U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–010 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2017

115–28 

Calendar No. 37 

ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT-FUNDED 

OIL-PAINTING ACT 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 188 

TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE COSTS OF 

PAINTING PORTRAITS OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

APRIL 24, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

JOSHUA P. MCLEOD, Professional Staff Member 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

STACIA M. CARDILLE, Minority Chief Counsel 

CHARLES A. MOSKOWITZ, Minority Senior Legislative Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 37 

115TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 1st Session 115–28 

ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT-FUNDED OIL-PAINTING ACT 

APRIL 24, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 188] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 188) to prohibit the use of Federal 

funds for the costs of painting portraits of officers and employees 

of the Federal Government, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill 

do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 4 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 4 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 4 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 4 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 5 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

Following reports of taxpayer dollars being spent on extravagant 

portraits for government officials, the Eliminating Governmentfunded Oil-painting Act, S. 188, would prohibit Federal funds from 

being used to pay for the costs of painting portraits of officers and 

employees of the Federal Government, including the President, the 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
2 

1On June 24, 2015, the Committee approved S. 310, the Eliminating Government-funded Oilpainting Act. That bill is identical to S. 188. Accordingly, this committee report is in large part 

a reproduction of Chairman Johnson’s committee report for S. 310, S. Rep. No. 114–93 (2015). 2 Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027 (Jan. 2017) 

available at https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget. 3 Id. 

4FRED, St. Louis, Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (4th 

Quarter 2016), available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S (last updated Mar. 

31, 2017). 5 Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027 (Jan. 2017) 

available at https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget. 6 Boyle, Katherine, The government pays tens of thousands of dollars for portraits of high officials. Should it?, Washington Post, June 20, 2013, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ 

blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/20/the-government-pays-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-for-portraits-ofhigh-officials-should-it/. 7 Id. 

8McElhatton, Jim, Picture this: Cabinet portraits for big bucks, Washington Times, Nov. 11, 

2012, available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/11/picture-this-cabinet-portraits-for-big-bucks/?page=all; United States Department of Agriculture, School Programs, Meal, 

Snack, and Milk Payments to States and School Food Authorities, Effective from July 1, 2016– 

June 30, 2017, available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/cn/SY2015-16table.pdf. 

Calculation based on National School Lunch Program maximum rate for free lunch in the contiguous states. 9Kerley, David, Taxpayer Dollars Spent on Official Government Portraits, ABC News, Mar. 

4, 2013, available at http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/taxpayer-dollars-spent-on-official-government-portraits/. 10 Id. 

Vice President, a Member of Congress, the head of an Executive 

agency, and the head of an office of the Legislative Branch.1

II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Federal outlays for fiscal year 2017 are projected to be $4.0 trillion, with revenues projected to be $3.4 trillion.2 That equates to 

a projected deficit of $559 billion for the Federal Government.3 As 

of the fourth quarter of 2016, public debt as a percent of gross domestic product was 105.9 percent.4 By the end of fiscal year 2017, 

the debt held by the public is expected to reach $14.8 trillion.5

These figures demonstrate that the Federal Government continues 

to live outside of its means. 

Congress has a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that Federal 

dollars are spent effectively and efficiently. In 2013, reports 

emerged that since 2010, Federal agencies have spent more than 

$400,000 on portraits that are displayed within agency buildings, 

often in secure locations that are not open to the public.6 However, 

the expensive practice has a long history of criticism dating back 

to at least the Carter Administration.7 Although portraits are a 

minor piece of the Federal budget, every dollar the government 

spends on vanity projects for federal officials is a dollar that is not 

spent improving the lives of everyday Americans. These paintings 

signal the greater problem of Congress failing to prioritize spending and wasting taxpayer dollars. For example, the $30,500 spent 

on former Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer’s portrait could have 

paid for over 9,000 free school lunches under the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s School Lunch Program.8

According to reports, in recent years Federal agencies have authorized lavish spending on portraits ranging in cost from $19,000 

to $50,000 each. Examples include: 

• $38,350 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 

a portrait of former Administrator Lisa Jackson; 9

• $22,500 by the Department of Commerce for a portrait of 

John Bryson, who served as Secretary for only eight months; 10


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
3 

11McElhatton, Jim, Picture this: Cabinet portraits for big bucks, Washington Times, Nov. 11, 

2012, available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/11/picture-this-cabinet-portraits-for-big-bucks/?page=all. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17Lee, Christopher, Official Portraits Draw Skeptical Gaze, Washington Post, Oct. 21, 2008, 

available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/20/ 

AR2008102003627.html. 18 Id. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22Siddons, Andrew, A Casualty of the Spending Truce: Official Portraits, New York Times, 

Dec. 11, 2014, available at http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/12/11/a-casualty-ofthe-spending-truce-official-portraits/. 23 Resnick, Brian, Why Doesn’t Nancy Pelosi Have an Oil Painting? John Boehner Has One, 

National Journal, January 19, 2013, available at http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/whydoesn-t-nancy-pelosi-have-an-oil-painting-john-boehner-has-one-20130109. 

• $41,200 by the Department of Defense (DoD) for a portrait 

of former Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley; 11

• $22,500 by the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) for a portrait of Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack; 12

• More than $40,000 by the United States Department of 

Justice for a portrait of former Attorney General John 

Ashcroft; 13

• $30,500 by the USDA for a portrait of former Secretary Ed 

Schafer; 14

• $34,425 by the USDA for a portrait of former Secretary 

Mike Johanns; 15

• $19,500 by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for a portrait of Steve Preston, who served as Secretary for only seven months; 16

• $46,790 by the DoD for a portrait of the former Secretary 

of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, his second official portrait 

bought by the American taxpayers; 17

• $23,500 by the Department of Homeland Security for a 

portrait of former Commandant Adm. Thomas H. Collins; 18

• $25,000 by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for a portrait of former Administrator Daniel S. 

Goldin; 19

• $29,500 by the EPA for a portrait of the former Administrator Stephen L. Johnson; 20

• $19,000 by the National Institute of Health for a portrait 

of former National Cancer Institute Director Andrew C. von 

Eschenbach.21

Typically, official portraits for the President, the First Lady, and 

certain Members of Congress (including committee chairs) are commissioned with private funding,22 though the House of Representatives has traditionally allowed appropriation of funds for portraits 

of the Speaker of the House.23 By prohibiting Federal spending on 

official portraits, the bill would encourage Congress as well as Federal agencies to adopt this same fiscally responsible approach of relying on private donations. 

In response to concerns raised by sponsors of the legislation and 

reports about excessive spending on portraits, for the last several 

years Congress has enacted a ban on taxpayer support for official 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
4 

24See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 114–113, Sec. 736 (‘‘None of the funds made available in this or any 

other Act may be used to pay for the painting of a portrait of an officer or employee of the Federal government, including the President, the Vice President, a member of Congress (including 

a Delegate or a Resident Commissioner to Congress), the head of an executive branch agency 

(as defined in section 133 of title 41, United States Code), or the head of an office of the legislative branch.’’). 

portraits as part of the appropriations process.24 S. 188 would 

make that ban permanent. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Bill Cassidy introduced S. 188 on January 23, 2017 with 

Senators Ron Johnson, Claire McCaskill, and Deb Fischer. The bill 

was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senator Joni Ernst joined as a cosponsor on March 

21, 2017. 

The Committee considered S. 188 at a business meeting on 

March 15, 2017. The Committee ordered the bill reported favorably 

en bloc by voice vote. Members present for the vote were Senators 

Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, Carper, Tester, 

Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Section 1. Short title 

This section provides the bill’s short title, the ‘‘Eliminating Government-funded Oil-painting Act’’ or ‘‘EGO Act.’’ 

Section 2. Prohibition on use of funds for portraits 

Subsection (a) states that no funds appropriated or otherwise 

made available to the Federal Government may be used to pay for 

the painting of a portrait of an officer or employee of the federal 

government, including the President, the Vice President, a Member 

of Congress, the head of an Executive agency, or the head of an office of the Legislative Branch. 

Subsection (b) defines ‘‘executive agency’’ and ‘‘Member of Congress.’’ 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill and determined that the bill will 

have no regulatory impact within the meaning of the rules. The 

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

MARCH 24, 2017. 

Hon. RON JOHNSON, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 188, the EGO Act. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
5 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

S. 188—EGO Act 

S. 188 would amend federal law to prohibit the use of federal 

funds to pay for official painted portraits of any officer or employee 

of the federal government, including the President, Vice President, 

Cabinet members, and Members of Congress. The legislation would 

not apply to the judicial branch. 

Appropriation laws have prohibited the use of federal funds for 

such portraits since fiscal year 2014. CBO is unaware of any comprehensive information on spending for official portraits before 

2014, but we expect that most portraits of federal officials are for 

those in the line of succession to the presidency, members of the 

legislative branch, and military service personnel. The cost of such 

portraits appears to be about $25,000 per portrait, based on contract awards for a few federal portraits. 

Implementing S. 188 could reduce future discretionary costs because the prohibition on using appropriated funds for such portraits is not in permanent law. However, those effects would be less 

than $500,000 annually because CBO expects that fewer than 20 

portraits would be purchased with federal funds in most years. Enacting S. 188 could affect direct spending by some agencies not 

funded through annual appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go 

procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net changes 

in spending by those agencies would be negligible. Enacting the bill 

would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 188 would not increase net direct 

spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10- 

year periods beginning in 2028. 

S. 188 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. The 

estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Because S. 188 would not repeal or amend any provision of current law, it would make no changes in existing law within the 

meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING