U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–010 

" ! SENATE 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2014

113–217 

Calendar No. 486 

RESPONSIBLE USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS 

FOR PORTRAITS ACT OF 2013 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 1820 

TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR 

THE COSTS OF OFFICIAL PORTRAITS OF MEMBERS 

OF CONGRESS, HEADS OF EXECUTIVE AGENCIES, 

AND HEADS OF AGENCIES AND OFFICES OF THE 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

JULY 23, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SENE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Chief Counsel 

JOHN G. COLLINS, Senior Professional Staff Member 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

ANDREW C. DOCKHAM, Minority Chief Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

II. Background .................................................................................................... 1 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 3 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 3 

V. Estimated Cost of Legislation ....................................................................... 3 

VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 4 

VII. Changes in Existing Law .............................................................................. 4 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
Calendar No. 486 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 113–217 

RESPONSIBLE USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR 

PORTRAITS ACT OF 2013 

JULY 23, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. CARPER, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1820] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 1820) to prohibit the use of Federal funds for the costs of official portraits of Members of Congress, 

heads of executive agencies, and heads of agencies and offices of 

the legislative branch, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, without amendment, and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

In response to lavish spending on portraits for government officials, S. 1820 prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for official 

portraits of Members of Congress, heads of executive agencies, and 

heads of agencies and offices of the legislative branch. S. 1820 offers one very narrow exception: the government may pay for portraits of those officials who are in the line of succession for the 

presidency, which includes the Speaker of the House, President Pro 

Tem of the Senate, and members of the Cabinet. However, the bill 

sets strict limits on the amount allowed for each portrait. The bill 

also clarifies that private funding may be used to pay for portraits. 

II. BACKGROUND

When the heads of federal agencies leave government service, the 

agencies routinely commission oil paintings to commemorate their 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
2 

1See Washington Post, The government pays tens of thousands of dollars for portraits of high 

officials. Should it? June 20, 2013 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/ 

20/the-government-pays-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-for-portraits-of-high-officials-should-it/. 2See Christian Science Monitor, George W. Bush Presidential Portrait is Unveiled. Who Paid 

for it? May 31, 2012 at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2012/0531/ 

George-W.-Bush-presidential-portrait-is-unveiled.-Who-paid-for-it-video. 3See National Journal, Why Doesn’t Nancy Pelosi Have an Oil Painting? John Boehner Has 

One, January 19, 2013 at http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/why-doesn-t-nancy-pelosihave-an-oil-painting-john-boehner-has-one-20130109. 4Pursuant to (3 U.S. Code § 19), the following individuals are in the line of succession for the 

presidency: the Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, Secretary of State, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, 

Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security. 5Sec. 736. The provision states: ‘‘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.’’ 

service. While this practice has a long tradition, it also carries costs 

that are unjustified in the context of the need for fiscal restraint.1

S. 1820 places significant limits on this practice. At a time when 

vital services and programs are facing cuts, S. 1820 would ensure 

that the practice is done in a way that protects taxpayers from excessive spending and that portraits are only commissioned for a 

small, appropriate set of federal officials. 

Reports indicate that official portraits for the President, the First 

Lady and certain Members of Congress (including Committee 

Chairs) are commissioned with private funding,2 though House 

practice has traditionally allowed appropriation of funds for portraits of the Speaker of the House.3 By placing limits on the 

amount of federal funding that can support commissioned portraits, 

the bill would encourage Congress as well as federal agencies to 

adopt this same fiscally responsible approach of relying on private 

donations. 

S. 1820 provides a general prohibition on the use of federal funds 

for the production of portraits of a Member of Congress, the head 

of an executive agency, or the head of an agency or office of the legislative branch. The bill allows federal funds to be provided for portraits of officials in line for the presidency 4 but limits taxpayer 

support for allowable portraits to $20,000 per portrait. The bill also 

clarifies that non-federal funds may be used for portraits. This 

combination of provisions would limit taxpayer support for portraits while encouraging federal agencies to leverage private dollars 

to pay for the portraits. 

In response to concerns raised by sponsors of the legislation and 

reports about excessive spending on portraits, Congress enacted a 

ban on taxpayer support for official portraits as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (PL 113–76).5 Since this restriction applies only to funds made available through that Act, it is not 

clear whether this prohibition will be continued in future years. S. 

1820 makes a permanent change in statute to ensure that, should 

Congress choose not to enact a total ban in future years through 

the appropriations process, there will be common-sense limits in 

place on an ongoing basis. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
3 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Shaheen introduced S. 1820, the Responsible Use of Taxpayer Dollars for Official Portraits Act, on December 11, 2013. The 

bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senators Coburn, Fischer, Roberts and Ayotte 

cosponsored the bill. The Committee considered S. 1820 at a business meeting on May 21, 2014. 

The committee ordered the bill reported favorably without 

amendment by a voice vote on May 21, 2014. Senators present for 

the vote were Senators Carper, Pryor, Landrieu, McCaskill, Tester, 

Begich, Coburn, Johnson, Portman, and Enzi. Senator Landrieu requested to be recorded as voting no on the bill. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 provides that the short title of the bill is the ‘‘Responsible Use of Taxpayer Dollars for Portraits Act of 2013.’’ 

Section 2(a) defines the term ‘‘executive agency’’ as having the 

meaning given that term in section 133 of title 41, United States 

Code, which includes the major departments of the executive 

branch, the military departments, other government agencies 

(other than the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission) and wholly owned government corporations. 

The section defines the term ‘‘Members of Congress’’ as including 

a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to Congress, and the term 

‘‘portrait’’ as a painting. 

Section 2(b)(1) prohibits any federal funds from being used to pay 

for the production of a portrait of a Member of Congress, head of 

an executive agency, or head of an agency or office of the legislative 

branch, except as provided by section 2(b)(2). 

Section 2(b)(2) allows not more than $20,000 in federal funds to 

be used to pay for the production of a portrait of an individual who 

is in the line of succession to the Presidency. 

Section 2(c) provides a rule of construction to clarify that nothing 

in the Act shall be construed to prohibit (1) the use of federal funds 

to publicly display these portraits and (2) the use of funds other 

than federal funds to produce a portrait of individuals described in 

sections 2(b)(1) or 2(b)(2), including the use of other funds to pay 

the entire cost of a portrait. 

V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

JUNE 11, 2014. 

Hon. TOM CARPER, 

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. 1820, the Responsible Use 

of Taxpayer Dollars for Portraits Act of 2013. 

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

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

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
4 

S. 1820—Responsible Use of Taxpayer Dollars for Portraits Act of 

2013 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 1820 would have no significant effect on the federal budget. The legislation would amend federal law to prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for official portraits for members of Congress, heads of executive agencies, and 

any leader of an agency or office of the legislative branch other 

than those in the line of succession to the presidency. The legislation would not apply to the judicial branch. It would limit spending 

on such portraits to a maximum of $20,000 per portrait. 

Current appropriation law prohibits the use of federal funds for 

portraits in fiscal year 2014. CBO is unaware of any comprehensive 

information on past spending on official portraits, but we expect 

that most portraits painted of federal officials not in the line of succession to the presidency are probably in the legislative branch and 

the Department of Defense. The cost of such portraits appears to 

be in the neighborhood of $25,000, based on contract awards for a 

few federal portraits. 

CBO estimates that any savings from S. 1820 would be less than 

$500,000 annually because we expect fewer than 20 portraits are 

purchased for federal officials not in the line of succession to the 

presidency in most years. Enacting S. 1820 could affect direct 

spending by 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. 

S. 1820 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

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

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

VI. 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 that would be incurred in carrying out this 

legislation 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 constrains 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. The legislation contains no other regulatory impact. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

Because this legislation 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 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN