U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–506 PDF 2018

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON 

EVIDENCE–BASED POLICYMAKING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 

Serial No. 115–48 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Jimmy Gomez, Maryland 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

CHRISTINA AIZCORBE, Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee Staff Director 

KATY ROTHER, Senior Counsel 

PATRICK HARTOBEY, Counsel 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 26, 2017 ..................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Ron Haskins, Ph.D., Co-Chair, Commission on Evidence-Based Policy Making 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Katharine G. Abraham, Ph.D., Chair, Commission on Evidence-Based Policy 

Making 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Latanya Sweeney, Ph.D., Commissioner, Commission on Evidence-Based Policy Making 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Robert Shea, Esq. Commissioner, Commission on Evidence-Based Policy Making 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

APPENDIX 

Letter of September 26, 2017, to the White House submitted by Mr. 

Cummings ............................................................................................................. 54 

Letter of September 26, 2017, to the Department of Health and Human 

Services submitted by Mr. Cummings ............................................................... 57 

September 2017 CEP report titled The Promise of Evidence-Based Policymaking: Report of the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking 

submitted by Mr. Haskins, can be accessed at: https://www.cep.gov/content/dam/cep/report/cep-final-report.pdf ......................................................... 60 

Response from Dr. Abraham, Commission on Evidence-Based Policy Making, 

to Questions for the Record ................................................................................. 61 

Response from Dr. Sweeney, Commission on Evidence-Based Policy Making, 

to Questions for the Record ................................................................................. 68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION 

ON EVIDENCE–BASED POLICYMAKING 

Tuesday, September 26, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

2157, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Russell presiding. 

Present: Representatives Duncan, Jordan, Sanford, Gosar, 

DesJarlais, Farenthold, Foxx, Massie, Meadows, Ross, Walker, 

Blum, Hice, Russell, Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Comer, Mitchell, 

Gianforte, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Kelly, 

Demings, Krishnamoorthi, Welch, DeSaulnier, and Gomez. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

I would like to begin by thanking our Speaker, Paul Ryan, for 

his commitment to improving the way the Federal Government 

uses data to solve problems and improve lives. His bipartisan work 

with Democratic Senator Patty Murray is the reason we are able 

to hold this hearing today. 

According to a 2013 General Accounting report, only 37 percent 

of managers who oversee 1,500 different Federal programs say 

their programs had been evaluated in the previous 5 years. Without sufficient data and analytics from programs like these, government agencies are unable to fully assess the benefits or impacts of 

their decisions and programs. 

Although many administrative records and surveys collected by 

government agencies provide significant sources of data, these 

records are typically not shared from one agency to another. Oftentimes, agencies either do not have access to or are not aware of 

data that could contribute to evidence building. 

To begin addressing data gaps in policymaking and administration of taxpayer-funded programs, Speaker Ryan and Senator Murray introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation in 2016 to create a 

commission to evaluate the current use and availability of data and 

make recommendations as to how to better improve the process. 

On September 7, 2017, the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking released its report containing 22 recommendations for 

improving the use of data to inform government programs and policies. The Commission found the Federal Government lags behind 

the private sector when it comes to managing and documenting 

data that could be used for evidence building. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

Taxpayers expect Federal policymakers to base their decisions on 

well-founded evidence and reason. But according to the Commission, there is not enough evidence being produced to adequately inform Federal decisionmakers. 

Seeking to balance privacy interests while simultaneously creating a process where data could be used and shared for statistical 

purposes, the Commission’s recommendations fell into four categories: establishing a new Federal entity to facilitate data linkages, increasing access to data, modernizing privacy protections, increasing and strengthening Federal evidence-building capacity. 

Government information management, data sharing, and interagency coordination are at the core of this committee’s legislative 

jurisdiction. The Commission’s recommendations touch on the committee’s oversight of the implementation of FITARA and FOIA and 

other recent data policy reforms, many of which we have worked 

on in this committee. The recommendations also touch on areas of 

the committee’s jurisdiction that are on our to-do list, such as the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the E–Government Act, the Privacy Act, 

and others. 

I want to thank not only the commissioners who are here with 

us today, but all members of the Commission for the time and effort devoted to creating this report in a relatively short period of 

time. The information produced in this report will help us strengthen our laws and fulfill our desire for a more efficient, effective, 

transparent, and accountable government. We look forward to 

hearing from you today on how we can gain better access to the 

evidence we need to create informed and effective policies. 

It’s now my honor to recognize the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Cummings, for his opening statement. 

Sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Today we will hear from four members of the Commission on 

Evidence-Based Policymaking. Let me start by saying this. 

Frankly, when most people think of evidence-based policymaking, 

they don’t think of the current administration or recent actions by 

Congress. But that is why today’s hearing is so very, very important. Too often, the American people see firsthand how policies that 

Congress puts in place are completely unrelated to the facts. 

Take voter fraud, for example. President Trump claimed that 3 

to 5 million people voted fraudulently in the last election. He had 

no evidence for his claim, none. To their credit, some Republicans 

have even pointed this out, that is that there is no fraud. Yet now 

the American people are being forced to spend tax dollars on a new 

Presidential commission that is trying to hunt for evidence to back 

up the President’s unsubstantiated claim. 

Take healthcare. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 

says that tens of millions of people will lose their health insurance 

if Republican plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act go through. 

Again, to their credit, a handful of Republicans have refused to go 

along with this. Yet, the majority continues to push repeal with no 

viable alternative for the millions of families who depend upon it. 

Take Planned Parenthood. Our committee conducted an investigation of allegations against this group. To his credit, our former 

chairman, Representative Chaffetz, reported on national television 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

that we found absolutely no evidence to support those allegations. 

Yet, despite our findings, the Republican leadership in the House 

spent millions of taxpayer dollars on a new special committee to 

continue harassing Planned Parenthood in search of evidence that 

never, ever existed. Something is awfully wrong with that picture. 

Take immigration. President Trump and congressional Republicans have argued that we need to limit the number of refugees 

we accept into our country because they supposedly utilize too 

many government benefits. Yet, the White House reportedly 

squelched an internal report based on economic data showing just 

the opposite, that refugees provide a net economic benefit to our 

Nation of more than $63 billion. 

However, instead of changing their policy to reflect these facts, 

the White House reportedly ordered the report to be stripped of all 

references to the benefits that refugees provide. Just took them 

out, throw them away. That left only a biased, inaccurate picture 

that happens to match their political narrative. 

On this topic, we are sending letters this morning to the White 

House and to the Department of Health and Human Services seeking documents about their actions on this report. 

I ask unanimous consent that our letters, Mr. Chairman, be included in the record for today’s hearing. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Without objection. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Finally, take the most significant long-term challenge of our Nation and the world. We face, for decades to come, 

climate change. We have just seen massive devastation caused by 

Hurricanes Maria, Irma, and Harvey which is projected to cost 

hundreds of billions of dollars. 

We’ve heard for the past 6 years from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that climate change is one of the top 

risks to the financial and national security of our great country. 

This finding is based on overwhelming scientific evidence. 

A few weeks ago, the Miami Herald asked the Republican mayor 

of Miami about Hurricane Irma. And this is how he responded, and 

I quote: This is the time to talk about climate change. This is the 

time that the President and the EPA and whoever makes decisions 

needs to talk about climate change. This is a truly, truly, truly 

poster child for what is to come. 

Of course, he is saying what we all already know and we know 

in our hearts: We need to anchor our public policy on sound evidence, not baseless ideology. We cannot pick and choose which evidence we recognize and which evidence we ignore because of politics. 

Today’s hearing goes right to the core mission of our committee. 

Collecting evidence and making policy recommendations based on 

that evidence is exactly what the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was designed to do. When we do our jobs correctly, 

it leads to important reforms. 

For example, this committee recently approved a bill, by Representative Farenthold and I, introduced to provide Federal employees who blow the whistle the right to appeal their cases in 

courts other than the Federal circuit. This important reform responds to evidence that the Federal circuit is unfavorable to whisVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:33 May 14, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28506.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

tleblowers and that expanding the right to appeal to other courts 

will not result in a flood of appeals. 

So I thank our witnesses who are here today. I look forward to 

your testimony. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And I thank the ranking member. 

Before we introduce our panel of witnesses this morning, it’s my 

honor to also note the presence of a multiparty delegation from the 

Government of Sri Lanka, led by the Speaker of Parliament, His 

Excellency Karu Jayasuriya. We welcome him and his distinguished guests. 

Thank you, sir, for your presence with us here today. 

I’m pleased to introduce our witnesses, the following commissioners on the Council on Evidence-Based Policymaking: Dr. Ron 

Haskins, the Co-Chair of the Commission; Dr. Katherine Abraham, 

the Chair of the Commission; Dr. Latanya Sweeney; and Mr. Robert Shea. 

Welcome to you all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. Please rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to 

give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you God? 

The record will reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Please be seated. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of 

the record. And I would also remind you about the microphones, 

and get them close, and also remember to turn on the button. 

Thank you, sir. Please, Dr. Haskins. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF RON HASKINS 

Mr. HASKINS. Thank you, Mr. Russell and Ranking Member 

Cummings and other members of the committee. I’m very pleased 

to be here today in my role as the co-chair of the Commission on 

Evidence-Based Policymaking. I’m a senior fellow at Brookings, 

and it made participating in the Commission much better than our 

members from California who had to keep coming back and forth. 

For most of my professional career I have been focused on the 

importance of generating evidence, especially program evaluation 

evidence, to support policymaking. So when Speaker Ryan appointed me to serve as co-chair of the Commission, I seized the opportunity. 

There are many issues in our country today that generate conflicting views. Some have already been expressed this morning. So 

we are very pleased that the need for more and better evidence— 

and the Commission strategy for getting there in a privacy protective way—was unanimously approved by the full Commission. All 

15 members voted for the final report and all 22 recommendations 

that we’re discussing before the committee today. 

I request that the final report of the Commission be entered into 

the record. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

Mr. RUSSELL. Without objection. 

Mr. HASKINS. The Commission was established by the bipartisan 

Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2016, which was 

jointly sponsored by Speaker Ryan and Senator Patty Murray and 

signed into law in March 2016. The legislation directed the appointment of 15 commissioners with a broad range of expertise, including academic researchers, data experts, administrators, and experts in computer science, data privacy, and privacy law. The Commission was provided just over 1 year to study and develop a strategy for strengthening government’s evidence-building and policymaking efforts. 

Decisionmakers depend on having reliable and timely information to guide their examination of how current programs and policies are working and how they could be improved. In establishing 

the Commission, Congress rightly acknowledged that today too little evidence is produced to meet this need. 

Most of the Nation’s social programs produce modest or no impacts. Let me say that again. Most of the Nation’s social programs 

produce modest or no impacts on the problems they were meant to 

address. Wisely, in recent years Congress has been asking for and 

paying for careful evaluation of some programs. But we still don’t 

know enough about the effectiveness of the many of the Nation’s 

programs. 

To help address this gap, the Commission was charged with developing a strategy for increasing the availability and the use of 

data to build evidence about government programs while also protecting privacy and confidentiality. We took both of these charges 

seriously. 

We wanted to make sure that our recommendations were rooted 

in, well, evidence. So we conducted an exhaustive fact-finding effort 

before launching into serious discussion of how to improve evidence 

building. This fact-finding phase extended for 8 months and included seven public meetings, three public hearings, a request for 

comments through the Federal Register, and a survey of Federal 

offices that generate or use evidence. In all, we received input from 

more than 500 individuals or organizations. 

Our report includes 22 recommendations designed to address the 

barriers to having more evidence available. The recommendations 

fall into three broad categories. First, improving data access, data 

access for evidence-building projects. Second, modernizing and 

strengthening the privacy protections for data used in evidence 

building. And, third, strengthening the Federal Government’s capacity for evidence building. 

I’m delighted to be joined on the panel today by my fellow commissioners, who will provide a brief overview of the recommendations that we developed under each of these three categories. First, 

Katharine Abraham, the chair of the Commission, will highlight 

recommendations that relate to streamlining and improving data 

access for evidence building. Second, Latanya Sweeney will describe the kinds of increased privacy protections and transparency 

that the implementation of our recommendations would yield. And, 

third, Robert Shea will discuss the set of recommendations related 

to strengthening the Federal Government’s capacity for evidence 

building. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

Their testimony will show that the members of the Commission 

share a vision in which rigorous evidence is created efficiently, as 

a routine part of government operations, and used to construct effective policy. 

Finally, we hope our recommendations will be implemented as 

quickly as possible, and we look forward to partnering with the 

Congress, this committee included, and the administration to advance the recommendations of the Commission and to achieve a future built on evidence-based policymaking. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Haskins follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 28506.001

Testimony of Ron Haskins 

Co-Chair, Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Hearing of September 26, 2017 

Committee Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the Committee: 

1 

My name is Ron Haskins; I'm pleased to be here today in my role as the Co-chair of the 

Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking. I am also a Senior Fellow and hold the Cabot 

Family Chair in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, where I also co-direct the Center on 

Children and Families. 

For most of my professional career I have focused on the importance of generating evidence to 

support policymaking. So when Speaker Ryan appointed me to serve as Co-Chair of the 

Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, I seized the oppottunity. 

The bipartisan Commission has produced a flnai report that documents a set of recommendations 

that were endorsed by all15 members of the Commission. There are many issues in our country 

today that generate conflicting views so we are really pleased that the need for more and better 

evidence, and our strategy for getting there in a privacy protective way, was unanimously approved 

by the full Commission. 

I request that the final repott of the Commission on Evidence-based Policymaking be entered into 

the record. 

The Commission was established by the bipartisan Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act 

of2016, which was jointly sponsored by Speaker Ryan and Senator Patry Murray, and signed into 

law in March 2016. The legislation directed the appointment of 15 Commissioners with a broad 

range of expertise, including academic researchers, data experts, seasoned administrators, and 

experts in computer science, data privacy, and privacy law. The Commission was provided just over 

one year to study and develop a strategy for strengthening government's evidence-building and 

policyrnaking efforts. 

Decision makers rely on having reliable and timely information to guide their examination of how 

current programs and policies are working and how they can be improved. In establishing the 

Commission, Congress rightly acknowledges that today, too little evidence is produced to meet this 

need. 

Most of the nation's social programs produce modest or no impacts on the problems they were 

meant to address. Wisely, in recent years Congress has been asking for and paying for careful 

evaluation of some programs, but we still don't know enough about the effectiveness of many of the 

nation's programs. To help address this gap, the Commission was charged with developing a 

1 
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 28506.002

2 

strategy for increasing the availability and use of data to build evidence about government programs, 

while also protecting privacy and confidentiality. We took both charges seriously. 

We wanted to make sure that our recommendations were rooted in-well--evidence-and so we 

completed an exhaustive fact-finding effort before launching into serious discussion of how to 

improve evidence building. This fact-finding phase extended for eight months and included seven 

public meetings, three public hearings with the public presenting information to the Commission, a 

Request for Comments through the Federal Register, and a survey of Federal offices that generate or 

use evidence. In all, we received input from more than 500 individuals or organizations. 

The feedback we received during our fact-finding process, in combination with the expertise of the 

Commissioners, enabled us to better understand the barriers to the effective usc of government data 

to generate evidence. 

Our report includes 22 recommendations designed to address these barriers. The recommendations 

fall into three broad categories: 

1. Improving data ~ for evidence-building projects, 

2. Modernizing and strengthening the privacy protections for data used in evidencebuilding, and 

3. Strengthening the Federal government's capacity for evidence-building. 

I am delighted to be joined on the panel today by my fellow Commissioners who will provide a brief 

overview of the recommendations that we developed under each of these three categories. First, 

Katharine Abraham, the Chair of the Commission, will highlight some of our recommendations that 

relate to streamlining and improving data access for evidence-building. Second, Latanya Sweeney 

will describe the kinds of increased privacy protections and transparency that the implementation of 

our recommendations would yield. And third, Robert Shea will discuss the set of recommendations 

related to strengthening the Federal government's capacity for evidence-building. 

Their testimony will show that members of the Commission share a vision in which rigorous 

evidence is created efficiently, as a routine part of government operations, and used to construct 

effective public policy. 

The Commission was charged by our statute to evaluate "if and how to create a clearinghouse for 

program and survey data" to support Federal program evaluation and policy as a possible solution 

for increasing access to data. We considered the establishment of a "data clearinghouse" in the sense 

of a data warehouse where large amounts of linked data are stored, but we rejected the idea of a 

clearinghouse, which could raise substantial risks for privacy. Instead, we are recommending the 

creation of a service to facilitate access to data and linking of data needed for statistical projects 

relevant to informing Federal programs and policies. This service --which we have named the 

2 
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 28506.003

3 

National Secure Data Service -- would build on and reorganize existing resources within government 

to facilitate secure access by those inside and outside of government to government data, and 

especially to data sets created by linking information from multiple agencies. 

The Commission views the proposed National Secure Data Service as a vital component in support 

of the Commission's recommendations for improved data access, strong privacy protections, and 

increased transparency. 

Our full report lays out the Commission's vision for the future and the steps we believe are needed 

to ensure that we maximize every opportunity to produce better evidence in support of government 

policies and programs. 

We hope our recommendations will be :implemented as quickly as possible, and we look forward to 

partnering with the Congress and the Administration to advance the recommendations of the 

Commission and to achieve a future built on evidence-based policymaking. 

3 
10 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Dr. Haskins. 

And the chair is now privileged to recognize Dr. Abraham for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KATHARINE G. ABRAHAM 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Russell, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and honored members of the committee. I very much 

appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the Commission’s report. 

I will focus on our recommendations related to secure access to 

confidential data for evidence building. This is an area in which I 

have some personal experience, having served two 4-year terms as 

the Commissioner of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor. 

I know that this committee has taken a particular interest in 

making sure that open data from the Federal Government are 

available to the public. The Commission, on the other hand, focused mainly on data that are not readily accessible for evidence 

building because of confidentiality concerns and legal restrictions. 

The open data initiative has done a great deal to make government data more available for evidence building, and I know all of 

us applaud the work this committee has done to make that possible. Our charge was somewhat different, to figure out how to harness the power of data that can’t be made publicly available. 

One of the central charges in the statute that created the Commission was for us to evaluate if and how to create a clearinghouse 

for program and survey data to support Federal program evaluation and policy. We had to interpret what the statute meant by 

data clearinghouse. We understood that term to mean a data warehouse where large amounts of data would be brought together, 

linked, and retained to be available for evidence-building purposes. 

That was an idea that we rejected. We were concerned that such 

a clearinghouse would create substantial risks for privacy. Instead, 

what we have recommended is the creation of a service to facilitate 

access to data and linking of data for specific projects. The data 

would be brought in, linked for the specific project, identifiers 

would be removed. Researchers, analysts, would work with the 

data. When the project was done, the data set would be destroyed. 

This service, which we have notionally named the National Secure Data Service, would build on existing resources within government to facilitate secure access to data for analysts inside and outside of government for evidence-building purposes, especially to 

data sets created by linking information from multiple agencies. 

During its fact-finding phase, the Commission heard about several examples of exciting research done using confidential data that 

has generated valuable information for designing and carrying out 

programs and policies, such as the path-breaking research of Stanford University Professor Raj Chetty and his colleagues on social 

mobility. 

Too often, however, we found legal and bureaucratic barriers to 

accessing data have prevented researchers from studying important 

policy questions. Surmounting these barriers is especially difficult 

when the researcher seeks to access data from multiple jurisdictions or agencies. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
11 

In its review of applicable laws, the Commission found considerable variation in provisions governing data confidentiality and permissible uses of data. The laws that authorize statistical agencies, 

for example, include varying restrictions on who can access data 

that has been collected and for what purposes. 

Many program agencies’ authorizing statutes do not address data 

confidentiality and the use of data for evidence building at all. 

Other program agencies’ laws establish narrow standards for the 

acceptable use of administrative data. For example, Title 26 of the 

U.S. Code generally limits the use of tax data to projects that 

would improve tax administration, precluding the use of these data 

under controlled circumstances and conditions for other evidencebuilding purposes. 

To provide clarity about permissible statistical uses, the Commission recommends that Congress build on the legal framework for 

data protection already established under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act. We propose to extend that framework to cover the National Secure Data Service and 

enable it to acquire and combine survey and administrative data. 

The Commission also proposes that the Congress review and, 

where appropriate, revise relevant statutes that place limits on the 

use of administrative data for statistical purposes as well as making more of the data collected by the States in the course of operating federally supported programs available for evidence building. 

The Federal Government’s principal statistical agencies already 

play an important role in generating and providing access to data. 

The Commission has a set of recommendations that broaden the 

role that the principal statistical agencies would play. 

Taken together with the Commission’s recommendations related 

to privacy, which Dr. Sweeney will discuss, we believe that our recommendations on data access will allow data that the government 

has already collected to be safely harnessed to produce the evidence 

that is needed to make government work better. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Abraham follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 28506.004

Testimony of Katharine Abraham 

Chair, Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Hearing of September 26, 2017 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and honored members of the Committee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the Commission's report. I will focus 

on our recommendations related to secure access to confidential data for evidence building. This is 

an area in which I have personal experience, having served two four-year terms as Commissioner of 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor. 

I know that this Committee has taken a particular interest in making sure that open data from the 

Federal government are available to the public. The Commission, on the other hand, focused mainly 

on data that are not readily accessible for evidence building because of confidentiality concerns and 

legal restrictions. The open data initiative has done a great deal to make government data more 

available for evidence building and all of us applaud the work this Committee has done to make that 

possible. Our charge was somewhat different-to figure out how to harness the power of data that 

can't be made publicly available. 

During its fact-finding phase, the Commission heard about several examples of analyses using 

confidential data that have generated valuable information for designing and carrying out programs 

and policies, such as the path-breaking research of Stanford University Professor Raj Chetty and his 

collaborators on social mobility. Too often, however, legal and bureaucratic barriers to accessing 

data have prevented researchers from studying important policy questions. Surmounting these 

barriers is especially difficult when the researcher seeks to access data from multiple jurisdictions or 

agencies. The Commission believes that enabling better use of confidential data the government has 

already collected will produce substantial benefits for society. 

In its review of laws applicable to the collection, protection and sharing of data, the Commission 

found considerable variation in provisions governing data confidentiality and permissible uses of 

data for evidence building. For example, the laws that authorize statistical agencies include varying 

restrictions on who can access data that have been collected and for what purposes. Many program 

agencies' authorizing statutes do not address data confidentiality and the use of data for evidence 

building at all. Other program agencies' laws establish narrow standards for the acceptable use of 

administrative data that limit the availability of these data for evidence building. For example, Title 

26 of the U.S. Code generally limits the use of tax data to projects that would improve "tax 

administration," precluding the use of these data to provide critical insights about the impacts of 

programs and policies across the government. 

To provide clarity about permissible statistical uses, the Commission recommends that Congress 

build on the legal framework for data protection already established under the Confidential 

1 
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 28506.005

Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA). Recommendation 2-3 proposes to 

extend the protective CIPSEA framework to enable the National Secure Data Service (NSDS) to 

acquire and combine survey and administrative data collected by other agencies. In addition, the 

Commission addresses legal limitations on the permissible uses of administrative data that preclude 

their use for evidence building. The Commission proposes that the Congress and the President 

review and, where appropriate, revise relevant statutes to authorize access and usc of such data for 

statistical purposes, under the stringent privacy protections of the expanded CIPSEA framework. 

The Commission similarly recommends making more of the data collected by the states in the 

course of operating federally-supported programs available for evidence-building purposes. 

The Federal government's Principal Statistical Agencies (PSAs) are already covered by CIPSEA. 

They have a long history of providing secure access to confidential data and ensuring that 

researchers abide by strict rnles to protect confidentiality. Despite their central role in providing 

policy-relevant information and their expertise in data stewardship, the heads of the PSAs generally 

do not have a seat at the table when other senior agency officials-such as the Chief Information 

Officer and the Chief Privacy Officer-are considering changes that would have an impact on data 

resources. The Commission envisions a broadened role for the PSAs in regard to decisions about 

data across their departments. Specifically, the Commission recommends that Federal departments 

assign a Senior Agency Official for Data Policy-in most cases the head of the departmental PSAto coordinate access to data and stewardship of the department's data resources for evidence 

building. 

Implementation of these recommendations will be vital for ensuring that the evidence-building 

community has access to data well-suited to generating insights about Federal programs and policies. 

Taken together with the Commission's recommendations related to privacy, to be described by 

Commissioner Latanya Sweeney, the Commission's recommendations on data access will allow data 

that the government has already collected to be safely harnessed to produce the evidence that is 

needed to make government work better. 

2 
14 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Dr. Abraham. 

The chair is now privileged to recognize Dr. Sweeney for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LATANYA SWEENEY 

Ms. SWEENEY. Thank you. 

Congressman Russell, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the committee, my name is Latanya Sweeney, and my career mission has been to create and use technology to assess and 

solve social, political, and governance problems. I am a computer 

scientist, a data scientist, a professor at Harvard, and the director 

of the Privacy Lab at Harvard. I served as the Chief Technology 

Officer for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. And I really thank 

you for this opportunity to speak before you today about the importance of the Commission’s recommendations in protecting the 

American people’s confidential data. 

I think it’s most directly relevant for you to know that my research and my research team have spent many years showing how 

data that should be anonymous isn’t. That is, how many different 

ways confidential data sets on health, criminal justice, and income 

records, and other areas could be re-identified easily using other 

data sources in today’s technological society. 

So let me be very clear: We do have a major problem protecting 

the privacy of confidential data today, and it stems, primarily, because of a mismatch between our historical way of thinking about 

privacy and privacy protections and today’s society being so empowered by technology. 

The Commission believes we can securely increase access to confidential data for evidence building based in great part on new advances made in how we think about privacy, in particular data privacy, and new techniques that use the same technology that challenges privacy to help provide protections. If we don’t take these 

actions, we risk exposing confidential data about Americans widely, 

which leaves us vulnerable to many problems. 

The Federal Government collects a lot of information about individuals and businesses during the course of its daily operations, 

and much of that information is and should be open data. That is, 

it should be publicly accessible government information. And things 

like weather forecasts and train timetables do not carry the same 

privacy burden. 

The government says it will keep some of that information confidential, like names and dates of birth of Social Security recipients. And when the government pledges to keep data confidential, 

the data should have strong protections, and data used should generally be made known to the American public. Versions of the data 

that can be rendered sufficiently de-identified should also be made 

publicly available. 

I’m here today to tell you about why the Commission’s privacy 

and transparency recommendations are critical to protecting the 

government’s confidential information. 

First, and of utmost importance, there’s a great variation in how 

Federal agencies go about protecting confidential data today. Instead, this process really needs to be consistent, it needs to be rigVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:33 May 14, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28506.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 

orous, and it needs to be able to evolve with new technological advances. 

Second, protecting the privacy of the American people means 

being transparent and open about decisionmaking and processes, 

and clear about how confidential information is being used, and 

giving opportunities for feedback and improvement. 

So what happens now when a Federal agency wants to release 

a public use version of some confidential data that it’s collected? 

Well, the 13 principal statistical agencies routinely apply rigorous 

methods of data masking, and they seek to review and get approval 

from experts on the way they’re going to disclose the data before 

they actually release public use files. 

That’s the current best practice we have, and we’ve had it for a 

long time and we accept it as pretty sufficient. But the context of 

public use data releases has changed because the amount of information about Americans and individuals that is publicly available 

has grown tremendously over the last few years. 

In addition, the technology to permit unauthorized re-identification has improved. Financial incentives exist in many data analytic 

companies to take disparate pieces of data and put them together 

to build profiles on individuals. Within the Federal Government 

alone the open data initiative made over 150,000 data sets accessible through a single website, including many administrative data 

sets never before released to the public. 

While releasing these data can generate tremendous value, enabling entrepreneurs to produce better products and departments to 

understand their work better, it’s important to consider how publicly available data could compromise confidentiality if we don’t 

take appropriate actions in adhering privacy. 

This is not about whether or not the data is released or not. It’s 

not a binary decision. That’s how we’ve historically looked at it. 

But today’s technology allows us the opportunity to say we can, in 

fact, provide public versions of data. The question is which version 

and the techniques used to render that version. 

Government agencies follow their own applicable laws and regulations in providing access to their confidential data. These agencies are not necessarily coordinated in the decisionmaking they 

make. And the fact that they have different policies and different 

procedures about what it means to be identifiable creates a lot of 

problems. Sometimes two different agencies releasing the same 

data make different decisions, and the two pieces can be put together. 

Some program agencies use the same best practices that we just 

described earlier about the principal statistical agencies to assess 

the risk of re-identification, an ongoing process. The Department of 

Education even set up a dedicated disclosure review board for its 

program agencies. 

But some program agencies do little more than just remove the 

explicit identifiers, like name and address, leaving lots of other 

pieces of information out there available that can be linked to other 

data to re-identify individuals. Confidential government data collected by program agencies are often subject to FOIA with minimal 

redaction and also with inconsistent coordination. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 

The problem is that there are so many sources of data out there 

today that can be matched to insufficiently de-identify confidential 

data to re-identify individuals or businesses. And in my resume you 

will see many collections at both the State and Federal level for 

where we’ve demonstrated this. 

In fact, we just released a study showing how data on air and 

dust samples from 50 homes in two communities in California 

could be combined with data released under the Safe Harbor provision of the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act 

to uniquely and correctly identify 8 of 32, or 25 percent, by name. 

Many people—many of us—many of our policies look at the protections available in HIPAA as being sufficient and Safe Harbor as 

being sufficiently strong. The fact that we were able to re-identify 

uniquely and correctly 25 percent of the records is alarming. It, 

again, speaks to the nature of data that’s out there and the old way 

that we think about privacy. 

So I can tell you by name health information about eight people 

in one community from which that data was released, de-identified. 

And if those eight people lived in your district and they learned 

that a Federal agency had just released their data with insufficient 

privacy protections, you would be likely hearing about it also. 

This is what my colleagues and I discover every day with many 

different types of data from many different venues. And this is a 

real problem. And it’s important that any legislation implementing 

the Commission’s recommendations address the seamless improvements of privacy head-on. 

Many programs have released the identified public use data files 

for decades without being required to ever formally assess its risk. 

They also often include provisions that make it impossible to actually inform them about the risk that we find. 

The Commission’s recommendations, 3–1 in particular, will make 

sure that Federal agencies planning to release de-identified confidential data use state-of-the-art methods to protect individuals 

and businesses from privacy harm. Instead of being a static way 

of thinking of privacy in a binary decisionmaking, it’s a continuum. 

And as we get better and better about how to think about privacy 

and technical tools to release privacy, it enables those new techniques to go right into government use. 

Next, I’d like to explain why transparency is so important to privacy. Privacy does not mean secrecy, and there’s often a lot of confusion that the idea of privacy is to hide it and not let anyone know 

about it. But, in fact, the Commission believes that advancing beyond the status quo and achieving unparalleled transparency 

means first telling the public about how government data are used 

for evidence building, and, second, regularly auditing whether the 

government is doing what it said it would do to protect privacy 

when allowing access to government data for evidence building. 

Further, transparency means how was the data redacted and learning new ways and encouraging the use of new techniques. 

As a first step, the government needs to make clear its decisions 

about which data are open data and which data are nonpublic confidential data. The Commission calls for OMB to develop a public 

inventory of data available for evidence building, including a deterVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:33 May 14, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28506.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

mination of the sensitivity level of the data. Based on the data’s 

sensitivity, we are recommending—— 

Mr. RUSSELL. Dr. Sweeney, we—— 

Ms. SWEENEY. Oh, I’m so sorry. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yeah. 

Ms. SWEENEY. And I’ll stop right there. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Sweeney follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 28506.006

Testimony ofLatanya Sweeney 

Commissioner, Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Hearing of September 26, 2017 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the Committee, 

My name is Latanya Sweeney and my career mission has been to create and use technology to assess 

and solve societal, political and governance problems. I am a data scientist and the Director of the 

Privacy Lab at Harvard University. I also served as the Chief Technology Officer for the Federal 

Trade Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today about the importance 

of the Commission's recommendations in protecting the American people's confidential data. I 

think it is most directly relevant for you to know that my research team and I have spent many years 

showing how individuals in supposedly confidential datasets on health, criminal justice, and other 

areas can be re-identified by using other data sources and computing power. 

Let me be very clear: we have a problem protecting the privacy of confidential data today. The 

Commission believes we can securely increase access to confidential data for evidence building. But 

unless we also increase privacy protections as recommended in the Commission's report, we risk a 

bigger problem than barriers to data access. We risk exposing confidential data about Americans. 

The Federal government collects a lot of information about individuals and businesses during the 

course of its daily operations. Much of that information is, and should be, open data-publicly 

accessible government information like weather forecasts and train timetables. The government says 

it will keep some of that information confidential, like the names and birth dates of social security 

recipients. When government pledges to keep data confidential, the data should have strong 

protections, and data use should generally be made known to the American public. 

I'm here today to tell you about why the Commission's privacy and transparency recommendations 

are critical to protecting the government's confidential information. First and of utmost importance, 

there is great variation in how Federal agencies protect confidential data-this process should be 

consistent and rigorous. Second, protecting the privacy of the American people means being 

transparent, open, and clear about how their confidential information is being used and giving them 

opportunities to provide feedback. 

So what happens now when a Federal agency wants to release a public use version of some 

confidential data it has collected? The 13 Principal Statistical Agencies routinely apply rigorous 

methods of data masking and seek review and approval from experts on a disclosure review board 

before releasing public use files. That is the current best practice and for a long time we accepted it 

as pretty sufficient. But the context of public use data releases has changed because the amount of 

information about individuals that is publicly available has grown. In addition, the technology to 

permit unauthorized re-identification has improved. Within the Federal government alone, the Open 
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 28506.007

Data initiative made over 150,000 datasets accessible through a single website, including many 

administrative datasets never before released to the public. While releasing these data can generate 

tremendous value, enabling entrepreneurs to produce better products and departments to 

understand their work better, it is important to consider how publicly available data could 

compromise confidentiality. 

Government agencies follow their own applicable laws and regulations in providing access to their 

confidential data. The problem is that agencies have different policies and procedures for what it 

means to release data that is "not individually identifiable" (as it says in the Privacy Act). Some 

program agencies use the same best practice techniques as Principal Statistical Agencies to assess risk 

of re-identification. The Department of Education even set up a dedicated disclosure review board 

for its program agencies. But some program agencies do little more than remove direct identifiers 

such as name and address, and perhaps remove outliers before assuming the dataset is sufficiently 

de-identified for public release. And confidential government data collected by program agencies are 

often subject to FOIA with minimal redaction. 

The problem is that there arc so many sources of data out there today that can be matched to 

insufficiently de-identified confidential data to re-identify individuals or businesses. My colleagues 

and I just released a study showing how data on air and dust samples from 50 homes in two 

communities in California could be combined with data released under the Safe Harbor provisions 

of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIP AA) to "uniquely and correctly 

identify [in one community] 8 of 32 (25 percent) by name and 9 of 32 (28 percent) by address." 

Think about it: I can tell you, by name, health information about 8 people in one community from 

data that was released publicly as "de-identified." If those 8 people lived in your district and they 

learned that a Federal agency had just released their data with insufficient privacy protections, you 

would likely be hearing about it. This is what my colleagues and I discover every day, with many 

different types of data. This is a problem, and it's important that any legislation implementing the 

Commission's recommendations address privacy head on. 

Many programs have released de-identified public-use data flies for decades without being required 

to formally assess risk. The Commission's recommendation 3-1 will make sure that Federal agencies 

planning to release de-identified confidential data use state-of-the-art methods to protect individuals 

and businesses from privacy harm. 

Next, I'd like to explain why transparency is so important to privacy. Privacy does not mean secrecy. 

In fact, the Commission believes that advancing beyond the status quo and achieving unparalleled 

transparency means first, telling the public about how government data are used for evidence 

building and second, regularly auditing whether the government is doing what it said it would do to 

protect privacy when allowing access to government data for evidence building. 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 28506.008

As a first step, the government needs to make clear its decisions about which data ate open data and 

which data are nonpublic, confidential data. The Commission calls for OMB to develop a public 

inventory of data available for evidence building, including a determination of the sensitivity level of 

the data. Based on data sensitivity, we are recommending that OMB establish standards for 

appropriate and controlled access. And this is important-agencies should use technology and 

statistical masking techniques to develop less sensitive versions of datasets when possible and make 

more information available to the public and to researchers with appropriate safeguatds for evidence 

building. 

This idea of multiple versions of datasets, or tiered access, isn't some theoretical concept. Tiered 

access approaches ate practical and we can actually implement them today. Tiered access is an 

application of data minimization, which is a key privacy safeguard for evidence building. 

Imagine a system where each dataset is labeled based on whether versions have more or less 

identifiable or sensitive information. Then, researchers or the public only receive an appropriate 

level of access to complete their project with appropriate privacy safeguards. 

This tiered access approach is a way to increase evidence building and better protect privacy at the 

same time. And we already have examples of how it is being done today in the Federal government. 

The Commission found that many PSAs implement tiered access programs that set data access and 

security requirements based on an assessment of dataset sensitivity. Tiered access is also taking root 

in Europe in response to the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulations and at 

home by organizations such as my own, Harvard University, to defme sensitivity levels and set 

corresponding access and data security protections. 

Recommendation 4-3 calls for OMB to develop a transpatency portal that includes the data 

inventory with sensitivity levels, risk assessments, and descriptions of projects and approved 

reseatchers using confidential data for evidence building. Researchers like myself and my colleagues 

must have a way to give feedback to the government about potential risks they fmd. And for the 

public to provide feedback on data sensitivity. Therefore, the Commission's report calls for a 

feedback mechanism as patt of the transparency portal. 

Preventing bad actors from breaking into confidential data they are not authorized to usc requires 

consistent and rigorous processes to assess the risk of release in light of all other sources of data. A 

disclosure review boatd has the expertise to determine if agencies ate doing enough to protect the 

privacy of the American people. The Federal government needs to help the public understand how 

confidential data are being used and conduct regular audits to ensure compliance with privacy laws, 

regulations, and best-practice procedures. 

Thank you for your time. I urge you to move swiftly to implement these changes and improve how 

the Federal government protects the confidential data it collects from the American public. 
21 

Mr. RUSSELL. I’ve tried to be generous from the chair, but we’ve 

given you 10 minutes instead of 5. And, hopefully, we can get to 

some of these other points during the questioning. 

Ms. SWEENEY. No problem. 

Mr. RUSSELL. We want to be respectful, also, to Mr. Shea, who 

it is my privilege to recognize for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SHEA 

Mr. SHEA. I assure you the committee members benefit far more 

from hearing from Latanya than they will from me. So I apologize 

in advance. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the 

committee, I’m Robert Shea, a proud former staff member of this 

committee, and I’m pleased to be here today with my fine fellow 

commissioners testifying on behalf of the Commission on EvidenceBased Policymaking. 

You’ve already heard the testimonies of my colleagues that highlight the Commission’s recommendations related to data access and 

privacy protections. I’d like to focus on those recommendations that 

pertain to the strengthening of the Federal Government’s capacity 

for evidence building. 

Today, evidence building by government occurs unevenly. Some 

departments have robust approaches for routinely generating and 

using evidence, but these are the exception. We’ve taken to calling 

those who generate, manage, and analyze data, those who transform information into evidence, and those who support those functions through the routine processes of government, members of the 

evidence community. 

Principal statistical agencies and other statistical programs, program evaluation and policy research offices, program administrators, performance management offices, policy analysis offices, and 

privacy offices, all play important roles in evidence building. But 

many shared with the Commission that administrative barriers 

hamper the efficient production and the use of this evidence. 

To achieve the Commission’s vision—a future in which rigorous 

evidence is created efficiently as a routine part of government operation and used to construct effective public policy—Federal agencies must have the capacity to support the full range of analytic approaches required for evidence building. 

To grow the program evaluation function across agencies, we recommend Federal departments anoint a chief evaluation officer 

who’d be charged with establishing department-wide evaluation research policies, coordinating technical expertise for evaluation, 

identifying priorities for departmental program evaluation, and 

adopting human capital strategies that expand the department’s 

program evaluation capacity. 

We also recommend agencies develop multiyear learning agendas 

to support the generation and use of evidence. A learning agenda 

is essentially a strategic plan for evidence building, identifying important policy questions relevant to the department’s mission. The 

learning agenda can be used by leadership and by Congress to 

prioritize research investments. 

Several of the evidence-building examples referenced in my colleagues’ testimony involve linking data sources administered by 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 

different Federal departments. Officially implementing evidencebuilding activities across government requires strong coordination. 

This committee has already vested a great deal of responsible in 

OMB, but we firmly believe it’s the right institution to help coordinate these activities. We recommend OMB facilitate cross-government coordination and consider whether consolidation or reorganization of evidence-based policymaking functions at OMB would 

accelerate adoption of the Commission’s recommendations. 

The commissioners also identified actions related to procurement 

and the review and approval processes for new data collections that 

would require little cost but offer substantial benefits and savings 

while making it easier to produce evidence. These are small but important reforms. 

The Commission acknowledges and appreciates the role that this 

committee in particular plays in reforming and overseeing the operations of the Federal Government. Though some of our recommendations will require legislation, others simply require administration action. You can help us ensure OMB and Federal departments use their existing authorities to begin to increase access, 

enhance privacy, and expand capacity, and ultimately create a future in which rigorous evidence is created efficiently, as a routine 

part of government operations, and used to construct effective policy. 

No pressure, but we’re all counting on you, and we’re here to 

help in any way we can. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Shea follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 28506.009

Testimony of Robert Shea 

Commissioner, Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Hearing of September 26, 2017 

Committee Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and esteemed members of the 

Committee, my name is Robert Shea and I am pleased to be here today with my fellow 

Commissioners testifying on behalf of the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking. I am 

currently a Principal and lead the Public Sector Strategy practice at Grant Thornton. I also bring to 

bear, in my role as a Commissioner, my former experience both as Associate Director for 

Management at OMB, as well as several years of experience on Capitol Hill, including with this very 

Committee. 

You've already heard the testimonies of my colleagues that highlight the set of recommendations put 

forward by the Commission related to improving data access in support of evidence-building, as well 

as modernizing and strengthening the privacy protections for data used in evidence building. 

Implementing the features of the Commission's vision to improve the use of data for evidence 

building requires more than just improving access to data and privacy protections, however. The 

capacity to analyze data inside and outside government must exist in order to apply insights to 

inform policymaking. I'd like to focus my remarks on the Commission's recommendations that 

relate to strengthening the Federal government's capacity for evidence-building, which may include 

partnering with organizations and individuals outside of government. 

Today, evidence building about government policies and programs occurs unevenly. Some 

departments have developed robust approaches and procedures for routinely generating evidence. 

But these are the exception rather than the rule. 

The Federal evidence-building community includes those who generate, manage, and analyze data, 

those who transform information into evidence, and those who support those functions through the 

routine processes of government. Within the Federal evidence-building community, Principal 

Statistical Agencies (PSAs) and other statistical programs, program evaluation and policy research 

offices, program administrators, performance management offices, policy analysis offices, and 

privacy offices all play an important role in evidence building. During the Commission's fact-finding 

phase, both governmental and non-governmental witnesses identified numerous administrative 

barriers within the Federal government that hamper the efficient production of evidence. 

To maximize evidence building, Federal departments must have the capacity to support the full 

range of analytic approaches required for evidence building, including the development of statistics, 

program evaluation, and policy research. These functions must be operational, appropriately 

resourced, and well-coordinated within and across departments. Strong leadership within 

government that prioritizes evidence building and creates the demand for evidence is vital for 

institutionalizing these functions. Without a strong institutional foundation, other recommendations 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 28506.010

related to improving data access, establishing the National Secure Data Service, and implementing 

enhanced privacy protections will not have the comprehensive impact desired and envisioned by the 

Commission. 

The Commission's recommendations related to capacity acknowledge the particular need to grow 

the program evaluation function across Federal agencies. As such, the Commission recommends 

that Federal departments identify or establish a Chief Evaluation Officer, in addition to needed 

authorities to build a high performing evidence-building workforce. The Chief Evaluation Officer 

would be charged with establishing department-wide evaluation and research policies, the 

coordination and provision of technical expertise for evaluation and research across the department, 

leadership in identifying priorities for departmental program evaluation and policy research, and the 

establishment of human capital strategies that expand the department's capacity for program 

evaluation. 

A second capacity recommendation directs Federal departments to develop multi-year learning 

agendas to support the generation and use of evidence. A learning agenda is essentially a strategic 

plan for evidence building, identifying short- and long-term research and policy questions relevant to 

a department's mission and legal responsibilities. The learning agenda can be used by leadership to 

prioritize the set of research and policy questions to be pursued by the department, and also as a 

public document, alerting external audiences to the priority research and policy questions of interest 

to a department. In addition, the learning agenda can be used as a mechanism for organizing various 

units witbin the evidence-building community in a department in order to determine the best 

approach to answering a priority research or policy question and to allocate the work appropriately 

across the different evidence-building functions. The Chief Evaluation Officer and the Senior 

Agency Official for Data Policy would provide leadership for the development and implementation 

of a learning agenda. 

Several of the examples of evidence building that have been referenced today involve the linking of 

data sources that are administered by different Federal departments. Efficiently implementing 

evidence-building activities across government requires a strong coordination function to address 

such crosscutting research and policy questions, minimize duplicative efforts, and reduce the burden 

on the public. The Commission, therefore, recommends improving the coordination of 

government-wide evidence building. Specifically the Commission recognizes that the Office of 

Management and Budget is well situated to help coordinate these activities. We recommended that 

OMB facilitate cross-government coordination and consider how a greater commitment to 

foundational information policy responsibilities can be achieved, including through any 

consolidation or reorganization at OMB that might be necessary. 

In addition to increasing cross-governmental coordination, to generate a greater volume of evidence 

in a more efficient manner, foundational administrative processes must be aligned and tailored 

to better support evidence building. The Commission identified a specific set of actions related to 

procurement and streamlining the review and approval processes for new data collections that 
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 28506.011

would require litde cost, but offer substantial benefits and savings while making it easier to produce 

evidence. 

Finally, through the course of the Commission's research and deliberations, the topic of resources 

repeatedly emerged as a major perceived need for the evidence-building community and a challenge 

for improving the volume and quality of evidence produced. 1ne Commission believes that a 

responsible investment of resources in more and better evidence holds the potential to yield 

substantial savings in the longer term as programs that are improved become more cost-effective, 

and as programs that are not effective are discontinued. 1ne Commission recognizes that resource 

prioritb.ation is essential to ensuring the goals of the Commission are achieved. Thus, the 

recommendations of the Commission balance the need to prioritize evidence building while 

recognizing fiscal constraints. In some departments, sufficient resources already exist to enable 

evidence building, though such resources may have use restrictions that inhibit the most costeffective approach for evidence building. 

These capacity recommendations are small steps that government can take to ensure the institutional 

foundations are present to support evidence building and use in policymaking. More broadly, all of 

the Commission's 22 recommendations present a comprehensive strategy for addressing the greatest 

problems facing evidence building today: unintentional limits on data access, inadequate privacy 

practices, and insufficient capacity to generate the amount of quality evidence needed to support 

policy decisions. The Congress, the President, and the American people arc ill-served by this state of 

affairs. The Commission believes that fully implementing the Commission's recommendations will 

lead to substantial progress in addressing these challenges, enabling more and better evidence for 

our society, generated in a more secure fashion. 

We appreciate the role that this Committee plays in reforming and overseeing the operations of the 

Federal government. It occurs to me that the Committee can drive implementation of the 

Commission's recommendations in both of these roles. Some number of recommendations will 

require legislation to codify requirements for access and privacy, and this Committee can make sure 

those requirements have the force of law. But this Committee's oversight function can be also be a 

valuable tool for ensuring that OMB and Federal departments use their existing capacity and 

authorities to begin to increase access, enhance privacy, and expand capacity. 

We look forward to answering questions from the Committee both today and into the future as you 

consider the implications of this important report on advancing evidence-based policymaking. 
26 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Shea. 

And thank all of you for your testimony. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes as we move to the 

questioning period. 

Dr. Haskins, you made an interesting comment here in your testimony, and also in your written statements, that most of the Nation’s social programs produce modest or no impacts on the problems that they were meant to address. I think most of America 

would not be shocked by that statement, many of the things that 

we see. But can you give us some examples of that and, in your 

discovery, why that is? 

Mr. HASKINS. One example that people often mention is Head 

Start, which most people, if you do a survey of Americans, they 

think the program is immensely successful. But research shows 

that it’s not necessarily successful. 

Let me be clear on this. There are some—and this often happens 

in programs implemented around the country. There are individual 

sites that are very successful. But if you average up all the sites 

and see if they perform better than, say, a control group that did 

not have the same experience, they usually fail. There are all kinds 

of evidence that 80 to 90 percent of programs in medicine, in social 

science, and in business, fail. 

That’s the main reason that we need to have more evidence. We 

need to develop these programs. I have a feeling we may have a 

chance to talk about some of these programs later in this hearing 

or it would be appropriate for you to look at these programs later. 

But you would find, if you did this, that most programs, like Head 

Start, often have a good reputation, but when you look at what 

they do in the country as a whole they are not successful. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And that’s one of the key things that this committee does, is to have oversight for the American people so that 

we can make sure that we’re spending dollars wisely instead of just 

creating new bureaucracies that really don’t address the problems 

that they were designed to do. 

Mr. HASKINS. Mr. Chairman, can I add one very quick thing? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Sure can. 

Mr. HASKINS. Getting from here to there is going to be extremely 

difficult. We’re in the middle of this now with teen pregnancy prevention, home visiting, and several other programs that were initiated 5, 6, 7 years ago. We need a strategy that we can gradually 

build up these programs. We are not going to go overnight from 10 

or 15 percent success to 80 percent. That’s just not going to happen. 

So we need better strategies for finding the right people at the 

local level, giving them the right resources, having Federal agencies that can help them implement their programs. It takes all of 

the above. It will take us years to develop this. We need to be patient and do it right. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you. 

Dr. Sweeney, recommendation 3–3 in the report is that each Federal department assign a new role of senior agency official for data 

policy. We already have chief information officers and senior agency officials for privacy, and yet now we want to create new positions when these old positions, when they were first recommended 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 

and implemented, it was to fix problems. And now we’re going to 

fix a problem by having another person to fix a problem. What’s 

the difference between these existing positions and why? 

Ms. SWEENEY. You know, that succession of increasing those positions really speaks to the changes in society and our operations 

based on technology. Many of the Federal information technology 

officers are primarily focused on just that, the machines themselves, the ITs, the infrastructure of the systems on which work is 

based. The chief privacy officer in most of the agencies is based on 

making sure that the agency is in compliance with privacy laws 

and regulations. 

But what we’re talking about is a different issue. It’s about the 

data that’s on the technology, the data that’s being provided within 

the context of existing privacy laws. That is, the agency has the 

right to give out the data or not, or is responding to the Privacy 

Act. That would be in the chief privacy officer. But what version 

of the data is actually being given? That’s a technical analysis that 

neither of the other two would be able to actually implement. 

Mr. RUSSELL. I see. 

And, Mr. Shea, in your comments and also your written report, 

you talked about agencies using learning agendas. And there’s been 

some examples of success on that. I mean, imagine having a strategic vision and laying that out. Could you give us an example of 

what you’re talking about there and who’s using it? 

Mr. SHEA. Sure. I think there are some agencies, perhaps the Department of Labor, Department of Education are ones, that identify 

early in the year, or perhaps over a longer term, what are the 

major questions they want answered. And they contract for rigorous independent evaluations of programs that answer a lot of 

those important questions. And then they do a better job than most 

at integrating the evidence that they learned into their decisionmaking process. 

This committee has a long history of trying to inject outcomebased management in Federal departments and agencies. This is a 

step in that maturity, in our view. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Okay. Thank you. 

And my time has expired. And it’s now my honor to recognize the 

ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Abraham, one of the primary themes of the Commission’s report is the need to provide researchers both inside and outside the 

government with better access to government data. You noted in 

your testimony that the kind of data the Commission focuses on is 

data that the government keeps confidential because it contains 

sensitive information. Can you give us an example of the kind of 

data you’re talking about? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. So we’re talking about data on participation in 

programs and data on the outcomes associated with participation 

in those programs, data on the earnings of people, such as unemployment insurance wage record data, potentially Federal tax data 

on earnings that, if made available to researchers under strict confidentiality protections, could let them do a much better job of understanding how well these programs that Ron was talking about 

were actually working. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, the reason this data is not publicly released is because it contains sensitive information about individuals, such as Social Security numbers. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Exactly. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And the Commission recommends that agencies 

provide better access to data, but, obviously, without compromising 

the security of the sensitive information in that data. Is that right? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. That’s right. We’re envisioning this National Secure Data Service where data on, say, participation in a program 

would be brought together with data on earnings outcomes. The 

staff there would link the data up. The identifiers would be removed. The researchers would be given access to the data within 

that secure enclave to carry out the analysis. The only kind of results that would be released from such projects would be aggregated information that didn’t allow anyone to be identified. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, Dr. Abraham, you talked about how confusing and inefficient it can be when laws passed by Congress impose inconsistent restrictions on how government data can be used. 

For example, the Commission highlighted the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act. That law limits how the data the Department of 

Education collects from colleges and universities can be used. That 

limitation is creating less accountability for the performance of 

those institutions. 

Should Congress amend the Higher Education Opportunity Act 

to increase access to data from colleges and universities? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. The recommendation of the Commission was, essentially, that the Congress take a hard look at that. As I think 

is clear from reading our report, that kind of limitation on how 

data can be used does reduce accountability, it does reduce our 

ability to understand what we’re getting for the Federal dollars 

that we’re spending. And we certainly think that another look 

should be taken at that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, are there other laws Congress should reexamine for reform? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Well, I mean, there are similar restrictions in law 

on the Federal Government compiling information about people 

participating in workforce training programs supported by Federal 

dollars. That would be another example of something we would 

think the Congress would want to take a look at. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, Dr. Sweeney, you said in your testimony 

that the government should make more information available to 

the public about its data, how the data is being used. Is that something that the administration could do now? 

Ms. SWEENEY. In some situations. Not all data—they could. But 

there’s no incentive in most—there’s no one answer because at the 

last I counted we have 2,167 privacy laws and regulations in the 

United States, and they’re inconsistent with each other. And so 

there’s no one answer, could they just do that unilaterally. But, in 

certain places, that certainly could be done. But the incentivizes 

may not be there, necessarily, to give it. And whether an agency 

chooses to make that decision is not transparent. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, I agree that it’s important that data collected by the government be as transparent and as accessible as we 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 

possibly can make it. Taxpayer money is spent collecting the data, 

and taxpayers deserve the highest rate of return possible. 

Would you agree, Dr. Sweeney? 

Ms. SWEENEY. Yes, I would, especially because versions of the 

data can be made free of privacy concerns. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I noticed that three of your chapters deal with restricting access 

to confidential information, and especially with privacy. Most of 

your recommendations deal with privacy. And then there was an 

article in The Hill newspaper which said that your goal is to make 

sure that Federal tax dollars are spent effectively and how we keep 

up with rapid, advancing technology and still make effective public 

investments. 

I read after the—also, today, just this morning, the National 

Journal Daily that’s on all of our doors each morning said the 

Equifax hack is going to lead to sweeping cybersecurity legislation. 

About 2 or 3 months ago there were some worldwide cyber attacks. And Robert Kuttner, who is the co-founder of The American 

Prospect magazine and a very liberal columnist who I wouldn’t ordinarily quote, he wrote this. He said: Last week’s cyber attack 

could produce the wrong lessons. The immediate take-away seems 

to be that large institutions need much better cybersecurity systems. 

But he goes on. He says: Hackers will always be able to find 

ways of getting into network systems. The fantasy of ever-better 

cybersecurity is delusional. We could spend half the GDP on network security and someone will still find a way to breach it. 

And so I guess I have two sort of related questions. Number one, 

do you agree with Kuttner that—I assume you don’t agree with 

Kuttner that cybersecurity is delusional or is a mega-billion-dollar 

hoax. And I’d like to hear your comments about that. 

But, secondly, if the goal of your Commission is more effective 

spending of Federal money—you know, I drive cars that are several 

years old. They’re still working real well. But yet they say that 

computers are obsolete the day they’re taken out of the box. 

So how do we have the state-of-the-art technology that’s already 

been mentioned in your testimony here today, yet we get effective 

use—we can’t just throw away a computer just because the next 

year they come out with one that’s got more bells and whistles on 

it. 

And I sometimes wonder—I know at this committee several 

years ago, we had a business in here that had downloaded 250,000 

Federal tax returns just to show that it could be done. So I sometimes wonder if the technology and the internet that has done so 

much for us has also almost completely done away with privacy. 

So, Dr. Sweeney? 

Ms. SWEENEY. Thank you. 

So first of all, what the Commission is addressing does not actually have anything to do with cybersecurity. So the relationship between security and privacy is really interesting because usually 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

when we think about computer security, it’s the breaking in of a 

machine, you know, getting in through illegal means. 

The data that we’re talking about are data that’s given away 

freely, whether it’s through open data, through a public use file, or 

chosen not to be given away out of claimed fear or something like 

that. 

So these kind of data decisionmaking is not the same as 

cybersecurity. No one is breaking in. This is data that’s usually 

freely given away or decisions made not to do so at all. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, if it’s given away so freely, why is there so 

much of your report dealing with privacy? 

Ms. SWEENEY. Because the errors are happening on both sides. 

We have situations where the data is given away, and it leaks private information, sensitive information, health information, income 

information, and so forth, on Americans. And at the same time 

there’s data that could be incredibly useful for evidence-based policymaking that isn’t being given out at all because they say they 

don’t know how. 

And so we have problems on both sides, and the reason we’re 

having those problems is because the privacy decision making system doesn’t really use any of the technology. 

So you talked about the wave of the technology curves and the 

speed at which technology changes. What the Commission does is 

it basically says we want privacy decisionmaking to ride the wave 

of the technology and not be left in its 1970s format. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. If I could just jump in with one quick comment. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Sure. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. In terms of the cybersecurity issue, a point that 

I would make is that what we’re talking about is better use of data 

that are, in most cases, already collected and being held. So in 

terms of that risk, we’re really—we should do as well as we can 

on the cybersecurity issues, but we’re not increasing that risk in 

any of our recommendations. 

Mr. DUNCAN. What about the second part? How do we have effective use of tax dollars but we still keep up with the rapid advancing technology? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. I think that what Latanya’s response was, was attempting to answer that, which is we’re not so much talking about 

the hardware and having to buy new hardware. We’re talking 

about applying the right sort of methods to the way that data files 

that are going to be released get structured. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. My time is up. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the ranking 

member for his good work. 

And thank you to the witnesses for helping the committee with 

this task. 

Dr. Haskins, we do a lot of work on this committee regarding veterans. And we spend right now about $14 billion a year on educating veterans after their service. Yet, we don’t collect any data 

on how efficacious or how much good we are doing on behalf of 

those veterans. The intent is there, but there’s no followup. And I’ll 

give you an example. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

So we have a GI Bill that we’ve offered to members of the military. And in the past not only have we given it to veterans, but 

we’ve also said to Afghan and Iraqi veterans that if you already 

have a degree in higher education, you can give this to your child, 

which is a wonderful, wonderful benefit. 

Some of the members of the committee were in Afghanistan not 

too long ago and we met—we were with a Stryker Brigade from 

Washington State. And one of their sons was actually—one of the 

officers there, one of their sons was entering University of Washington. 

But when we look at the numbers, we find that only 50 percent— 

50 percent—of our veterans are actually using that bill. That’s unbelievable. With the cost of education, with the benefit that it could 

provide to them and to their children, there’s only 50 percent uptake of that benefit. And then we don’t know whether, for those 

who do choose to go to college, we don’t know if those veterans are 

actually benefiting to the full extent that they may. 

So there’s sort of a vacuum of usable data. I think that part of 

the problem is because of the restrictions we put on the use of information regarding—under the Higher Education Act—we have 

put a clamp on some of that. And I think we’ve restricted our own 

ability to collect and to use that information. 

It’s unbelievable to me that that benefit would be out there, so 

desperately needed, and left unused at least half of the time. 

Do you have any thoughts on that, Doctor? 

Mr. HASKINS. Yeah. Several. One thought that I have—first, of 

all, I want you to know that I went to school on the GI Bill during 

the Vietnam era. So I am very appreciative of what Congress does 

for—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you for your service to your country, Doctor. 

Mr. HASKINS. Yeah. I was glad to do it and even more pleased 

to go to college and have somebody help me. 

Second point, we can find out almost anything you want to know 

about these programs. We have great research designs for almost 

all education and training programs. Dr. Abraham was the head of 

the BLS and knows as much about this as anybody in the country. 

Mr. LYNCH. I’m sure. 

Mr. HASKINS. So if you approve the money and direct the Department of Labor to do careful studies of these veterans programs, 

they can answer any question that you want. 

Now, I’m going to tell you something that’s very important. It is 

not the case that you can just take anybody that comes out of military service and send them to a good university and they’ll do well. 

I have looked into this issue several times over the years, and 

I always come away with the same conclusion. There is a recent 

book by Harry Holzer, who is a very well-known labor economist, 

comes to the same conclusion. A lot of kids are not ready to go to 

college. And the GI Bill, they don’t wind up with a debt. But on 

Pell Grants and other means and loans, they can wind up owing 

money. And they don’t get the degree, they owe the money, they’re 

really in a bind. 

So those are the kind of considerations we need to take into account. People in the military need to be better prepared for college, 

and many other people do as well. So the idea that we’re going to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

send all of our kids to a 4-year college and they’re going to make 

$80,000 a year, that’s not going to work. They need other things. 

And, fortunately, the Department of Labor specializes in those 

other things as well. 

Mr. LYNCH. Dr. Haskins, let me just reclaim my time. I concede 

your point. However, I also have examples in my own district 

where veterans did not know that they could have sent their child 

to college on their GI Bill. So that was a missed opportunity. And 

not only that, but a high number of our veterans are coming out 

of the service with great skills in STEM, you know, on science and 

math, and those are also missing the opportunity. 

But I do appreciate the candor and the insightful answer that 

you’ve provided. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Farenthold, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

I want to visit with Dr. Sweeney a little bit. You’ve kind of hit 

on a topic that I’m on three sides of. I’m the sponsor of the OPEN 

Gov Data Act, which makes a lot of government data available that 

was just included in the Senate version of the NDAA. So it actually 

has a pathway to becoming law. 

I also consider myself to be a privacy advocate. And as someone 

who runs a campaign, having a lot of information about individual 

people that’s identifiable makes it a whole lot easier for me to get 

them the information that they need to make an informed choice 

to vote for me. 

But I want to talk a little, you mentioned that—you cite some 

examples of how anonymized data is de-anonymized. And I wasn’t 

able to find it in any of the material that I have. I wanted to ask 

that you could get that to me. I assume it’s more complex than just 

finding two data sets that have a common field. But that’s probably 

the easiest way to do it. 

Ms. SWEENEY. Are you asking—clarification: Are you asking 

about re-identifying or de-identifying? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Yeah, de-anonymizing or re-identifying information. You said some—you had some examples. I’d like to see 

those, and I couldn’t find them in the material that I had. 

Ms. SWEENEY. Very easy. I have a long list of them. I’ll give you 

one very simple one. Washington State releases hospitalizations 

on—all hospitalizations made in the State. It’s over a million visits. 

And we were able to just simply match the de-identified versions 

of those data against simple blotter stories, the kinds of things, you 

know, that appeared in the newspapers, just simple matching, no 

statistics or anything, for 41 percent of the records—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So is that, is the solution to that just more 

education or policy with respect to how that information is released, or—I mean, is there a way to solve this, or is this just going 

to an inherent unsolvable problem? 

Ms. SWEENEY. So I’ll stick to the Washington State example, because I think it’s a great one. 

So Washington State responded by getting rid of its 1970s way 

of thinking about privacy. That is the old way of saying, ‘‘Oh, I just 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

removed these fields, and the rest of the data is fine.’’ And they 

went instead to a risk-assessment model, exactly the thing that 

we’re talking about in the Commission report. And they came out 

the other where you can still get, for $50, the 1 million records, but 

now it has a scientific assessment that’s done that you can’t do the 

same type of re-identification. 

If you still need the more sensitive version, they have a more aggressive application process that you would have to—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So this is solvable? 

Ms. SWEENEY. Yeah, it’s solvable. And risk assessment is a great 

way to do it, because risk assessment keeps us riding what’s the 

latest thing that the technology allows. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And I think this is important, because I think 

way too many decisions here in Washington are made on anecdotal 

information and not scientific information. 

Now, Dr. Haskins, you talk about—the report talks about creating a whole new government agency. As a conservative who 

wants to shrink the size of government, that really rubs me the 

wrong way. 

Why couldn’t this be something that’s rolled into—well, let’s pick 

the Census Bureau, because they’re the first agency that comes to 

mind for dealing with large amounts of data and has that experience. Can there be something done without setting up a whole new 

bureaucracy? And could you talk a little bit about why you recommend creating a whole new government agency? 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes. As Dr. Abraham already said, we created 

this—or proposed this new agency called the National Secure Data 

Service. It would first exist within the Department of Commerce. 

And one of our explicit intents was not to create some big new 

agency that would have mountains of data. Rather it was to build 

on things the Census Bureau is already doing and expand those 

gradually over a period of years so that primarily we could have 

a temporary repository for data that is needed for good studies that 

have been approved through an elaborate process. And then the 

data would be sent back to wherever it came from, whatever agency it came from. 

And over a period of years, I could imagine that we would wind 

up spending more money on this new National Secure Data Service. But to begin with, I think we’ve been as efficient as you could 

be to create the ability to do this kind of making the data available 

and linking the data. And I think I’m confessing it would cost more 

over a period of years, but I think we’ve done it in an efficient way. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And finally, one last question. 

Mr. HASKINS. Can I just add one thing? If we ask the Census Bureau to do this, they would have to stop doing something else. So 

we’re hoping that, at least on a temporary basis, certain employees 

can be borrowed and that they can make a minimum of hiring in 

order to build this agency. And if you went out and hired all new 

people and created all these new positions, then it would cost a lot 

more than under the system that we’re recommending. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, you ran the clock out on me. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Connolly, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Haskins, you’ve stressed evidence-based policy making, and 

I certainly agree. I think probably everyone does in the abstract. 

But it’s almost laughable that public policy is, in fact, always consistently based on evidence. In fact, quite the opposite. 

Marijuana. Evidence-based policy? 

Mr. HASKINS. I don’t know. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You don’t know. 

Mr. HASKINS. I haven’t researched marijuana. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. Wouldn’t you say metrics tell us evidence? 

Mr. HASKINS. Wouldn’t I say what? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Metrics has something to do with evidence? 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. Any metrics on how many marijuana 

overdoses there are every year? 

Mr. HASKINS. I believe there are, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No, I believe—we’ve had testimony before this 

committee there aren’t. And this is classified as the most dangerous drug in America. 

How many marijuana users die on the roads every year? Do we 

measure that? 

Mr. HASKINS. I don’t know. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. The answer is no, sir. 

So we have incarcerated millions of people, arrested people, and 

decided marijuana is the most dangerous drug in the United States 

since the era of Richard Nixon. And we have very little data, scientific data to justify that. And the damage done—enormous. 

Terri Schiavo. Remember that case? 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So a Republican Congress and a Republican 

President, who actually interrupted his vacation, a rare event, to 

come back to Washington to actually sign into law an unprecedented intrusion by the United States Congress, imposing its judgment, scientific judgment, on the state of the health of that young 

lady so that her husband couldn’t make a private medical decision. 

Was that evidence-based, do you know, Dr. Haskins? 

Mr. HASKINS. I know something about these type of cases. There 

is evidence, but the doctors often disagree about the evidence. It’s 

pretty murky. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Pretty murky? 

Mr. HASKINS. Yeah. 

Now, some cases are clearer than others. And my understanding, 

the Schiavo case was quite clear. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. They were quite clear. 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. Because when she was autopsied after she 

died, her brain was one-third the size of a normal human brain. It 

had atrophied. That didn’t stop Congress from overriding scientific 

data. 

Climate change. Evidence-based? The decision, for example, to 

rip up the Paris Climate Accord, was that evidence-based? 

Mr. HASKINS. I would say no. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. 

In fact, would you not agree that the overwhelming evidence is 

climate change right now is certainly being—a key variable is 

human activity, and the evidence is pretty overwhelming about 

that in the scientific community. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. HASKINS. I don’t consider myself an expert in this, but I’ve 

read a fair number of things, and I think that is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And certainly, given your position, you would 

want Congress to base all—as much as possible—its decisions with 

respect to climate change, not on belief, but on evidence. 

Mr. HASKINS. Okay. Let me say this. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. 

Mr. HASKINS. I do not expect that Congress would make decisions exclusively based on evidence. I want evidence to have a 

place at the table. I want Congress to understand what the evidence is. But they will use other factors to decide how much money 

they should spend or whether they do anything at all. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Oh, believe me, I know. 

Okay. One of the findings in your report, you say that you’re 

worried about data center consolidation and that it might hamper 

the ability of the evidence-building community to limit access to 

confidential data. 

How many data centers are there in the Federal Government? 

Do you know, Dr. Haskins? 

Mr. HASKINS. We have 13 agencies now, but it’s growing. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Data centers? 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes, special data centers are 13, and they’re growing. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Shea. 

Mr. SHEA. I think there’s confusion. We’re talking about statistical agencies who have the mission of collecting data for producing 

statistical information versus the myriad data centers that are created for a wide variety of—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So you’re not referring to the latter. 

Mr. SHEA. That is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. Because let me just say, this committee 

has spent years looking at that subject, Mr. Shea. 

Mr. SHEA. We think you should divert the savings from data center consolidation to evidence-based policymaking. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. We’re with you. Because we’ve got four agencies 

that have saved $2 billion. And Mr. Hurd’s not here, but he and 

I and Ms. Kelly and Mr. Meadows have cosponsored legislation to 

allow agencies to reinvest in themselves pursuant to the savings 

from data center consolidation. 

Okay. That’s really important, because we were going to get in 

a bit of a tizzy about that. 

Let me just say in closing, if I may, boy, do I agree with the 

premise of your Commission. But what is so troubling, frankly, 

about the era in which we operate is how easily dismissed facts 

and evidence—measured facts—are because of a priori beliefs or 

because of denial. I don’t want to accept that. 

And it’s true in creationism versus evolution. It’s true in climate 

change. It’s true when conclusions come up from a scientific agency 

that somebody doesn’t like or doesn’t want to accept. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

And Congress is as guilty of that practice as any entity. And 

until we try to move more toward the mean, we take Dr. Haskin’s 

caveat seriously, we won’t have the best public policy. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Gianforte, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you, Chairman Russell and Ranking 

Member Cummings. 

And I want to thank the Commission for your work on this. It’s 

very important that we have efficient and effective Federal programs. 

I want to direct my first question to Mr. Shea, if I could. You 

mentioned in your comments about outcome-based objectives. And 

I was just curious, being a business guy, I know that evidence is 

critically important, especially as you apply it against the goals of 

a program. 

What evidence did you find that the 209 government offices you 

surveyed had clear outcome-based goals that they were collecting 

evidence against? 

Mr. SHEA. So that’s not one of the questions we asked in our survey. But having spent my career trying to help Federal organizations develop those measures, I can tell you they’re not on a steady 

glide path to all have clear outcomes with aggressive measures of 

their performance year over year. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. So I’d like to follow up on that. So you’re 

saying that these, in your experience, government agencies and 

programs don’t have clear goals for what they’re trying to accomplish? 

Mr. SHEA. In many cases they don’t. I find them much more willing to measure their inputs or perhaps their output. Outcomes, 

things over which they don’t have complete control, things that the 

programs Dr. Haskins was talking about don’t work, they’re very 

reluctant to hold themselves accountable for those kinds of goals 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Kind of hard to hit a target if you don’t have 

one. 

Mr. SHEA. That’s exactly right. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Yeah. 

So do you have any—in your experience, what suggestions you 

have along these lines? 

Mr. SHEA. Well, you can play a major role in assessing agencies’ 

strategic and annual performance planning process. Ask them to 

what degree they have clear outcome-oriented goals. And if you 

don’t like what they produce, tell them to refine and improve them. 

When I was a staff member on this committee, the Government 

Accountability Office was an enormous help in setting a framework 

with which to judge those outcome measures. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Yeah. I can’t imagine that there’s much satisfaction even for our dedicated government workers if they’re working 

hard but not knowing what they’re trying to accomplish. 

Mr. SHEA. It’s a very important point, because to clarify the mission that employees are trying to work to accomplish is a major factor in improving their engagement and improving recruitment and 

retention, which, as you know, is a big challenge. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Abraham, just in the work that you’ve done collecting evidence, I know in the private sector big data analytics, artificial intelligence have been used for a long time, particularly in 

the financial industry, to uncover fraud and inefficiencies. My question is, in your working with these 209 agencies, what evidence did 

you find that these government agencies were using these common 

private sector approaches to uncover inefficiency? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. That is, again, not something that our survey 

really spoke to directly. I guess I should say, when you think about 

big data, a lot of—there are a lot of data that the Federal Government collects that we could be doing more with. In terms of these 

agencies that we surveyed, you know, many of them don’t necessarily have the capacity to do that. 

Part of what we were attempting to accomplish with the recommendations that we were making was making the data that 

they collect more accessible to people who do have those skills and 

who could do some of the kinds of things that you’re talking about. 

Ms. SWEENEY. May I add to that? 

You know, big data and AI are basically statistical algorithms. 

And when you think about where in the government we see that, 

it’s primarily in the statistical offices, the very data that we’re talking about. And so we’re also saying that kind of innovation use is 

exactly the kind of thing we want used in privacy in rendering the 

data confidential. And this would be among the group who’s more 

likely to be able to use it. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. And I know we all benefit every day when credit 

card transactions are identified that might be fraudulent. You 

know, looking at the volumes of data we have in the government 

and being able to say, you know, this one is not like the others, 

we maybe investigate a little further. I think there’s opportunities 

there to uncover inefficiency and fraud. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. I should clarify one thing in response to your 

question. What we are proposing is a facility that would be used 

for statistical analysis, to identify patterns and the outcomes associated with programs. We are not envisioning that this facility 

would be used to go in and identify individuals who had committed 

fraud and then come back and go after them. We’re talking about 

improving the use of data for statistical purposes, not for targeting 

individuals and taking action against them. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. But it’s certainly in our interest to uncover fraud 

where it exists. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, 

Mrs. Maloney, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the chairman and the ranking member 

very much. And I thank my good friend Val for yielding. 

I do want to share that we have a meeting coming up at 11:30 

with the Foreign Minister of South Korea. Everyone has been invited. I need to get to that too. 

But I wanted to ask about, really, the largest collector of information in our Government is the Census Bureau. And I’d like to 

first ask Dr. Abraham, the Commission’s report noted that prinVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:33 May 14, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28506.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

cipal statistical agencies, such as the Census Bureau, have, and I 

quote, ‘‘demonstrated responsible stewardship of data collection 

through census and surveys,’’ end quote. It also noted, and I quote, 

‘‘Not surprisingly, public trust in the accuracy and validity of statistical data reflect the public’s trust in the statistical agencies that 

produce them,’’ end quote. 

Particularly for the Census Bureau, it seems that maintaining 

the trust of the public is important to encourage participation in 

censuses and surveys. Do you agree? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Absolutely. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, then, Dr. Haskins, one of the most critical 

surveys of the Bureau is the annual community survey, which is 

randomly sent to addresses across the country to collect data on an 

ongoing basis. 

How important is the American Community Survey for evidencebased policymaking, Dr. Haskins? 

Mr. HASKINS. Extremely important. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Some of my colleagues have suggested making 

the Community Survey a voluntary rather than a mandatory survey. And do you expect that such a change would impact the 

amount of data the government is able to collect and the integrity 

of that data? 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes. But the more important point is, if you can’t 

have a random sample of the public, we won’t know the frequency 

of all sorts of things that we estimate when we get a random sample. So if you do it on a voluntary basis, it basically ruins the 

American Community Survey, which is the best and most accurate 

survey of the population we’ve ever had. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, thank you. And I know not only government, but the business sector relies on it. And I want to note that 

Canada made its long form census voluntary in 2010. And like you 

said, Dr. Haskins, the response rate dropped from 93 percent in 

2006 to just 68 percent in 2011, and government agencies were 

forced to make policy decisions based on old data. 

So reducing the volume and quality of data collected by the Census Bureau seems to be exactly the opposite of the Commission’s 

goal of expanding access to and use of federally collected data. Does 

everyone on the panel agree? 

Mr. SHEA. Yes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. HASKINS. Can I add one thing very important? 

Mrs. MALONEY. Sure. 

Mr. HASKINS. The decline in the number of responses is not the 

biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the sample is no 

longer random. So you can’t draw conclusions from it. It’s ruined. 

That’s a big point. I mean, the more people you have, the more reliable the numbers are. But if they’re voluntary participants, none 

of the numbers are any good, they’re not reliable. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. And I want to note on that that the 

current President’s budget proposal does not include enough for 

funding for the Census Bureau to perform the work it does for the 

upcoming 2020 Census. So the point you made earlier, if you add 

something, they have to stop doing something. So the appropriaVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:33 May 14, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28506.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

tions bills currently moving through Congress would implement the 

President’s approach. So we don’t have enough funding right now. 

So do you believe that underfunding the Census could impair the 

quality of the data collected in the 2020 Census? 

Mr. HASKINS. You’re asking me? 

Mrs. MALONEY. Yeah. 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes, I do. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And the President and Congress must increase 

funding. We need to do that. Starving the Census will result in inaccurate data and undercuts the vulnerable populations who rely 

on programs that are funded on this data. And if you don’t have 

good data, you don’t have good policy. 

I want to thank my colleague Val so much. I’ve got 4 seconds left. 

I’m going to yield it back to you. I know you’ve got another 5 minutes coming up. But if you’ve got a point to make in 4 seconds, I’m 

sure it’s an important one. 

Thank you so much. That allows me to get to my other meeting. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentlelady’s time has expired. But we will get 

to Mrs. Demings. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina, 

Ms. Foxx, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank this distinguished panel very, very much for 

the work that you did. 

I feel almost as though I have always been cursed with having 

real objectivity flowing through my veins and always being concerned about evidence-based decisionmaking. It may be a product 

of my having grown up extremely poor. You’ve got to make really, 

really good decisions in your life. But I have done this, again, all 

my life. 

I also think that Congressman Gianforte opened up a very important item when he talked about whether there are clear and measurable goals and outcomes out there in most Federal programs. My 

experience has been that there are not. 

And I think it was Dr. Haskins who mentioned—someone did— 

that we have really, really great research designs out there. And 

maybe I confused that with measurable outcomes. But at some 

point, I’d like to talk, whichever member of the Commission talked 

about that, because I would really like to see where those great research designs are in the Federal Government, because I’m not 

aware of them. 

And then the other issue I’d like to follow up on later, but not 

now, on the what you all call workforce training programs. I try 

never to use that ‘‘T’’ word when it comes to dealing with human 

beings, because I think we educate people. And I don’t use that. 

But because that comes in the other committee on which I serve, 

and, in fact, I chair the Education and the Workforce Committee, 

I would like to follow through on that. 

But I want to ask a couple of questions related to the work that 

you’ve been doing. Again, I think it’s extraordinarily important 

work, and I can’t thank you enough. 

Did the Commission consider how data quality affects the ability 

to use the data? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

Dr. Haskins, I think so you alluded to this. 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes, I think we did. 

Ms. FOXX. Great. 

In the DATA Act pilot report, which was passed out of the Congress about 3 years ago, OMB recommended continuing the effort 

to standardize data. Would standardized data collections from Federal award recipients improve the evidence-building community’s 

ability to use the data? 

Mr. HASKINS. I think the answer is yes, but with a caveat that 

different programs have different objectives. So you’d have to have 

measures of those particular objectives, and they would differ substantially across projects. 

Ms. FOXX. Again, I’m really well aware of that. And I think one 

of the concerns I have—I was a reader for programs in the Department of Education. And to the extent possible, readers got information, got evidence about the success or failure of programs. And 

then the readers would—readers would evaluate, recommend to the 

staff. The staff would then ignore the recommendations of the readers based on the evidence that we were presented, which we 

thought was pretty good. 

You all have any ideas on how we can make sure that decisions 

within the agencies are made on evidence other than utilizing our 

oversight responsibilities here? 

Mr. HASKINS. I have two quick recommendations. One, grill the 

senior officials when they’re nominated about their attitudes about 

evidence and whether they plan to use it. And, second, when you 

get reports from Federal agencies that are under your jurisdiction, 

which is huge, as I understand it, call them before the committee 

and grill them on these issues, because what you described does 

happen, I know it happens, and the officials that are responsible 

for it should be called on the carpet. 

Ms. FOXX. Right. 

And the last thing I would say to you is, in considering the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act we’ve had probably 20 

hearings. What we heard from people who complained about data 

they submit to the Federal Government is that we have lots and 

lots of data and little information. 

So I would ask you all to keep that in mind as we push the collection of more data, that we try to make the connection between— 

and I think you are—the connection between data for data’s sake 

and data which provides us information. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentlelady yields back. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. 

Demings, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Ranking Member. And thank you to our witnesses for joining us 

today. 

Dr. Sweeney, in your written statement, you stated, and I quote, 

‘‘Preventing bad actors from breaking into confidential data requires consistent and rigorous processes,’’ unquote. In other words, 

we basically need to do more to protect confidential data. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

The inspector general of the State Department recently issued a 

report finding that 77 percent of the Department’s IT assets are 

not in compliance with Federal cybersecurity laws. 

Dr. Sweeney, does that surprise you? Why or why not? 

Ms. SWEENEY. No, it doesn’t surprise me. But in terms of the 

Commission, even though the language I use sounds like security, 

about breaking into confidential data, I mean exploiting the data 

as it’s given to you, which is not the same as breaking into a computer and breaching a database. But computer security problems 

are also rampant. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. The State Department until recently was making 

strides in another area of its cybersecurity efforts. The State Department’s Office of Coordinator for Cyber Issues serves as liaison 

between the State Department and the White House, other agencies, and outside stakeholders. The office also engages with international partners. 

Dr. Sweeney, do you think it makes sense to have a senior official within an agency like the State Department to coordinate 

cybersecurity efforts? 

Ms. SWEENEY. So the Commission report isn’t on cybersecurity. 

So I’m speaking for myself and not for the Commission. But, you 

know, cybersecurity problems are huge in the United States, and 

they do dovetail constantly with these data problems, because they 

just leave all of our systems vulnerable. And so we don’t have a rigorous—we haven’t come to a full circle as to how we address that 

in a comprehensive way. 

I could imagine having senior people in the way that you’ve provided would actually be incredibly helpful. But we still need a comprehensive perspective both on the data side as well as on the computer security side. 

We just published a paper showing how data—the data to impersonate a voter can actually—could be used to actually change voter 

files by making changes. So that’s kind of a combination of data 

that we were talking about in the Commission effecting a kind of 

security outcome. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Any of the other witnesses would like to? 

Mr. Shea. 

Mr. SHEA. Yeah. Are you asking whether the State Department 

should govern the Federal Government-wide cybersecurity efforts? 

Mrs. DEMINGS. If the State Department should eliminate or create the Office of Coordination. 

Mr. SHEA. You know, you can take the boy out of OMB but you 

can’t take the OMB out of the boy. So having seen the coordinating 

role OMB can take, whoever has the lead role at an agency level, 

OMB has an important role to take in this effort, or at least the 

White House—something that has the imprimatur of the White 

House. 

The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 

Defense are also key players in this initiative, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology. All that needs to be governed somehow centrally. So that I don’t really—I don’t think the State Department seems to me is the right place for that, but there does 

need to be central governance of the cyber apparatus across government. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Dr. Sweeney, in the wake of the Equifax breach, 

one of the worst breaches of personal privacy in history, it is critical for Federal agencies to reevaluate the state of their security 

protections. And I’d like for you to begin, but any of the witnesses 

can talk about, in the limited time that we have, what immediate 

steps can an agency take to improve the security of their data? 

Mr. HASKINS. Hire Latanya Sweeney to be in charge of their 

data. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. That’s why she was asked the question. 

Ms. SWEENEY. So data are just valuable. I mean, they’re worth 

a lot. There are different kinds of actors who are after this data 

and the mechanisms that they will go through to get the data 

make it constantly a kind of cat-and-mouse kind of game. 

And so how we engage—you know, are we using the latest—are 

businesses using the latest? And even then, there are all these simple vulnerables, like getting someone through email to reveal their 

password and that particular account having particular access 

privileges. And that’s a human engineering. 

So it’s not quite as—I didn’t answer your question, but I just 

bring emphasis on security is multifaceted in its complexity. The 

data problems that we talk about in the Commission are certainly 

a piece of security, because the more vulnerable data, whether it’s 

health data on Americans, whether it’s voter records on Americans, 

whatever it might be, income records, it allows other kinds of systems to be infiltrated by actors as well, whether it’s our tax return 

system or—and what have you. 

So there is a relationship between security and the data things 

that we talk about. And this problem that we have where the privacy of the data is vulnerable on both sides, and what we choose 

to give out is not adhering to a kind of risk assessment and improvement model and what we choose not to give to let researchers 

help us learn more, is also a problem. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Grothman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Dr. Haskins, in your testimony you said that 

most of the Nation’s social programs produce modest or no impacts 

on the problems they were meant to address. I think given the 

mass of money we’ve flooded at these programs over the last 50 

years, that would be obvious. 

But could you—first of all, how do you know they don’t produce 

significant results? And then, secondly, could you give us some examples? 

Mr. HASKINS. There’s an interesting study of the first 90 studies 

that were—Congress established the Institute of Education 

Sciences, and they launched into—they revolutionized research and 

education. And the first 90 studies, about 85 percent of them failed 

to produce a major impact. This is entirely consistent with what’s 

in the literature on medical research, on business research, and on 

research in the social sciences. 

So there’s—I don’t think anybody seriously questions that most 

of our programs don’t work. If we want them to work, we need to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

continue to evaluate them and we need to improve upon what the 

programs are doing. We can find programs that work for almost 

any problem. And then we need to learn how to implement them 

widely in the country. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. 

Next general comment for Dr. Abraham. Looking at it, you had 

16 people on that committee is right? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Fifteen. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Fifteen, okay. 

I counted, including the adjunct professor at Notre Dame, 11 of 

the 15 right now are professors. Do you think there’s a diversity 

problem on the committee, or will that have any impact on—— 

Mr. SHEA. I was very loud. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. No, I don’t think there was. Many of the people 

who are currently academics are people who in previous lives have 

had extensive experience doing other things; a lot of experience in 

government. We were asked to tackle a set of fairly technical questions. So technical expertise seemed called for. 

And we heard from a—we made a big effort to hear from a lot 

of people to get input into our deliberations. We ended up hearing 

from—I want to say over 500 people, including at hearings where 

we invited anyone who wanted to come talk to us to do so. 

So I feel like we had a pretty broad set of perspectives represented, and we did hear a lot of input from people. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. One of my concerns on your recommendations is it seems that if you talk to the right people you can get 

the conclusion that you want. I mean, we just heard from Dr. 

Haskins say we need to change programs to improve them. I think 

there may be a bias out there to how can we improve these programs rather than how can we get rid of these programs, which is 

a much more difficult thing to do. 

But I guess my concern here is that usually there are—people of, 

let’s say, goodwill can come up with different—evidence for different results, you know. And we talk about global warming, and 

various smart people can say it’s not going on, but I think the overwhelming bias in the community is saying it is. We talk about— 

another one that comes around is early childhood education, very 

smart people feeling we’re not getting a lot of bang for the buck 

there. But I think the push for more, and people who want more 

government are always going to be there pushing their people to 

the fore, you’re going to find people to say early childhood education is a positive. 

How do you guard against having what I’m afraid would happen 

any time you set up a permanent committee or permanent commission, they are taken over by people who want more, and they will 

find the experts who claim we need more, they will twist the data 

to say we need more? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. One of the things that is emphasized in the report 

is the importance of rigor of the evaluations that are undertaken. 

So what we are envisioning and what the structure that we’ve laid 

out we believe would promote is a system where on an ongoing 

basis there are rigorous evaluations of what the outcomes associated with different programs are. And there are scientific standards for determining whether a conclusion from a study is valid or 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

not valid. That still isn’t going to tell you what it makes sense to 

do. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Other than, say—my concern is that, despite 

supposed rigor, which we should probably have throughout the 

whole world of academia, the vast sea of academia comes out left. 

So even though they’re all supposed to be bound by rigor, unless 

our country, our idea of limited government is wrong, it seems— 

you see where I’m going with this? Is this a concern? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. I think that evidence can tell you that if you do 

A, the outcome appears to be B. That can’t tell you what your policy should be. So what we’re really arguing for—this is something 

I’ve heard Ron say any number of times—is that what we’re advocating for is evidence having a seat at the table so that everyone 

can look at it and then, given that and other value judgments and 

other inputs, make decisions about policy. But we are just—we’re 

advocating for evidence to have a seat at the table. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. You have to trust the people. But thank you. 

Ms. SWEENEY. I know you’re over time, but I would just add one 

thing. Clearly, you know, as a scientist, clearly, I believe in the 

pursuit of truth. And so having more data is better than not having 

the data. 

So we might argue about whether there were confounders in an 

outcome. But not having the data at all increases the space of uncertainty. And the issue here is making more data available to get 

rid of some of the uncertainty on which these issues would be 

based. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the ranking member for this hearing. 

And isn’t it interesting that, by coincidence, of course, it comes 

at a time when there’s an outcry in the country about fake news 

and alternative facts. And here we’re discussing the Commission’s 

work, for which I thank you, on evidence-based data. The uses of 

data, however, takes into account more than the evidence they purport. 

Ms. Foxx on the other side asked this difficult question: How can 

we make sure decisions are made on the basis of data? Well, decisions are here made on the basis of many factors, on the values of 

each side, how one construes data, debatable data. 

We’re in the middle of the Affordable Health Care Act, and even 

the underlying data is being contested. And one side is actually 

telling us that if you have a preexisting condition you’ll be covered 

in the same way you’re covered by the Affordable Health Care Act. 

You know, my side can only call that a lie. But, of course, the Affordable Health Care Act has gone down. So somehow or the other, 

there were enough people on the act or being served who were 

their own evidence. 

But trying not to be cynical, you can see how focusing on data 

alone may not get us the results we want. We just finished a big 

debate, and it comes up every single year, on whether Planned Parenthood should be funded. It usually gets funded because there’s an 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

outcry in the country if you don’t fund it because of the work it 

does on so many conditions affecting women. 

But there was a whole special committee set up here in the Congress to investigate a Planned Parenthood episode. And now the socalled data from this committee is being used to try to defund 

Planned Parenthood based on whatever this special committee 

found out, completely contradicted by the entire scientific community. So you can see there’s a little cynicism on my part when I 

hear talk of data, at least when used in a body like the Congress 

of the United States. 

Mr. Haskins, I have a question for you, because there’s a current 

controversy as the administration prepares or asks Congress to cut 

the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. In this Congress, on both 

sides of the aisle, we would like to see at least fewer abortions and 

some no abortions at all. So we’re together on that. But, of course, 

if teen pregnancy goes up, there will be more abortions. And yet 

you will find that the side who is against abortions does not move 

on teen pregnancy. Maybe we’ll see what happens in the appropriation. 

But this is a very small investment, a small program. And, Mr. 

Haskins, you recently wrote an op-ed, and it was entitled ‘‘Trump 

Team Doesn’t Understand Evidence-Based Policies Regarding Social Problems.’’ And in that, you actually cited that 40 percent of 

the projects funded through the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program produced, you said, at least one significant impact. 

Do you believe when a program produces at least one significant 

impact that eliminating 81 percent of the organizations that participate in the program is perhaps not the wisest idea? 

Mr. HASKINS. They actually eliminated 100 percent. It was 81 

programs, and they eliminated all of them. 

Ms. NORTON. All 81 of them. 

Mr. HASKINS. Yeah. 

No, I don’t think it is. And I think in this case it’s really important, because teen pregnancy prevention in a way is the most advanced of the big sets of programs that we’re trying to improve and 

develop ways to improve, starting with evidence-based policy, 

which, as we all know, doesn’t always work well. And that’s what 

this study showed. 

But we’ve talked repeatedly that most social programs don’t 

work; 80 to 90 percent is a good estimate. And in this case, only 

60 percent failed, 40 percent worked. That’s progress. And I think 

it’s because the agency did a good job implementing a program, the 

people out there in the countryside who are learning this are going 

along. They were in the program for 5 years. 

Ms. NORTON. So you would think that if you were going to cut 

anything, you would say, okay, those didn’t work, maybe you cut 

those. But those that did work, showed progress, maybe we ought 

to continue that progress by funding those programs that did work 

in cutting teen pregnancy. 

Mr. HASKINS. That would make sense to me. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 

Comer, for 5 minutes. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My first question is for Mr. Shea. The Commission found that 

bureaucracy caused problems related to unevenness and capacity in 

agencies’ evidence-building efforts. Can you explain some of the 

problems that the Commission found as it relates to this bureaucracy? 

Mr. SHEA. I can give you a couple of examples. One was procurement. A lot of the questions about adequate rigor in evaluation are 

solved by ensuring that the people you contract for for evaluations 

bring sufficient independence and rigor and experience to conducting the evaluations. The procurement process is very cumbersome, as this committee; well knows. 

Likewise, the talent you need to oversee and conduct an evidence 

agenda is really hard to recruit and retain. There’s an enormous 

competition for this kind of talent. And the personnel system under 

which we operate today makes it really difficult to hire, recruit, retain that workforce. 

Mr. COMER. Why does the Commission suggest that OMB be the 

agency that coordinates Federal evidence-building efforts, Mr. 

Shea? 

Mr. SHEA. OMB has that tacit threat of budget impact from everything it does. So it’s got a lot of juice that other similar entities 

don’t have. And this committee, the Congress, in general, has vested in OMB a great deal of central management responsibility, and 

we think they can have a real important role to play in coordinating this government-wide. 

One of the things we did see is that OMB’s efforts are a little 

disjointed. There’s a performance and personnel office. There’s an 

evidence team. There’s the office of information regulatory policy, 

the Chief Statistician at OMB. Those aren’t necessarily well coordinated at OMB. So OMB itself could do a better job coordinating its 

own investment in this enterprise. 

Mr. COMER. Let me ask you this, and this will be my last question to you. The Commission recommends considering reorganizing 

and consolidating aspects of OMB. Can you explain what the Commission means by reorganizing OMB? Is the Commission suggesting a complete overhaul of the agency, or what? 

Mr. SHEA. No. Just what I said. These various entities that have 

responsibility for certain aspects—the office of information—Office 

of E–Gov, the office of information and regulatory policy, the performance of personnel team, the evidence team—all of those four 

could be better coordinated. Consolidation is only one option in the 

various things you could do to improve that coordination. 

Mr. COMER. My next question is for Chair Abraham. 

How did the Commission weigh privacy concerns against the 

need to ensure transparency of government information? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. So as I indicated in my opening comments, we are 

all for making publicly available government data where that can 

be done without violating the confidentiality of individual people. 

In cases where it’s not possible to do that, we adopted an approach 

that Latanya has laid out for sort of tiered access to data. If you 

can’t just make the data available publicly, maybe you can make 

available a stripped-down data file that lets people learn things 

about what the Government’s doing but doesn’t violate confidenVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:33 May 14, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28506.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

tiality. And if you can’t do that, maybe you can make the data 

available through the National Secure Data Service. 

So we are really pushing as hard as we can in our recommendations for making data available in the best way that you can without violating confidentiality. 

Mr. COMER. In gathering testimony and during deliberations over 

the report, did the Commission solicit feedback from the transparency community? If so, who and what did they suggest? 

Mr. SHEA. We had an open comment period and a number of witnesses, and we received a number of written input from what I 

would call the transparency community, ways to leverage the 

amount of data currently being reported and what standardization 

could do to improve our access to a variety of sources of data. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. We do have a list of all of the people that provided 

input, and we would be happy to call that out and let you know 

specifically who we heard from. 

Mr. COMER. Okay. 

Ms. SWEENEY. I would also say too that the report itself is very 

much about transparency. It makes more transparent arbitrary decisionmaking around what data is being given. It also makes more 

data possible to be given, which adds to the notion of transparency 

in oversight. So in that way it’s very much, the report itself, very 

much is a champion for the transparency position. 

Mr. COMER. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

And the chair now recognizes the ranking member for any followup. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just want to—you know, I was just wondering, 

I was thinking about this whole opioid situation where so many 

people are dying from overdoses and the President’s Commission 

has, in their preliminary report, has said that this should be declared a state of emergency. 

And I’m wondering how we can use the information that our fellow Americans are dropping dead everywhere. And there are no 

boundaries with regard to race, no boundaries with regard to location, rural, urban. They’re dying big time. 

And then we have fentanyl, which is really taking a lot of people 

out, where they say that in some instances if you touch it you die. 

It just seems to me, you know, when evidence is in your face, 

how do we best—I mean, you know, we as legislators, I think it’s 

important that we act on evidence. I really do believe that. I would 

say you can’t make a decent decision without evidence. 

But I’m trying to figure out how does information like that, how 

is that—how do you all see that as best handled? Or you don’t see 

that within your purview? 

Hello? Somebody talk to me. 

Mr. SHEA. I never miss a chance, Mr. Cummings. 

I think what you’re talking about is our central motivation. The 

Nation’s challenges demand effective solutions. And our investments to date, as Ron has said, haven’t really made much of an impact. 

And so the more and more we can learn about what has the 

greatest impact on solving our biggest problems, we want more and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

more of that evidence. And so what we think our recommendations 

do is create a structure, governance, a cycle in which we are developing more and more evidence of what works so that more and 

more people can learn and invest in those more proven activities. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Anybody else? 

Dr. Sweeney? 

Ms. SWEENEY. So in Massachusetts we have an opioid crisis. And 

I was really taken by the difficulty of getting the data needed to 

address what was really an acute problem. And, even though it’s 

not the Federal Government, it was very similar in the sense that 

what did it take to get these different agencies and different groups 

to share data widely. 

And so in very much the same spirit as the Commission report, 

we had two tools. One is we could try to change a law, or the other 

one was we could argue and explain how it is that this version of 

the data is okay to give out even within the structure of your existing rules and regulations. And we were very successful in beginning to put together combined data sets in Massachusetts under 

those kinds of models. So to the extent that that helps. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Haskins? 

Mr. HASKINS. I just want to add one thing, quickly. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Dr. Haskins. 

Mr. HASKINS. Pardon? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I said Doctor. 

Mr. HASKINS. Oh, thank you. 

Quickly. There are certain problems that are almost impossible 

to overcome. Addiction is one of them. I come from a family of alcoholics. Some of them drank from the time they were teenagers. 

Many of them died as a result of drinking. And this is an even bigger problem than opioids. It doesn’t have quite the flash that 

opioids do. But the fact is we do not have good solutions to get people to stop their addictions. And opioids appears to be even more 

addictive than alcohol. 

So even if we were willing to spend money, if you did all the investigation, we had all the evidence and so forth, it would still be 

a very difficult problem and we would have low success rates. 

I think they could be improved. There are some improvements 

that are better than the other. I’m going to Kentucky in 2 days to 

see some opioid treatment facilities. And maybe some of them are 

going to be successful and we will be more successful in the future. 

But addiction is always going to be a problem, and it’ll be very difficult to solve 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank all of you for being here today. 

It’s been extremely helpful. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

And I’d like to do a couple of followup questions regarding the 

placement of this data service. 

Dr. Abraham, are you aware of the Census Bureau’s 2020 Census 

efforts which include the creation of administrative records 

verification and access systems, that these were placed on the 

GAO’s high-risk list? So if they placed it on a high-risk list, why 

would we want to then move immediately to something like that? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

Ms. ABRAHAM. So I think that what we’re talking about is a little 

different than the Census operations issue that you’re raising, 

which I have to say I’m aware of only in quite general terms. 

What we are talking about building on is capacity at the Census 

Bureau that has been quite successful at figuring out methodologies for bringing administrative data in from various sources and 

linking it for statistical purposes. There’s a group at Census that 

has a lot of expertise at doing that and has been very good at doing 

that and we think that that’s something that would be a good core 

to build on in establishing this National Secure Data Service. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, there’s no doubt they collect an awful lot of 

information and have since we’ve been wearing tricorn hats. But I 

guess given the longstanding problems with the Census Bureau 

when it comes to estimating costs of large-scale projects, including 

the massive technological overhaul for the 2020 Census, I go back 

to, why would the Commission feel that leveraging Census employees and resources would be a best option? Because, you know, 

we’ve got some costs, we’ve got some security concerns. And this 

would probably be true of any agency. 

But I’m just curious. I mean, you’re all highly intelligent people. 

You’ve certainly done your homework. So given these issues and 

problems, why do we think that we would want to do this? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. So the Census Bureau is not—it’s a big place. 

There’s a lot of different parts of the Census Bureau. Doing the Decennial Census is an enormous undertaking. I mean, every time 

the Census comes around, there are issues of one sort and another 

that arise and have to be confronted. 

The Census Bureau is hiring hundreds of thousands of people to 

do the Census. That’s not what we’re—it’s a big operational and 

management challenge. That’s not really what we’re talking about. 

We’re talking about starting out on a smaller scale, building the capacity to do data linkage for evidence-building purposes. 

And so I guess in my mind it’s a very different enterprise. And 

the issues that you’re raising don’t really, as far as I’m aware, exist 

in that part of what they do. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, and along that line, I guess, you know, the 

Commission made a recommendation that using Census Bureau 

systems as models for the data service, and, yet, these processes for 

verifying this are still—they’re still trying to verify that the systems will work in the 2020 Census. 

So, I guess, in your opinion, before selecting a system as a model, 

would it not be better to wait until the model has been fully tested 

and vetted? 

Ms. SWEENEY. Let me say the following. So the operation of the 

Census, the sort of production system of producing the Census, is 

not what got them into the report. What got them into the report 

is, of all of the parts of the government, they are, by far, the 

best—— 

Mr. RUSSELL. The best collector. 

Ms. SWEENEY. No. They’re the best if the world at providing a 

public version of that Census. You can go on to a website, and you 

can get information from that Census. And that information that 

I get on that website doesn’t violate the privacy. I can’t even do it, 

you know? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

And so this is an amazing feature, that the Census Bureau has 

had this capacity and has been a leader in Federal statistics offices 

on this idea of, how do I render data sufficiently de-identified that 

I can share it publicly? This is the skill that got them into the report. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And that’s useful. And, you know, we certainly see 

release of data and release of Census information. You know, 

you’ve got to live a long time before you can reach back into a previous Census to start mining the information. 

Mr. HASKINS. Mr. Chairman, can I add something? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Dr. Haskins, please. 

Mr. HASKINS. Yeah. I can tell you why I supported the proposal. 

I never thought of having a National Secure Data Service before 

I joined the Commission, so I think I would be like a Member of 

Congress that would for the first time confront this choice. 

And here’s why I decided. The Census Bureau is already doing 

almost everything that we want the National Secure Data Service 

to do. They’re selecting the best proposals. They are helping people 

analyze their data. We envision that that will be an important 

thing in the future. They give secure access to data that they bring 

into the Census Bureau from other agencies. 

So those are three big functions that will be required of this 

agency and—of this new agency—and the Census Bureau already 

is as good as anybody in government, I would say probably best in 

some of those cases. And there are other things as well. They are 

just so experienced and so competent that it makes sense to start 

with them. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And it’s useful to hear each of your lines of thinking on why you chose this particular agency. 

I guess my last question, and to close out, would be the report 

suggests that FITARA may hamper agencies’ efforts to limit access 

to confidential data. We’ve made a lot of progress on FITARA and 

those that have implemented its measures have actually been pretty successful. It’s just trying to get people to comply. 

And so I guess it raises some other questions. What evidence 

does the Commission have to support the assertion that FITARA 

may hamper agencies’ efforts to limit access to confidential data? 

Whoever would like to take that. 

Mr. SHEA. It’s not an issue that I can talk very deeply about, but 

I think generally centralizing a lot of authority in the CIO may 

conflict with data stewards or evaluation officers implementing the 

systems getting access to data they need to drive a learning agenda. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And in this mining of and, you know, studying the 

issue, did you share these concerns with Federal CIOs? And, if so, 

what was some of the commonality of feedback? 

Mr. SHEA. We had brought input, as you know. But I wouldn’t 

call what we had a conversation. 

Ms. SWEENEY. But I would say that when I was at the Federal 

Trade Commission the role of the CIO—so take the Equifax breach. 

The Equifax breach means that if I want to release the data, and 

I think that Social Security numbers are private, they’re not so private, right? Especially if copies of the Equifax data are available 

for $500 on the black market, right, on the dark net. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

So in that kind of thinking, that’s outside of the scope that our 

CIOs think, this idea of how I do think about the privacy of the 

data, the decision I’m making. You know, it’s not the same as how 

do I choose a particular technology, or an infrastructure, or even 

the security of my laptop, or—— 

Mr. RUSSELL. No, that’s useful, and I appreciate it. 

And I’d like to echo the ranking member’s comments and to 

thank each of you, not only for the hard work that you’ve done in 

trying to improve our own government, but also to protect all 

Americans, you know, how can we best protect Americans with the 

data. At the same time, we have a responsibility to the Constitution to have an open government and these two halves trying to 

balance. 

So I really want to thank each of, and all of the members of the 

Commission, for the work that you’ve done. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any member 

to submit a written opening statement or questions for the record. 

And if there is no further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(53) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 28506.012

<!Iungrcss uf t11c llnifcl't §tntcs 

UJm;l!inyton, D<f 20515 

September 26, 2017 

The Honorable Thomas E. Price, M.D. 

Secretary of Health and Human Services 

Department of Health and Human Services 

200 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20201 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

We are writing to request information about troubling reports that the Tmmp 

Administration----and specifically officials in the White House-may have suppressed an internal 

study highlighting the tremendously positive net economic contributions of refugees. 

Our nation's public policies should be based on a thorough understanding of empirical 

facts and data, but if these recent reports are true, it appears that the Trump Administration may 

have rejected these facts in order to present a biased, incomplete, and ultimately false political 

narrative. Jt is critical for Congress and the American people to understand who in the Trump 

Administration engaged in these actions and why. 

On September 18, 2017, the New York Times repmied: 

Trump administration oft1cials, under pressure from the White House to provide a 

rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, 

rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] that found that 

refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than 

they cost. 1 

The Times later posted a copy of the report itsell~ which concluded: 

Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 

1 0-year period, at $63 billion, meaning they contributed more in revenue than they cost in 

expenditures.2 

According to the Times: 

1 71'ump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees, New York Times (Sept. 18, 

20 17) (online at www.nytimes.com/20 17/09118/us/po\iticslrcfugees-revenue-cost-repotHrump.html'?_PO). 

'Department of Health and Human Services, The Fiscal Costs of the U.S. Reji1gee Admissions Program at 

the Federal, State, and Local Levels,ji-om 2005-2014 (July 29, 2017) (online at 

https:llassets.documentcloud.org/documents/4056060/Refugee-Report-Drall.pdf). 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 28506.013

The Honorable Thomas E. Price, M.D. 

Page2 

White House officials said those conclusions were illegitimate and politically motivated, 

and were disproved by the final report issued by the agency, which asserts that the percapita cost of a refugee is higher than that of an American.3 

In fact, White House spokesman Raj Shah stated on the record: 

The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees \Vith few 

skills coming from war-tom countries take more government benefits from the 

Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net 

benefit to the U.S. economy. 4 

Although the final report has not been released publicly, the Times reported that the 

Trump Administration achieved its skewed results by instead examining only expenditures by 

refugees while excluding all of their financial contributions: 

The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, cloes just that, using 

government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention 

of revenues contributed by refugees 5 

If this account is accurate, the Trump Administration's suppression of this draft report 

suggests an Orwellian' dismissal of fact-based analysis in service of the worst kind of political 

pessimism. It also represents a potential violation of Section 207(e)(4) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, which requires the Administration to provide Congress with "an analysis of the 

anticipated social, economic, and demographic impact of [refugees]' admission to the United 

States."6 

The American people deserve to know who directed and participated in these abuses and 

whether they were committed to provide illegitimate support to the Trump Administration's 

efforts to restrict the number of refugees entering the country. 7 

For all of these reasons, we request that you produce, by October 1, 2017, copies of the 

following documents: 

(a) all drafts, of the report, including the final version completed in September 2017; 

and 

3 Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive impact of Refugees, New York Times (Sept. 18, 

20 17) (online at www .nytimes.com/20 1 7/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html? _r=O). 

'I d. 

'Id. 

6 8 U.S.C. § 1157(e)(4) (emphasis added). 

7 Sessions: Obama 's Syria Refugee Plan to Cost $55 Billion, Demands it be Killed, Washington Examiner 

(Nov. 16, 2015) (online at www.washingtonexaminer.com/sessions-obamas,syrian-refugee-plan-to-cost-55-billiondemands-it-be-killed/article/2576450); Mike Pence's Refugee Problem, Rolling Stone (Jan. 25, 2017) (online at 

www.rollingstone.com/politics!features/mike-pences-refugee-problem-w462763}. 
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 28506.014

The Honorable Thomas E. Price, M.D. 

Page 3 

(b) all communications referring or relating to any draft of this report, its contents, or 

its findings, including but not limited to communications between or among any 

federal officials, including officials at HHS, the White House, or any other federal 

agency, as well as communications between or among non-governmental entities 

or individuals. 

We also request a briefing fi·om appropriate HHS ofticials by October I, 2017, regarding: 

the findings in early versions of the report that were omitted in later versions; the criteria guiding 

those omissions; the offices and oJ:Iicials involved in producing the report, including any political 

staff that participated in any way in this process; the methodology underlying the report; and the 

speciik rationale for excluding from the linal report the significant economic benefits of 

refugees. 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

cc. The Honorable Bob Goodlattc, Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Stephen F. Lynch 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on National Security 

Committee on Oversight and 

Goverrunent Reform 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, Chairman 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 28506.015

<!rougr.el.'ls of t11.e 1tnitcll §tutcs 

ltlusl!ington, IDQf 20515 

General John F. Kelly 

Chief of Staff 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Washington, D.C. 20201 

Dear General Kelly: 

September 26, 2017 

We are writing to request information about troubling reports that the Trump 

Administration-and specifically oftlcials in the White House-may have suppressed an internal 

study highlighting the tremendously positive net economic contributions of refugees. 

Our nation's public policies should be based on a thorough understanding of empirical 

tacts and data, but if these recent reports are true, it appears that the Trump Administration may 

have rejected these facts in order to present a biased, incomplete, and ultimately false political 

nan·ative. It is critical for Congress and the American people to understand who in the Trump 

Administration engaged in these actions and why. 

On September 18, 2017, the New York Times reported: 

Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a 

rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, 

rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] that found that 

refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than 

they cost. 1 

The Times later posted a copy of the report itself, which concluded: 

Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 

I 0-year period, at $63 billion, meaning they contributed more in revenue than they cost in 

expenditures. 2 

According to the Times: 

1 Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Rej{Jgees, New York Times (Sept. 18, 

20 17) (online at www.nytimes.com/20 17/09118/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-repOit-tmmp.html? _r=O). 

'Department ofl-lealtb and Human Services, The Fiscal Costs ofthe U.S. R~ji1gee Admissions Program at 

the Federal, State, and Local Levels, fi·om 2005-2014 (July 29, 20 17) (online at 

h ttps:l /assets .documentc I oud. org/documents/40 56060/Refugee-Repm1-Draft. pdf). 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 28506.016

General John F. Kelly 

Page 2 

White House officials said those conclusions were illegitimate ~md politically motivated, 

and were disproved by the final report issued by the agency, which asserts that the percapita cost of a refugee is higher than that of an American. 3 

In fact, White House spokesman Raj Shah stated on the record: 

The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows thai refugees with few 

skills coming from war-torn countrie.s take more government bene.fits from the 

Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net 

benefit to the U.S. economy.4 

Although the final report has not been released publicly, the Times reported that the 

Trump Administration achieved its skewed results by instead examining only expenditures by 

refugees while excluding all of their financial contributions: 

The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using 

government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention 

of revenues contributed by refugees. 5 

If this account is accurate, the Trump Administration's suppression of this draft report 

suggests an Orwellian dismissal offact-based analysis in service ofthe worst kind of political 

pessimism. It also represents a potential violation of Section 207(e)(4) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, which requires the Administration to provide Congress with "an analysis of the 

anticipated social, economic, and demographic impact of [refugees]' admission to the United 

States."6 

The American people deserve to know who directed and participated in these abuses and 

whether they were committed to provide illegitimate support to the Trump Administration's 

efforts to restrict the number of refugees entering the country.7 

For all of these reasons, we request that you produce, by October I, 2017, copies of the 

following documents: 

(a) all drafts of the report, including the final version completed in September 2017; 

and 

3 Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive lmpact of Refugees, New York Times (Sept. 18, 

20 17) (online at www.nytimes.com/20 17/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost~report-trump.html? _r=O). 

4Jd 

5 /d 

6 8 U.S.C. §1157(e)(4) (emphasis added). 

7 Sessions: Obama 's Syria Refugee Plan to Cost $55 Billion, Demands it be Killed, Washington Examiner 

(Nov. 16, 2015) (online at www.washingtonexaminer.com/sessions-obamas-syrian-refugee-plan-to-cost-55-billiondemands-it-be-killed/article/2576450); Mike Pence's Refugee Problem, Rolling Stone (Jan. 25, 2017) (online at 

www.rollingstone.com/politic.s/features/mike-pences-refugee-problem-w462763} 
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 28506.017

General John F. Kelly 

Page 3 

(b) all communications referring or relating to any draft of this report, its contents, or 

its findings, including but not limited to communications between or among any 

federal officials, including officials at HI-IS. the White House, or any other federal 

agency, as well as communications between or among non-governmental entities 

or individuals. 

We also request a briefing t!·om appropriate White House officials by October L 2017, 

regarding: the findings in early versions of the report that were omitted in later versions; the 

criteria guiding those omissions; the offices and otTicials involved in producing the report, 

including any political staff that participated in any way in this process; the methodology 

underlying the report; and the specilic rationale for excluding from the linal report the significant 

economic benefits of refugees. 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

cc. The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, Chairman 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 28506.018

The September 2017 CEP report titled The Promise of Evidence-Based Policymaking: Report of the 

Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking can be accessed at: 

https://www .cep. gov I content/ dam/ cep/report/ cep-final-report. pdf 
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 28506.019

Responses to Questions for the Record 

Questions from Chair Gowdy for Dr. Abraham 

1. Definition if Evidence: The Commission defines evidence as information produced by Jtatistical activates 

wtfh a statistical purpose that is potentially useful when evaluating government programs and policies. What 

does that mean in plain language? Wby did the Commission use this definition? Did the Commission 

consider other definitions? 

The Commission recognizes that the term "evidence" has broad application, but notes in the 

introduction of the final report, The Promise if Evidence-Based Policymaking, that, for the 

purposes of the report, the Commission uses the term evidence "to refer to information 

produced by 'statistical activities' with a 'statistical purpose' that is potentially useful when 

evaluating government programs and policies." The reason why the Commission adopted 

this definition of the term evidence relates directly to the charge that was outlined in the 

statute that established the Commission. Specifically, the Commission was directed to review 

the barriers to using the administrative data that the Government already collects to 

"facilitate program evaluation, continuous improvement, policy-relevant research, and costbenefit analyses." These types of analytic and evaluative activities consider the impact of 

policies and programs on groups of people, rather than individuals. The essence of a 

"statistical activity" with a "statistical purpose" is that the results summarizes information 

about a group rather than a single individual or organization. 

Administrative data is initially collected to be used by program administrators to operate a 

program, such as assessing the eligibility of a particular household for a program or 

reviewing program participation data for evidence of fraud or abuse. This use of 

administrative data requires knowledge of the individual households that exist in the 

database. These data are also incredibly useful for research and evaluation, but must only be 

used for such purposes while protecting the privacy of the individuals and maintaining the 

confidentiality of the data-using the data in this way is a statistical activity. A researcher 

might analyze the same administrative data that are collected for the purposes of program 

administration in order to understand the characteristics or demographics of the program 

participants as a whole. The Commission was directed to explore how administrative data 

can be better used for evidence-building purposes, which are inherently statistical in nature. 

2. The CommiJ1ion's report sqys "Placing the directive in law also provides (Ptincipal Statistical Agencies] a 

stronger basis from which to defend their needfor independent information technology resources and tailored 

procedures to Jecure the confidentiality uf Federal data use for evidence building." 

a. What does it mean that statistical agencies need to defend their need for independent information 

technology resources? Who do they need to defend against? 

W c consider it essential that principal statistical agencies (PSAs) are able to 

effectively protect the confidential data under their control, ensuring that it is only 

used for statistical purposes, honoring the pledge of confidentiality and exclusively 

statistical use made to American people and businesses when their information is 

collected. This need only becomes more important in the Commission's vision when 

more sensitive data become available to the statistical system to support evidence 
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 28506.020

building. The very legal framework that requires statistical agencies to protect data 

collected or acquired under a pledge of confidentiality and limit its use to statistical 

purposes provides a privacy~protective way to protect newly available data for 

evidence building. The data protection requirement extends to all of representatives 

operating on a PSA's behalf, including those working in data centers that store 

agency data. Under the law, each person with any confidential statistical data access 

must be made an agent, subject to the law's penalty. Statistical agencies therefore 

require that non~agency data center employees with access to servers containing 

confidential data complete training about data stewardship, formally affirm their 

commitment to keeping statistical data secure and confidential, and pledge not to 

divulge or attempt to re~identify data. In fact, many statistical statutes provide for 

notable penalties, including jail time, for breaches of confidentiality. However, at 

times both historically and currendy, statistical agencies have confronted challenges 

in maintaining these requirements. For example, statistical agencies without authority 

over their own information technology systems cannot control access to servers that 

hold protected information and, therefore, may not know who is accessing those 

data or what they are being used for. 

Sometimes the concern about independence for data security is because the statistical 

agency has lost direct control of information technology systems during required IT 

and data center consolidation. For example, the need for PSAs to protect 

confidential data can conflict with other statutory requirements. One example 

involves FITARA, whose objectives for reform and consolidation are good, but have 

also created challenges when CIOs have been reluctant to comply with the PSAs' 

requests to train and qualify IT staff as agents under the Confidential Information 

Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act or related statistical statutes. 

Each of these concerns poses challenges to data confidentiality for evidence building 

and requires resolution. We do not believe there need be a conflict between the 

objectives ofFITARA and statistical confidentiality, but that there does need to be 

an explicit understanding in implementing both objectives that one cannot 

subordinate the other. Improving our acquisition system is essential to good 

government operations, and equally essential is honoring and protecting the 

confidentiality of data collected from American people and businesses. By codifying 

Statistical Policy Directive 1, the Congress is placing in law its clear intent that the 

government's statistical system has a specific and clear role and responsibilities, and 

other elements of the government have the obligation to support those objectives. 

From page 59 of the Commission report: As Katherine (I<itty) Smith of the Council 

of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COP AFS) noted in comments to 

OMB about the roles and responsibilities of Federal statistical agencies, "information 

technology systems that are out of the direct control of the statistical agency can: 

result in delays in the retrieval of and dissemination of statistical data; impose 

restrictions on the accompaniment of transparent explanations of methodology with 

the data; violate the integrity of statistical information; and, very importandy, 

endanger the statistical agencies' ability to follow through on their pledges of 

confidentiality and non~disclosure." 

2 
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 28506.021

b. l\!fany of the other recommendation.r seem to be ca/lingjor uniform procedures. What doe.r it mean to 

say statistical agencies need tailored procedure.r to secure the confidentiality offederal data for evidence 

building? 

The recommendations in the report call for uniform procedures beyond the 

statistical agencies in order to enable the Conunission's vision of the Federal 

evidence building community generating and using data and evidence as a routine 

part of ongoing government operations. Most of the Conunission's 

recommendations call for consistency and uniformity government wide for evidence 

building. The primary reason for such consistency is to allow for the efficiency of a 

well-functioning ecosystem where the authority and roles of actors are cleat while 

also ensuring a safe and privacy-appropriate environment for such data access to 

occur. 

For example, recommendation 2-8 calls for a consistent application process for 

external researchers that would apply all agencies, including PSAs and 

recommendation 5-4 calls for the alignment of administrative functions with 

evidence building purposes across government. Each of these is designed to 

increase efficiency while maintaining or even :improving privacy. While many of the 

recommendations will help strengthen the PSAs' ability to conduct and support 

evidence generation, only recommendation 3-4 specifically and uniquely applies to 

PSAs. The Conunission considers it important that the independence and objectivity 

of Federal statistics, the very foundation of useful evidence building, be codified in 

law and not simple stated in policy. The Conunission included this recommendation 

in the privacy chapter of its final report because it believes that giving these policies 

the force of law would help ensure that confidential data are kept safe and secure. 

In the context of privacy risk, where a version of data required by law to be 

protected from unauthorized disclosure is de-identified in order to release it publicly, 

the criticality of a consistent procedure is particularly important. Any data release can 

impact a future release of related data. De-identification does not occur in a vacuum, 

and the actions of one agency can easily but unintentionally provide the means to 

identify data released by another. The solution to this "mosaic" effect is for all 

agencies to use common procedures, techniques, definitions, and methods to 

:implement de-identification. 

3. NSDS at Commerce: W0' did the Commission recommend the NSDS be housed in Commerce and be 

modeled on the Census Bureau's systems? 

The Conunission considered the institutional placement and governance of the National 

Secure Data Service (NSDS) in terms of any :implications for key objectives: (1) transparency 

and trust, (2) support for evidence building, (3) strategic coordination and cooperation, ( 4) 

confidentiality and security, (5) authority and flexibility, (6) scalable functionality, and (/) 

sustainability. An institutional placement within an existing Federal department has a 

practical benefit, particularly the ability to leverage shared services for administrative 

functions, as well as existing professional staff, established levels of public trust, and 

operational knowledge. 1be Conunission gave this issue much thought and ultimately 

determined that the NSDS should be located in the U.S. Department of Commerce because 

3 
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 28506.022

this institutional placement would allow it to build upon the Department's extensive 

portfolio of statistical and data-related bureaus and expertise existing within the Census 

Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among others. The 

Commission also concluded that the Census Bureau's current operations, and other capacity 

throughout the Federal government, form a starting point for implementing the NSDS. 

However, to be clear, the Commission emphasized the importance of situating the NSDS in 

such a way as to provide independence sufficient to set strategic priorities distinct from any 

existing Commerce agency and to operate apart from policy and related offices. The 

Commission did not recommend that NSDS be part of the Census Bureau, but rather a 

sister bureau within the broader Commerce Department. The Commission believes there is 

key experience and expertise at Census, as well as other agencies, which could either inform, 

or directly form, the core clements of NSDS. Importantly, the NSDS also must be organized 

in such a way as to prioritize support for evidence building across government, rather than 

providing support specific to any one department. On page 83 of the report, the 

Commission provides a hypothetical sequencing of how NSDS could be setup, although one 

could imagine a number of other scenarios. At root, the Commission believes that 

substantial capacity exists within government to do the work of the NSDS, but currently that 

capacity exists in small groups and offices scattered around various agencies -with the 

largest element at Census. The Commission believes that by organizing these elements 

centrally with a mission to support government-wide needs, rather than their current 

diffused state supporting individual agency needs, will optimize existing capacity. 

The Commission does not believe that such an approach would compromise the Census 

Bureau's mission related to the 2020 Census, and in fact, the need for Census to be focused 

on that mission was one reason the Commission did not conclude that expanding the 

Bureau's mission to include NSDS was wise. Additionally, as the Commission explicitly 

concluded that NSDS should not be a "data warehouse," it then necessarily cannot be 

housed within any of our statistical agencies, each of which is effectively a data warehouse 

for their topical areas of focus. 

4. Would any of the Commission :r recommendations need additional appropriations? If so, how much are we 

talking about? 

The Commission recognizes that resource prioritization is essential to ensuring the 

Commission's goals are achieved. The Commission is intentionally not recommending an 

infusion of large sums of funding to create new agencies or to launch massive new evidencebuilding endeavors. Instead, throughout the report, the Commission's recommendations 

seek to balance the need to prioritize evidence building while recognizing fiscal constraints. 

In some departments, sufficient resources already exist to enable evidence building, but 

those resources might be better coordinated or deployed in support of evidence building. 

5. Could any of the Commission :r recommendations help to offtet the costs of an increased fundingfor evidence 

bNilding or even red!Jce government spending overall? If so, how? 

The Commission believes that a responsible investment of resources in more and better 

evidence holds the potential to yield substantial savings in the longer term as programs that 

4 
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 28506.023

are improved become more cost-effective, and as programs that are not effective are 

discontinued. 

6. The Commission j- report talks about both transparency and restricting accw to information. What does the 

Commission mean by the term "transparency"? 

a. Can you help us understand the difference between transparency of tvcords and data, as required by 

FOIA and other transparency laws, and transparency as emisioned by the Commission? 

The Commission was asked to focus on ways to increase access to confidential data 

for evidence building purposes. Confidential data refers to data that has been 

collected or acquired under a pledge of confidentiality (such as the Privacy Act or the 

Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA)), and 

typically contains personally identifying information that would enable the 

identification of an individual, household, or organization in the resulting dataset. 

The protections offered under these statues often make such confidential data 

inaccessible, including under FOIA, under which personally identifiable information 

would most often be exempt. The Commission's recommendations are not intended 

and should not, with one possible caveat, in any way diminish existing efforts to 

improve transparency under FOIA or related statues or directive. The one possible 

caveat is, essentially, data that are not properly de-identified- and thus would not 

meet the criteria for disclosure under FOIA or other authorities but is not properly 

recognized as such. It is true that properly identifying insufficiently de-identified data 

may result in that data being withheld or further transformed before release, but this 

should not be seen as anti-transparent. Rather, this is utilizing proper and modern 

tools to implement transparency laws. FOIA does not intend to release data that 

breaches the privacy of individuals or businesses. 

b. How does restricting access to information improve access to information for evidence building? 

The recommendations of the Commission seek to safely increase access to these data 

for statistical purposes. In particular, the Commission proposes the adoption of a 

tiered access approach to releasing various data sources. The approach recognizes 

that there are statistical techniques that enable a highly sensitive dataset to be 

transformed into a dataset with lower sensitivity, and tbus making it accessible for 

statistical purposes. This approach would, in fact, increase the volume of data that is 

made available for research, as opposed to restricting the amount of data made 

available for research. In essence, increasing transparency into government programs 

and operations, while maintaining the privacy of data on individuals and businesses. 

The Commission established five guiding principles for evidence-based 

policy-making. Transparency was identified as one of tbe guiding principles and 

described as follows: "Those engaged in generating and using data and evidence 

should operate transparently, providing meaningful channels for public input and 

comment and ensuring that evidence produced is made publicly available." The 

Commission developed recommendations that seek to increase transparency to the 

public regarding what data the Federal government has collected, the uses of the data 

that has been collected, and the mechanisms applied by the Federal government that 

ensure tbat tbe public's information will be properly protected. 

5 
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 28506.024

The Commission believes that the adoption of the recommendations as written 

would increase both the volume of data that is made available for evidence-building, 

as well as the transparency to the pubic regarding how this data is collected/ acquired, 

used, and protected. 

Questions from Rep. Foxx for Dr. Abraham 

1. The panel refennced that some Federal agencies retained effictive research designs in the opinion of the 

Commission. Please provide some examples of where these effictive research desi,gns can be found. 

The Commission believes that evidence building and use must become a regular feature of 

program oversight and operations to promote continual learning, program refinement, and 

accountability. Throughout the Commission's fact-finding phase, the Commission identified 

numerous examples where Federally-funded programs recognize the importance of 

developing rigorous evidence to inform program administration, though the Commission 

believes these should increasingly become the norm rather than characterized as exemplars. 

Several Federal Departments include research and evaluation units which support the 

development of a broad portfolio of evidence in support of policies and programs, including 

the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation within the Administration for Children and 

Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; the Office of Policy 

Development & Research within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; 

and the Institute of Education Sciences within the U.S. Department of Education. 

2. The panel reftrenced that certain privacy protection provisions in certain workforce training programs were 

impeding the opening of valuable data. Please provide the .rpecijic workforce training programs and a'!Y related 

statutory privacy provisions that should be reexamined. 

During the Commission's fact finding, the Commission learned of a provision embedded in 

the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act (WIOA) that prohibits developing a 

national database of program participants, inclusive of PII. This ban is modeled on the 

Student Unit Record ban statutory provision. 

"Prohibition on Development of National Database.-- (1) In general.--Nothing in 

this Act (including the amendments made by this i\.ct) shall be construed to permit 

the development of a national database of personally identifiable information on 

individuals receiving services under title I or under the amendments made by title 

IV." (29 U.S.C. 3341) 

As noted in the Commission's discussion of statutory bans (page 29-30), including the 

WIOA and SUR ban, "within the broad array of factors that influence policy-making, a ban 

may be an appropriate tool for setting priorities or achieving certain other goals. In the 

6 
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 28506.025

context of evidence building, however, a ban on data collection or use cannot easily be 

reconciled with the goal of increased reliance on evidence to inform policyrnaking." 

C ndcrstanding the need to carefully calibrate the value of data for evidence building, and the 

potential privacy harms, the Commission endeavored to provide Congress a road map to 

improve the overall privacy and legal framework of data protection and use limitation, 

allowing for Congress to then consider revising or rescinding such bans in the context of the 

improved privacy framework. 

7 
68 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 28506.026

Responses to Questions for the Record 

Questions from Rep. Blum for Dr. Sweeney 

Iowa State, University tj Iowa, and University o/ Northern I ow a have advocated for lifting the ban on student-level 

data in order to provide critical information on higher education outcomes to stndents and families, policymaker.r, and 

colleges and universities. 

They are specifically interested in the recommendations which call for Congress and the President to "consider repealing 

cumnt bam and limitingfuture bans on the colledion and use tj data for evidence building." 

1. How would implementing the Commission's recommendations help to provide data for much-needed analysis 

tj higher education outcomes and the labor market? 

2. How could increasing access to higher education data jor the pupose tj building evidence potentially improve 

our school system and other governmentfonded programJ? 

A "student unit record ban" was included as an amendment to the 2008 Higher Education 

Act reauthorization and prohibits the Federal government from establishing new databases 

on any individual-level student records, including primary, secondary, and postsecondary 

education. 

During the October 21 CEP public hearing, numerous witnesses asked that the Commission 

consider overturning the ban. Witnesses in favor of overturning the ban highlighted the 

inability of current data systems to follow students across multiple institutions and states and 

to adequately cover nontraditional students, low-income students, minorities, and veterans. 

Witnesses cited that a national database (or ability to link databases) could help resolve these 

issues and reduce burden on higher education institutions for reporting to other data 

collection efforts. These witnesses argued for linking data already held by educational 

institutions in a privacy-protective manner. Many of the responses to CEP's Request for 

Comments also addressed the need to measure the outcomes of higher education programs 

in which the federal government/ taxpayers invest billions of dollars. They noted that the 

questions that could be addressed by such data include: how part-time and older students 

fare; what happens to the large number of students who transfer from one college to 

another; how many and which students complete their programs at specific colleges, 

especially students receiving federal Pell grants totaling in the billions of taxpayer money 

each year; and whether graduates are able to obtain jobs that pay enough to meet their 

student loan obligations. 

Based on this input, th~ r~port concluded on page 30 that; "Prohibitions on data collection 

and use arguably conflict with the Commission's vision to improve government based on 

credible evidence. Within the broad array of factors that influence policymaking, a ban may 

be an appropriate tool for setting priorities or achieving certain other goals. In the context of 

evidence building, however, a ban on data collection or use cannot easily be reconciled with 

a goal of increased reliance on evidence to inform policymaking." 

Understanding the need to carefully calibrate the value of data for evidence building, and the 

potential privacy harms, the Commission endeavored to provide Congress a road map to 

improve the overall privacy and legal framework of data protection and use limitation, 

allowing for Congress to then consider revising or rescinding such bans in the context of the 

improved privacy framework.