  • The Senate in Transition Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Nuclear Option1
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYL\19-4\NYL402.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-JAN-17 6:55 THE SENATE IN TRANSITION OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE NUCLEAR OPTION1 William G. Dauster* The right of United States Senators to debate without limit—and thus to filibuster—has characterized much of the Senate’s history. The Reid Pre- cedent, Majority Leader Harry Reid’s November 21, 2013, change to a sim- ple majority to confirm nominations—sometimes called the “nuclear option”—dramatically altered that right. This article considers the Senate’s right to debate, Senators’ increasing abuse of the filibuster, how Senator Reid executed his change, and possible expansions of the Reid Precedent. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 632 R I. THE NATURE OF THE SENATE ........................ 633 R II. THE FOUNDERS’ SENATE ............................. 637 R III. THE CLOTURE RULE ................................. 639 R IV. FILIBUSTER ABUSE .................................. 641 R V. THE REID PRECEDENT ............................... 645 R VI. CHANGING PROCEDURE THROUGH PRECEDENT ......... 649 R VII. THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION ........................ 656 R VIII. POSSIBLE REACTIONS TO THE REID PRECEDENT ........ 658 R A. Republican Reaction ............................ 659 R B. Legislation ...................................... 661 R C. Supreme Court Nominations ..................... 670 R D. Discharging Committees of Nominations ......... 672 R E. Overruling Home-State Senators ................. 674 R F. Overruling the Minority Leader .................. 677 R G. Time To Debate ................................ 680 R CONCLUSION................................................ 680 R * Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy for U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. The author has worked on U.S. Senate and White House staffs since 1986, including as Staff Director or Deputy Staff Director for the Committees on the Budget, Labor and Human Resources, and Finance.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Membership and Appointment Authority to Advisory Commissions, Boards, and Groups
    Congressional Membership and Appointment Authority to Advisory Commissions, Boards, and Groups Updated February 12, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33313 Congressional Membership and Appointment Authority to Advisory Bodies Summary Over the past several decades, Congress, by statute, has established a wide array of commissions, boards, and advisory bodies to provide it with assistance in meeting various legislative, investigative, and administrative responsibilities. Some of these entities are temporary and created to serve specific functions, such as studying a discrete policy area or performing one-time tasks. Others are permanent, serving an ongoing purpose, such as overseeing an institution or performing a regular administrative function. The majority of these congressional bodies provide that Members of Congress, particularly the leadership, be intimately involved in the appointment process, either through direct service on a commission, or by appointing or recommending candidates for membership. The choice of a particular mechanism for membership appointment may have implications for the ability of these entities to fulfill their congressional mandates. Examination of the statutory language creating these bodies reveals several common approaches to membership selection. Each alternative schema has its advantages. For example, a commission or board composed entirely of Members permits a high degree of congressional control over the entity’s operations. Bodies composed mainly of qualified private citizens or executive branch appointees may provide a broader expertise than Member-only bodies. Assemblages of mixed membership provide some of the advantages of both Member and citizen-only appointment schemes. This report contains a compilation of existing commissions and boards that demonstrates the range of alternative membership-appointment structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Filibusters, Cloture, and the “Nuclear Option”: the Current Debate Over Changing Senate Rules for Approving Judicial Nominations
    Filibusters, Cloture, and the “Nuclear Option”: The Current Debate Over Changing Senate Rules for Approving Judicial Nominations March, 2005 Paul E. Stinson Janelle M. Smith Nixon Peabody, LLP © 2005. All Rights Reserved. Filibusters, Cloture, and the “Nuclear Option”: The Current Debate Over Changing Senate Rules for Approving Judicial Nominations March, 2005 © 2005, Nixon Peabody, LLP. All Rights Reserved. Abstract This background research paper examines the possible use of a simple majority vote rule to end filibusters of federal judicial nominees in the United States Senate. Recently, political controversy surrounding filibusters of presidential judicial nominations has prompted some Senators to suggest the use of a Senate procedure for ending filibusters by simple majority vote. Currently, Senate Standing Rule XXII requires a 60-Senator majority for ending debate upon a nomination, and a 67-Senator vote for ending debate on a motion to alter the Senate Rules themselves. This procedure, deemed the “constitutional” option by its supporters and the “nuclear” option by its detractors, is essentially a means for bypassing the Standing Rules through alternate Senate procedures such as rulings from the Chair, motions to table, modifications of Senate precedents, and Standing Orders. The debates over both the use of the filibuster and the use of the nuclear option raise significant questions of constitutional interpretation, the historical record, and the nature of the Senate itself. This paper presents an outline of the major issues surrounding both debates, as well as a description of the option and how it might be implemented. Part I presents a brief introduction. Part II explores the history of the filibuster.
    [Show full text]
  • Appointment and Confirmation of Executive
    Appointment and Confirmation of Executive Branch Leadership: An Overview name redacted Specialist in American National Government name redacted Analyst in Government Organization and Management June 22, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44083 Appointment and Confirmation of Executive Branch Leadership: An Overview Summary The Constitution divides the responsibility for populating the top positions in the executive branch of the federal government between the President and the Senate. Article II, Section 2 empowers the President to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint the principal officers of the United States, as well as some subordinate officers. These positions are generally filled through the advice and consent process, which can be divided into three stages: • First, the White House selects and clears a prospective appointee before sending a formal nomination to the Senate. • Second, the Senate determines whether to confirm a nomination. For most nominations, much of this process occurs at the committee level. • Third, the confirmed nominee is given a commission and sworn into office, after which he or she has full authority to carry out the duties of the office. The President may also be able to fill vacancies in advice and consent positions in the executive branch temporarily through other means. If circumstances permit and conditions are met, the President could choose to give a recess appointment to an individual. Such an appointment would last until the end of the next session of the Senate. Alternatively, in some cases, the President may be able to designate an official to serve in a vacant position on a temporary basis under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act or under statutory authority specific to the position.
    [Show full text]
  • NJSBA History Regarding the Practice of Invoking Senatorial Courtesy
    NJSBA History Regarding the Practice of Invoking Senatorial Courtesy Below please find the New Jersey State Bar Association’s historical background regarding the practice of “senatorial courtesy” whereby a sitting NJ State Senator from the county of a nominee’s residence may prevent a gubernatorial nominee from advancing to consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee and/or confirmation by the full Senate. 1960 A Special Committee was appointed to investigate the delay in judicial appointments that was occurring in the State Senate. This practice later became known as exercising “senatorial courtesy” and has caused considerable delay and interference in the State’s constitutionally sanctioned judicial appointment process from then to now. 1965 First Resolution The NJSBA entertained a resolution which called for the creation of a “Judicial Selection Committee” to address the problems caused by the practice of senatorial courtesy. This practice resulted in candidates for judicial office sometimes being held hostage by State Senators not on the basis of their qualifications, but rather the politics of the moment. The Board passed a resolution calling for a Special Committee to study this issue and instruct officers to meet with senatorial candidates prior to the November election in order to secure their commitment to consult with the NJSBA and also provide the bar with an opportunity to interview potential candidates. 1968 Second Resolution The Board adopted a resolution calling for a formal amendment to the State Constitution requiring that the State Senate act on the Governor’s judicial nominations within a specified period of time after they were announced. If the Senate failed to act, the nominee would automatically be confirmed without the advice and consent of the Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions
    Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions Henry B. Hogue Specialist in American National Government March 11, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS21308 Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions Summary Under the Constitution (Article II, §2, clause 2), the President and the Senate share the power to make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies, boards, and commissions. Generally, the President nominates individuals to these positions, and the Senate must confirm them before he can appoint them to office. The Constitution also provides an exception to this process. When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment, called a recess appointment, to any such position without Senate approval (Article II, §2, clause 3). This report supplies brief answers to some frequently asked questions regarding recess appointments. Additional information on recess appointments may be found in other CRS reports: CRS Report R42329, Recess Appointments Made by President Barack Obama, by Henry B. Hogue and Maureen O. Bearden; CRS Report RL33310, Recess Appointments Made by President George W. Bush, by Henry B. Hogue and Maureen O. Bearden; and CRS Report RL33009, Recess Appointments: A Legal Overview, by Vivian S. Chu. This report will be updated as events warrant. Congressional Research Service Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions Contents What Is the Purpose of a Recess Appointment? .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Committees
    Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau Legislative Committees Tamara Dodge, Senior Legislative Attorney June 2016 Legislating in Wisconsin, No. 6 www.legis.wi.gov/lrb/ © 2016 Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau One East Main Street, Suite 200 Madison, Wisconsin 53703 608-266-3561 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. Legislative Committees Much of the deliberative process of a bill, the discussion among legislators on a measure, and the work on amendments to improve and change the bill happen in legislative committees. These committees give the Wisconsin public a front-row seat to deliberations, as every committee hearing, executive session, or other meeting, with few exceptions, is open to the public. Legislative committees continue their work throughout the biennial session and usually meet in the capitol in Madison, except when a committee is given permission to meet elsewhere. For example, the Joint Committee on Finance will often hold public hearings on the state’s budget in various locations around the state. While the main function of a standing committee is to deliberate bills before the legislature, committees also introduce legislation and hold investigations and reviews on issues within the subject matter of the committee. The committee will also review administrative rules proposed by the executive branch agencies. Assembly Committees Each house of the Wisconsin Legislature has its own set of committees and rules that govern those committees.
    [Show full text]
  • The Solution to the Filibuster Problem: Putting the Advice Back in Advice and Consent
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 54 Issue 4 Article 17 2004 The Solution to the Filibuster Problem: Putting the Advice Back in Advice and Consent Laura T. Gorjanc Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Laura T. Gorjanc, The Solution to the Filibuster Problem: Putting the Advice Back in Advice and Consent, 54 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 1435 (2004) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol54/iss4/17 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE SOLUTION TO THE FILIBUSTER PROBLEM: PUTTING THE ADVICE BACK IN ADVICE AND CONSENT INTRODUCTION Today, hostility reigns in Washington. This is so, less than three years after a period of virtually unparalleled national unity following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Now, with Congress and the nation almost evenly divided politically, rela- tions between the Republicans and Democrats in Washington are as discordant as ever. As one pundit put it, "[c]ynicism is back in full force. Extraordinary political partisanship and acrimony are back."' This "extraordinary political partisanship and acrimony" is best evidenced by the recent wranglings over several nominees for prestigious and powerful federal courts of appeals appoint- ments. In the past year, Democrats successfully filibustered six of President Bush's nominees 2 and the Republicans responded with an all-night "talkathon" meant to publicly condemn the Democ- rats' filibusters.
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of Legislative Proposals: a Descriptive Introduction
    Order Code RS21169 March 8, 2002 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Sources of Legislative Proposals: A Descriptive Introduction Judy Schneider Specialist on the Congress Government and Finance Division Summary Ideas for legislation come from individual Members of Congress, congressional committees and subcommittees, informal groups of Members, the executive and judicial branches, state and local governments, foreign governments, constituents, advocacy and lobby groups, and the press. Individual Members. When Members are elected to Congress, they usually come to Washington to legislate on promises made during their campaign. They have ideas on what their district or state needs and what is best for the nation. Their ideas are frequently transformed into legislation that appears among the thousands of measures that are introduced in the first weeks of a new Congress. Members also initiate legislation following extended visits to their constituents after seeing and assessing needs firsthand. Committee and Subcommittees. Committees and subcommittees charged by House or Senate rules with legislating, studying and reviewing, and investigating specific policy areas make their own legislative proposals. Unlike in the Senate, most committees in the House cannot technically originate legislation. Nonetheless, House and Senate committees identify needs for legislation and are crucial in recommending that such legislation be introduced. By the time of the bill's introduction, the appropriate committee is well prepared to continue its work. Informal Groups. In addition to the numerous committees and subcommittees, there is a myriad of informal groups of Members with interests in a particular issue or region of the country. These groups study issues and lobby for the enactment of specific policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Prospective Advice and Consent
    Article Prospective Advice and Consent Jean Galbraitht I. INTRODU CTION ............................................................................................................. ................ 247 11. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PROSPECTIVE ADVICE AND CONSENT .......................................... 251 A . T im in g ............................................................................................................................... 2 52 1. Two Textual Meanings of "Advice and Consent"...............................................253 2. From the Framers' Intent to Subsequent Advice and Consent.............................256 3. Prospective Advice and Consent in the Washington Administration..................260 B . S p ecificity ............................................................................ ............................................. 2 63 1. Text, Separation of Powers, and Ditch-Digging.................................................264 2. The Doctrine of Obligatory Ratification .............................................................. 265 3. Broad M andates in Practice..................................................................................268 4. Lim its on B readth ................................................................................................. 273 Ill. MULTI-TREATY PROSPECTIVE ADVICE AND CONSENT...............................................................274 A. Propsective Advice and Consent for Repetitive Bilateral Treaties..................................275 B. Prospective
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations: Committee and Floor Procedure
    Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations: Committee and Floor Procedure Updated May 13, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL31980 SUMMARY RL31980 Senate Consideration of Presidential May 13, 2021 Nominations: Committee and Floor Procedure Elizabeth Rybicki Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution provides that the President shall appoint officers of the Specialist on Congress and United States “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” This report describes the the Legislative Process process by which the Senate provides advice and consent on presidential nominations, including receipt and referral of nominations, committee practices, and floor procedure. Committees play the central role in the process through investigations and hearings. Senate Rule XXXI provides that nominations shall be referred to appropriate committees “unless otherwise ordered.” Most nominations are referred, although a Senate standing order provides that some “privileged” nominations to specified positions will not be referred unless requested by a Senator. The Senate rule concerning committee jurisdictions (Rule XXV) broadly defines issue areas for committees, and the same jurisdictional statements generally apply to nominations as well as legislation. A committee often gathers information about a nominee either before or instead of a formal hearing. A committee considering a nomination has four options. It can report the nomination to the Senate favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation, or it can choose to take no action. It is more common for a committee to take no action on a nomination than to reject a nominee outright. In the 117th Congress, the Senate agreed to S.Res. 27, a resolution establishing procedures that will be in effect this Congress as long as Senate membership is evenly divided between the two political parties.
    [Show full text]