[Senate Report 114-151]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                      Calendar No. 244
114th Congress     }                                     {     Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session       }                                     {     114-151
______________________________________________________________________



               EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING COMMISSION ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

                          GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                        WITH SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS

                              to accompany

                                 S. 991

  TO ESTABLISH THE COMMISSION ON EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING, AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                October 1, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
                                   ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

59-010                         WASHINGTON : 2015 








        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa                     GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska

                    Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
                  Christopher R. Hixon, Chief Counsel
       Patrick J. Bailey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
              Joshua P. McLeod, Professional Staff Member
              Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
           John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
               Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel
     Troy H. Cribb, Minority Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
           Brian F. Papp, Minority Professional Staff Member
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                                                      Calendar No. 244
114th Congress     }                                     {     Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session       }                                     {     114-151

======================================================================



 
               EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING COMMISSION ACT

                                _______
                                

                October 1, 2015.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
                    Affairs, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                           SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 991]

    The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 991) to establish 
the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and recommends 
that the bill, as amended, do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
 II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................2
III. Legislative History..............................................4
 IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................4
  V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................6
 VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................7
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............9

                         I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    The purpose of S. 991, the Evidence-Based Policymaking 
Commission Act of 2015, is to establish a commission to study 
the inventory and infrastructure of data related to federal 
programs, tax expenditures, and statistical protocols across 
the federal government. The bill would establish a fifteen-
member Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (Commission) 
to determine the best structure for information that is 
collected and maintained by federal agencies to effectively 
analyze and evaluate federal programs and tax expenditures. The 
Commission would also make recommendations on how to 
incorporate outcomes measurements, randomized controlled 
trials, and rigorous impact analyses into program design. The 
Commission will consider whether to establish a clearinghouse 
for information collected by federal agencies and who should 
have access to that data. The Commission will report to the 
President and the Congress with its findings along with 
recommendations for legislation or administrative action it 
considers appropriate. The Commission's authority would 
terminate eighteen months after enactment of the bill.

              II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The federal government is expected to spend more than four 
trillion dollars annually by 2017\1\ and it administers at 
least 1,500 discrete programs.\2\ In addition, the 
Congressional Budget Office expects that tax expenditures--
financial assistance provided to particular activities, 
entities, or groups of individuals separately through the 
federal tax code--will total almost one and a half trillion 
dollars in fiscal year 2015.\3\ One of Congress's chief 
concerns should be ensuring such amounts are spent wisely and 
on public programs and tax expenditures that are effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Cong. Budget Office, An Update to the Budget and Economic 
Outlook: 2014 to 2024 (2014), available at https://www.cbo.gov/sites/
default/files/45653-OutlookUpdate_2014_Aug
.pdf.
    \2\While estimates of the total number of federal programs are 
inaccurate due to the lack of centralized reporting of programs, the 
Government Accountability Office estimates there are at least 1,500 
programs. See, U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-83, Government 
Efficiency and Effectiveness: Inconsistent Definitions and Information 
Limit the Usefulness of Federal Program Inventories (2014), available 
at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-83.
    \3\Cong. Budget Office, the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 
2025, 92 (2015), available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/
cbofiles/attachments/49892-Outlook
2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One way to do so is through rigorous oversight by 
Congressional Committees, and reviews conducted by the 
Government Accountability Office and the agencies' inspectors 
general. Additionally, through the Government Performance and 
Results Act\4\ and the Government Performance and Results 
Modernization Act,\5\ Congress established a framework for 
developing and integrating information about agencies' 
strategic priorities, the results-oriented performance goals 
that flow from those priorities, and performance data showing 
the level of achievement of those goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Pub. L. No. 103-62.
    \5\Pub. L. No. 111-352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, some former administration officials, including 
individuals who served under President Barack Obama and 
President George W. Bush, note that there is a lack of a 
consistent, data-driven approach to federal program evaluation 
as an inherent function embedded in federal programs.\6\ One 
estimate concluded that ``less than $1 out of every $100 of 
government spending is backed by even the most basic evidence 
that the money is being spent wisely.''\7\ Furthermore, in 
scientific studies looking at policy-making, such as randomized 
controlled trials of eleven large social programs that account 
for over ten billion dollars in annual spending, experts found 
that ``[t]en out of the 11 including Upward Bound and Job Corps 
showed weak or no positive effects' on their participants.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\John Bridgeland and Peter Orszag, Can Government Play 
Moneyball?, The Atlantic Magazine, July/August 2013, available at 
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/can-government-
play-moneyball/309389/.
    \7\Id.
    \8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many government officials and scholars advocate for 
consistent, data-driven evidence-based policymaking to assist 
lawmakers in determining where federal dollars ought to be 
spent and tax expenditures authorized. Evidence-based policy 
making requires empirically assessing the effectiveness of 
public programs and tax expenditures and then factoring that 
assessment into the budget and policy decisions related to the 
program. This type of analysis, if implemented, enhances the 
continued oversight, measurement, and evaluation of a program 
to ensure it is achieving the desired results and warrants 
continued funding.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Pew Trusts, Evidence-Based Policymaking: A Guide for Effective 
Government (Nov. 2014), available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/media/
Assets/2014/11/EvidenceBased
PolicymakingA GuideforEffectiveGovernment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Evidence-based policymaking is not a new idea; it has been 
utilized by governments around the world, including in the 
United Kingdom, particularly during the Blair Government, and 
in Australia.\10\ In the United States, evidence-based 
policymaking has been employed at the state budget level for 
years; researchers supporting a report on evidence-based 
policymaking for the Pew Charitable Trusts identified over one 
hundred state laws across forty-two states passed between 2004 
and 2014 that support the use of evidence-based programs and 
practices.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Gary Banks, Chairman, Australian Government Productivity 
Commission, Address at the Australian and New Zealand School of 
Government, Evidence-based policy-making: What is it? How do we get 
it?, 3-4 (Feb. 4, 2009), available at http://www.pc.gov.au/news-media/
speeches/cs20090204.
    \11\Pew Trusts, Evidence-Based Policymaking: A Guide for Effective 
Government (Nov. 2014), available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/media/
Assets/2014/11/ EvidenceBased
PolicymakingA GuideforEffectiveGovernment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More recently, this evaluation methodology has been 
incorporated at various times at the federal level. For 
example, President Bush's Fiscal Year 2008 budget request 
included ten million dollars to support new competitive grants 
to encourage states to use existing funding streams to support 
proven and effective nurse home visitation programs known as 
Evidence Based Home Visiting (EBHV).\12\ The EBVH program 
sought to fund models ``shown, in well-designed randomized 
controlled trials, to produce sizeable, sustained effects on 
important child outcomes such as abuse and neglect.''\13\ 
Additionally, President Obama's Fiscal Year 2016 budget request 
includes a demonstration project that would test whether 
encouraging states to increase access to evidence-based 
alternatives to treat behavioral and mental health conditions 
will reduce over-prescription of psychotropic medications and 
improve outcomes for children in foster care.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\President's FY 2008 Budget Appropriations for the 
Administration for Children and Families: Hearing Before the Committee 
on Appropriations, Subcomm. On Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education and Related Agencies, 110th Cong. (2007) (statement of Daniel 
Schneider), available at http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2007/03/
t20070308n.html.
    \13\Edward Rodrigue and Richard V. Reeves, Home Visiting Programs: 
An Early Test for the 114th Congress, The Brookings Institution (Feb. 
5, 2011), available at http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-
memos/posts/2015/02/05-home-visiting-funding-reeves.
    \14\The President's Budget Fiscal Year 2016, Middle Class 
Economics: Building and Using Evidence to Improve Results 4, https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/
fact_sheets/ building-and-using-evidence-to-improve-results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2015 is 
an effort to build on bipartisan support for a better-
functioning government. The legislation mandates the study of 
the inventory and infrastructure of administrative data related 
to federal programs, and tax expenditures, survey data, and 
related statistical data series to determine how evidence-based 
policymaking can be incorporated into the legislating process. 
The Commission created under this legislation is a step to 
ensure that federal tax dollars are spent wisely. Promoting 
impact evaluations allows Congress and policymakers the ability 
to determine the effectiveness of federal programs and tax 
expenditures prior to their authorization and assists them in 
determining whether funding should continue.

                        III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    Senator Patty Murray introduced S. 991 on April 17, 2015. 
The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs. Senator Tammy Baldwin joined as cosponsor 
on June 24, 2015.
    The Committee considered S. 991 at a business meeting on 
June 24, 2015. During the business meeting, Senator Ron Johnson 
offered a substitute amendment as modified, that made technical 
corrections to the bill and prohibited new funding from being 
appropriated to implement the bill. The substitute amendment 
was adopted by voice vote with Senators Johnson, McCain, 
Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, and 
Heitkamp present.
    The Committee ordered the bill, as amended, reported 
favorably by voice vote on June 24, 2015. Senators present for 
the vote on the bill were Senators Johnson, McCain, Lankford, 
Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, and Heitkamp.

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

Section 1. Short title

    This section provides the bill's short title, the 
``Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission of 2015.''

Section 2. Establishment

    This section establishes an executive branch ``Commission 
on Evidence-Based Policymaking'' (referred to as the 
``Commission'').

Section 3. Members of the Commission

    Section 3 sets the requirements and composition of the 
commission. Appointments to the Commission must be made within 
forty-five days of the date of the bill's enactment. The 
Commission will be comprised of fifteen members. Three of the 
members shall be appointed by the President, including one each 
of: an academic researcher, data expert, or individual with 
experience in administering programs; an individual with 
expertise in database management, confidentiality, and privacy 
matters; and the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget (or the Director's designee).
    Additionally, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the 
Majority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the 
Senate shall each appoint three nominees that meet the 
following qualifications: two academic researchers, data 
experts, or individuals with experience in administering 
programs; and an individual with expertise in database 
management, confidentiality, and privacy matters.
    In making the appointments, appointing parties should 
consider individuals with expertise in economics, statistics, 
program evaluation, data security, confidentiality, or database 
management. Of those members selected for the Commission, the 
President is to select one to be the chairperson and the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives is to select the co-
chairperson. Each member shall be appointed for the duration of 
the Commission, and any vacancy shall be filled in the manner 
in which the original appointment was made. Commission members 
shall serve without pay, but shall be permitted travel 
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates 
authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of 
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from 
their homes or regular places of business in the performance of 
services for the Commission.

Section 4. Duties of the Commission

    This section explains the duties of the Commission. The 
duties are: (1) to perform a comprehensive study of the 
inventory and infrastructure of data and statistical protocols 
related to federal policymaking and the agencies responsible 
for maintaining that data to determine the optimal arrangement 
for which administrative data may be integrated and made 
available to facilitate program evaluation, continuous 
improvement, policy-relevant research, and cost-benefit 
analyses; (2) make recommendations on how to best incorporate 
such information into program design; (3) determine whether and 
how to establish a clearinghouse for program and survey data, 
what data should be included, which survey data may be linked 
to, and any legal and administrative barriers to including or 
linking these data series; (4) evaluate what data-sharing 
infrastructure should be used to facilitate data merging and 
access for research purposes; (5) determine how a clearinghouse 
could be self-funded; (6) determine who should have access to 
data and what qualifications those individuals and entities 
should have; (7) evaluate what limitations should be placed on 
the use of provided data and how to ensure individual privacy 
and confidentiality is protected; (8) evaluate how data and 
research results can be used to improve program design; and (9) 
evaluate what incentives may facilitate interagency sharing of 
information to improve programmatic effectiveness and enhance 
data accuracy and comprehensiveness.
    Upon the affirmative vote of at least three-quarters of the 
Commission, the Commission will report to the President and 
Congress on its findings and conclusions, including 
recommendations for legislation or administrative actions, no 
later than fifteen months after a majority of members are 
appointed.

Section 5. Operation and powers of the Commission

    Section 5 requires certain relevant Executive Branch 
agencies to offer their respective expertise in advising and 
consulting the Commission. This section also sets forth the 
Commission's operating procedure, including: requiring it to 
meet not later than thirty days after the date upon which a 
majority of its members have been appointed, and at such times 
thereafter as the chairperson or co-chairperson shall 
determine; providing that the chairperson and co-chairperson 
shall, with the approval of a majority of the members of the 
Commission, establish written rules of procedure, including a 
quorum requirement; permitting the Commission to hold hearings, 
take testimony, receive evidence, contract with and compensate 
government and private agencies, use the United States mail 
system in the same way that a federal agency can, and accept, 
use, and dispose of gifts or donations of services or property.

Section 6. Funding

    This section provides that no funds are authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out S. 991, and, subject to that 
limitation and at the request of the Director of the Census, 
agencies identified as ``Principal Statistical Agencies'' in 
the report, published by the Office of Management and Budget, 
entitled ``Statistical Programs of the United States 
Government, Fiscal Year 2015'' shall provide funds, in a total 
amount not to exceed three million dollars, to the Director for 
purposes of carrying out the activities of the Commission. 
Further, this section provides that the Bureau of the Census 
shall provide administrative support to the Commission, which 
may include providing physical space at, and access to, the 
headquarters of the Bureau of the Census, located in Suitland, 
Maryland.

Section 7. Personnel

    This section creates a role of Director on the Commission. 
The Director shall be appointed by the chairperson with the 
concurrence of the co-chairperson and shall be paid at a rate 
of pay established by the chairperson and co-chairperson, not 
to exceed the annual rate of basic pay payable for level V of 
the Executive Schedule (section 5316 of title 5, United States 
Code). The Director, at his or her discretion, may appoint and 
fix the pay of additional staff. The Commission may also 
procure temporary and intermittent services under section 
3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, at rates for 
individuals which do not exceed the daily equivalent of the 
annual rate of basic pay for a comparable position paid under 
the General Schedule.

Section 8. Termination

    This section provides a termination date for the Commission 
not later than eighteen months after the date of enactment of 
this Act.

                   V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

    Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has 
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined 
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning 
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional 
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs 
on state, local, or tribal governments.

             VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

                                                      July 6, 2015.
Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 
        Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 991, the Evidence-
Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2015.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

S. 991--Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2015

    S. 991 would establish the Commission on Evidence-Based 
Policymaking (commission) to study the inventory and 
infrastructure of data related to federal programs. The 15-
member commission would be directed to determine the best 
structure for information that is collected and maintained by 
federal agencies to effectively analyze and evaluate federal 
programs. In addition, the commission would consider whether to 
establish a clearinghouse for information collected by federal 
agencies. Finally, the bill would require the commission to 
report to the President and the Congress, no later than 15 
months after a majority of members have been appointed, a 
statement of its findings along with recommendations for 
legislation or administrative actions it considers appropriate. 
The commission's authority would terminate 18 months after 
enactment of the bill.
    CBO estimates that implementing S. 991 would cost $3 
million over the 2016-2020 period, assuming appropriation of 
the necessary amounts. The bill would authorize several federal 
agencies to contribute up to $3 million from appropriated funds 
to carry out the duties of the commission. Enacting S. 991 
would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-
as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    S. 991 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    On May 28, 2015, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 
1831, the Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2015, 
as ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform on April 16, 2015. The bills are similar, and 
CBO's estimates of the budgetary effects are the same.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susan Willie. 
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

              SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF RANKING MEMBER CARPER

    I support greater use of evidence in policymaking and 
believe that the Commission created by this bill will allow 
Congress to take a significant leap forward in using data-based 
evidence to assess programs. Data-driven approaches to federal 
policymaking can improve outcomes and save money in the long 
term, and the Administrations of both Presidents George W. Bush 
and Barack Obama have taken innovative approaches to using 
data-based evidence that Congress can build upon.
    I want to emphasize again, however, that Congress has 
multiple tools and resources it can use to assess the 
performance of government programs, including committee 
oversight, the Government Accountability Office, and Inspectors 
General. On a daily basis, Congress also gets extremely useful 
information on government programs from the good work of 
journalists. And, of course, Members hear about the good and 
bad of government programs from their constituents--feedback 
that puts those programs in a perspective that perhaps no 
statistics on paper ever can.
    So while I support and applaud the goals of this bill, I 
take some exception to the suggestion that government programs 
are not currently supported by ``basic evidence,'' in the 
common sense. We can improve the quality of evidence we do 
have, and we should always strive to do that. But we should 
also assure the American taxpayers that there are already a lot 
of eyes on federal spending, which leads to a vigorous and 
healthy debate on which programs deserve taxpayer dollars, and 
which ones do not.

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

    Because this legislation would not repeal or amend any 
provision of current law, it would make no changes in existing 
law within the meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12 
of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

                                  [all]