PDF(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
115th Congress } { Rept. 115-511
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { Part 1
======================================================================
ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT-FUNDED OIL-PAINTING ACT
_______
January 11, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Gowdy, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1701]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 1701) 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, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend
that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Committee Statement and Views.................................... 2
Section-by-Section............................................... 4
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 4
Correspondence................................................... 5
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 7
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 7
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 7
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 7
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 7
Federal Advisory Committee Act................................... 7
Unfunded Mandates Statement...................................... 7
Earmark Identification........................................... 8
Committee Estimate............................................... 8
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate... 8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
The amendments are as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Eliminating Government-funded Oil-
painting Act'' or the ``EGO Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR PORTRAITS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 13 of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1355. Prohibition on use of funds for portraits
``(a) 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.
``(b) In this section--
``(1) the term `executive agency' has the meaning given the
term in section 133 of title 41; and
``(2) the term `Member of Congress' includes a Delegate or
Resident Commissioner to Congress.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subchapter III of
chapter 13 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding after
the item relating to section 1354 the following new item:
``1355. Prohibition on use of funds for portraits.''.
Amend the title so as to read:
A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to prohibit
the use of Federal funds for the costs of painting portraits of
officers and employees of the Federal Government, and for other
purposes.
Committee Statement and Views
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 1701, the Eliminating Government-funded Oil-painting
Act (or EGO Act), prohibits the use of appropriated funds for
painting portraits of officers and employees of the federal
government.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The White House Historical Association commissions
paintings of the President and the First Lady. These paintings
commemorate former presidents and are often hung in the White
House and at the National Portrait Gallery.\1\ The cost of the
paintings can be large, but is covered by private money from
the Association, not taxpayers.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Emily Heil, Don't look for Obama's official portrait anytime
soon, Wash. Post, June 13, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/
reliable-source/wp/2017/06/13/dont-look-for-obamas-official-portrait-
anytime-soon.
\2\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are, however, portraits paid for using federally
appropriated money. Federal agencies spent tens of thousands of
dollars per painting of agency heads and other executive branch
officials. Cumulatively, the federal government spent more than
$100,000 on portrait paintings in recent years.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Jim McElhatton, Picture this: Cabinet portraits for big bucks,
Wash. Times, Nov. 11, 2012, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/
nov/11/picture-this-cabinet-portraits-for-big-bucks/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this amount of money is only a fraction of a
percentage of the federal budget, it represents a failure to
exercise fiscal restraint. Portraits of agency heads tucked
away in government buildings provide no return on the
taxpayers' investment in the federal government. Taxpayers have
funded dozens of portraits at agencies throughout the executive
branch, including:
1. $52,450 by the Department of State for a portrait
of former Secretary Condoleezza Rice;\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Richard Simon, The art of saving: Bill would cut funds for
official portraits, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 7, 2013, http://
articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/07/nation/la-na-hometown-portraits-
20130908.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. $38,350 by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for a portrait of former Administrator Lisa
Jackson;\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. $25,000 by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for a portrait of former Administrator
Daniel S. Goldin;\6\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Christopher Lee, Official Portraits Draw Skeptical Gaze, Wash.
Post, Oct. 21, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2008/10/20/AR2008102003627.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. $22,500 by the Department of Commerce for a
portrait of former Secretary John Bryson.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Jennifer Steinhauer, Capitol Portraits, a Perk of Access, Become
a Symbol of Excess Instead, N.Y. Times, Feb. 5, 2016, https://
www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/us/politics/capitol-portraits-a-perk-of-
access-become-a-symbol-of-excess-instead.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill does not prohibit portraits outright; instead
portraits of government officials must be paid for with private
funds. The President, Members of Congress, and heads of
agencies are free to raise money for their portraits as they
see fit. This cost should not be paid by the American taxpayer.
Congress previously enacted a ban on federally funded
paintings in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014.\8\
H.R. 1701 would make that ban permanent and ensure that
taxpayer funds will not be used for expensive paintings of
government officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128
Stat. 238, Sec. 736.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On March 23, 2017, Representative Matt Cartwright (D-PA)
introduced H.R. 1701, the Eliminating Government-funded Oil-
painting Act (the EGO Act), with Representatives Jim
Bridenstine (R-OK), Cheri Bustos (D-IL), Walter Jones, Jr. (R-
NC), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), David McKinley (R-WV), Pete Olson
(R-TX), and Tom Rice (R-SC). H.R. 1701 was referred to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and in addition to
the Committee on House Administration. The Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform considered H.R. 1701 at a
business meeting on September 13, 2017, and ordered the bill
reported favorably, as amended, by voice vote.
On January 23, 2017, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced
S. 188, the Eliminating Government-funded Oil-painting Act (the
EGO Act), with Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Claire McCaskill
(D-MO), and Deb Fisher (R-NE). The Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs considered S. 188 at a
business meeting on March 15, 2017, and ordered the bill
reported favorably, without amendment, by voice vote. On
September 18, 2017, the Senate passed S. 188 without amendment
by Unanimous Consent.
As discussed above, Congress previously enacted a ban on
federally funded paintings in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2014.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128
Stat. 238, Sec. 736.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section-by-Section
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 establishes the short title as the ``Eliminating
Government-funded Oil-painting Act'' or ``EGO Act.''
Sec. 2. Prohibition on use of funds for portraits
Section 2 creates a new section 1355 in chapter 13 of title
31, United States Code. The new section 1355 prohibits the use
of federal funds for the painting of a portrait of any officer
or employee of the federal government. This includes portraits
of 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. This section also defines the terms
``executive agency'' and ``Member of Congress.''
Explanation of Amendments
Representative Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania offered an
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute. The amendment places
the provisions of the EGO Act into United States Code.
Committee Consideration
On September 13, 2017, the Committee met in open session
and, with a quorum being present, ordered the bill favorably
reported, as amended, by voice vote.
Roll Call Votes
There were no roll call votes requested or conducted during
Committee consideration of H.R. 1701.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
This bill prohibits the use of Federal funds for the costs of
painting portraits of officers and employees of the Federal
government. As such, this bill does not relate to employment or
access to public services and accommodations.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of
this report.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goal or objective of this bill is to prohibit the use of
Federal funds for the costs of painting portraits of officers
and employees of the Federal government.
Duplication of Federal Programs
In accordance with clause 2(c)(5) of rule XIII no provision
of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal
program, a program that was included in any report from the
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
This bill does not direct the completion of any specific
rule makings within the meaning of section 551 of title 5,
United States Code.
Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within
the definition of Section 5(b) of the appendix to title 5,
United States Code.
Unfunded Mandates Statement
Pursuant to section 423 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act (Pub. L. 113-67) the Committee has
included a letter received from the Congressional Budget Office
below.
Earmark Identification
This bill does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.
Committee Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee includes below a
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 20, 2017.
Hon. Trey Gowdy,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1701, 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,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 1701--EGO Act
H.R. 1701 would 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 H.R. 1701 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 H.R. 1701 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 H.R. 1701 would not increase
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 1701 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.
On March 24, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
188, the EGO Act, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on March 15,
2017. The two pieces of legislation are similar, and CBO's
estimates of their budgetary effects are the same.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE II--THE BUDGET PROCESS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 13--APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL
Sec.
1301. Application.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND PENALTIES
* * * * * * *
1355. Prohibition on use of funds for portraits.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND PENALTIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1355. Prohibition on use of funds for portraits
(a) 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.
(b) In this section--
(1) the term ``executive agency'' has the meaning
given the term in section 133 of title 41; and
(2) the term ``Member of Congress'' includes a
Delegate or Resident Commissioner to Congress.
* * * * * * *
