U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

49–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2015

114–93 

Calendar No. 165 

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. 310 

TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE COSTS OF 

PAINTING PORTRAITS OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

JULY 27, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD 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 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Chief Counsel 

PATRICK J. BAILEY, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

JENNIFER L. SCHEAFFER, Professional Staff Member 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Minority Chief Counsel 

ABIGAIL A. SHENKLE, Minority Professional Staff Member 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 165 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 114–93 

ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT-FUNDED OIL-PAINTING ACT 

JULY 27, 2015.—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. 310] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 310) 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 ......................................................................................... 3 

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

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

In response to lavish spending on portraits for government officials, S. 310, the Eliminating Government-funded Oil-painting Act 

(or EGO Act), would prohibit the use of funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the federal government to pay for an official 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. 


emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

1 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-of-high-officials-should-it/. 2Kerley, 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-onofficial-government-portraits/. 3 Id. 

4McElhatton, 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-cabinetportraits-for-big-bucks/?page=all. 5 Id. 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10Lee, 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. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. 

II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

When the heads of federal agencies leave government service, the 

agencies routinely commission oil paintings to commemorate their 

time in office. Portraits can cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. Media reports indicate that since 2010, federal agencies have 

spent more than $400,000 on portraits that are displayed within 

agency buildings, often in secure locations which are not open to 

the public.1

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; 2

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

John Bryson, who served as Secretary for only eight months; 3

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

of former Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley; 4

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

a portrait of Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack; 5

• More than $40,000 by the United States Department of Justice for a portrait of former Attorney General John Ashcroft; 6

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

Schaefer; 7

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

Johanns; 8

• $19,500 by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a portrait of Steve Preston, who served as HUD 

Secretary for only seven months; 9

• $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; 10

• $23,500 by the Department of Homeland Security for a portrait of former Commandant Adm. Thomas H. Collins; 11

• $25,000 by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for a portrait of former Administrator Daniel S. Goldin; 12

• $29,500 by the EPA for a portrait of the former Administrator Stephen L. Johnson; 13


emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

14 Id. 15Siddons, 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-casualtyof-the-spending-truce-official-portraits/. 16 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/ 

why-doesn-t-nancy-pelosi-have-an-oil-painting-john-boehner-has-one-20130109. 17P.L. 113–235, 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.’’). 18This bill was previously introduced in the 113th Congress by then-Representative Bill Cassidy as H.R. 1594. 

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

former National Cancer Institute Director Andrew C. von 

Eschenbach. 14

Reports indicate that official portraits for the President, the First 

Lady and certain Members of Congress (including committee 

chairs) are commissioned with private funding,15 though House 

practice has traditionally allowed appropriation of funds for portraits of the Speaker of the House.16 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, Congress enacted a 

ban on taxpayer support for official portraits as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015.17 S. 310 

ensures that the ban on this waste of taxpayer funds is made permanent. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Bill Cassidy introduced S. 310 with Deb Fischer on January 29, 2015.18 The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senators Steve Daines 

and Pat Roberts joined as cosponsors on February 3, 2015. Chairman Ron Johnson joined as a cosponsor on June 24, 2015. 

The Committee considered S. 310 at a business meeting on June 

24, 2015. The Committee ordered the bill reported favorably en bloc 

by voice vote. Members present for the vote were Senators Johnson, McCain, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, Heitkamp, and Peters. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE ACT, 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. 


emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

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 act and determined that the act will 

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

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the act 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

JULY 9, 2015. 

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. 310, the EGO Act. 

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. 310—EGO Act 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 310 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 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 prohibited the use of federal funds for such 

portraits in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. CBO is unaware of any 

comprehensive information on spending for official portraits before 

2014, but we expect that most portraits about 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. 

CBO estimates that any savings from implementing S. 310 would 

total less than $500,000 annually because we expect that fewer 

than 20 portraits would be purchased in most years. Enacting S. 

310 could affect direct spending by some agencies (such as the Tennessee Valley Authority) because they are authorized to use receipts from the sale of goods, fees, and other collections to cover 

their operating costs. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 

Because most of those agencies can make adjustments to the 

amounts they collect as operating costs change, CBO estimates that 

any net changes in direct spending by those agencies would be negligible. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 


emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

S. 310 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not 

affect the 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. 310 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 


emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING