The 2020 Census: Frequently Asked Questions

Summary: April 1, 2020, will mark the official date of the 24 th U.S. decennial census. Mandated by the Constitution and federal law, the census is considered a cornerstone of the nation's representative democracy. Nevertheless, an enumeration that is complete and accurate is difficult to achieve. Among other challenges, the census is often misunderstood, mischaracterized, feared, or avoided. This report addresses common questions concerning the 2020 census. The report is intended to provide information about the census, including clarifying various aspects of the census process. Among the topics covered are

Summary: the origin and purpose of the census; the dates of key census activities; what the Census Bureau has done to promote the enumeration and gain cooperation with it, such as background research on hard-to-count groups and areas, and outreach to them and the broader public through a $500 million communications strategy that includes paid advertising; what basic data the census will collect, largely about how many people live in each household; each person's sex, age, birthdate, race, Hispanic or non-Hispanic ethnicity, and relationship to the person filling out the census form; and whether the housing unit is owned or rented; what information, the Census Bureau has explained, the census never collects, including Social Security numbers, bank or credit card account information, money, or anything on behalf of a political party; why people who consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern or North African race or ethnicity will not be able to report themselves as such on the census questionnaire; clarification that the census will not include a citizenship, nationality, immigration, or other related question; how the Census Bureau will collect detailed socioeconomic and housing data separately from the census; clarification that people have several different options for answering the censusâonline, on paper, or by telephoneâeven though online responses are officially most encouraged; language support for the census, including online questionnaires in English and 12 non-English languages, Census Questionnaire Assistance by telephone in the same languages and through a telecommunications device for the deaf, and language guides in 59 non-English languages that will be available in video, standard and large print, braille, and American Sign Language; legal requirement to answer the census and possible $5,000 penalty for nonresponse or false answers; clarification that people must respond to the 2020 census even if they participated in the 2018 or 2019 census tests; the process for updating the Master Address File, the basis for contacting the population about the start of the census and following up with nonrespondents; how and when people can become employed as temporary 2020 census workers, what the requirements are for being hired, and what this work can offer to employees; how the public can identify census workers to be sure that they are legitimate; and legal and cybersecurity protections for confidential census information.

A census, as distinguished from a survey, is intended to be a complete count of the population. A scientifically designed and conducted survey covers a sample of the population, and the results are generalizable to the whole population.

The U.S. decennial census is, foremost, a constitutional requirement. The Enumeration Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 2, clause 3, as modified by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment) mandates "counting the whole number of persons in each State" every 10 years in order to apportion seats in the House of Representatives. The first census occurred in 1790; 2020 marks the 24 th time the national count has taken place.

The modern census is important for more than House apportionment. Decennial census data are used for within-state redistrictingâthe redrawing of legislative districts. Decennial census and related data are used in certain formulas that determine states' and localities' annual allocations of federal funds, estimated by the Census Bureau as of FY2015 at $689.3 billion and by an academic researcher as of FY2017 at $1.5 trillion. The decennial counts also are the foundation for estimates of current population size between censuses and projections of future size. Businesses, nonprofit organizations, researchers, and all levels of government are steady consumers of decennial and related data collected by the Census Bureau.

April 1, 2020, is the official Census Day. The count starts before, and census activities continue beyond, April 1, however. On January 21, 2020, the Census Bureau began the enumeration by counting the population in remote Toksook Bay, Alaska. The bureau is to start making in-person visits to nonrespondents in May 2020. By law, the bureau must provide the official numbers for House apportionment to the President no later than December 31, 2020. Also by law, states that requested 2020 population counts for, as examples, American Indian areas, counties, cities, towns, census tracts, census block groups, census blocks, and "state-specified congressional, legislative, and voting districts," must receive the data no later than March 31, 2021. The final design of the file containing these data remains to be specified, but the file will include data on "voting age, race, ethnicity, occupancy status, and (new for the 2020 Census) group quarters." The rollout of other census products is scheduled to continue until 2023.

4. What has the Census Bureau done to promote awareness of the census and build support for it?

The Census Barriers, Attitudes, and Motivators Study

The Census Bureau has researched ways to engage the people who likely will be hardest to count in 2020. For example, the Census Barriers, Attitudes, and Motivators Study (CBAMS), also called the "2020 Census Planning Survey," was conducted from February 20 through April 17, 2018, with a nationwide sample of 50,000 households. It covered, according to the bureau, "a range of topics related to census participation and completion." Respondents could complete the survey in English or Spanish, online or by mail. "Approximately 17,500 people responded to the survey, which was then weighted to be representative of all householders in the United States ages 18 and older." The bureau focused on differences in responses "across race, age, gender, education, and country of birth." Qualitative information gathered from 42 focus groups in 14 locations nationwide from March 14, 2018, through April 19, 2018, supplemented the survey results. The bureau reported that the use of focus groups was "designed to help the research team understand the attitudes of small demographic groups or groups that were otherwise difficult to reach with the survey." The "chief barrier" to 2020 census participation identified in the survey and the focus groups was "a lack of understanding of the purpose and process of the census." The focus groups showed this lack to be "associated with several negative attitudes toward the census, including apathy, privacy concerns, fear of repercussions, and general distrust of government." The survey results indicated that "certain demographic characteristics, including low levels of education, being young, and being of racial or ethnic minority groups," were related to "low levels of intent" to respond to the 2020 census. The survey and the qualitative findings, however, "revealed common motivators" for answering the census. Despite "important differences" among demographic groups, "funding for public servicesâsuch as hospitals, schools, and roadsâis a key motivator across groups." The bureau observed that respondents resembling the people in the focus groups, especially, might understand "the importance and purpose of the census if they make the connection between completing a census form and the possibility of an increase in funding or support" for their communities.

The bureau used information such as gained from CBAMS to inform its $500 million communications strategy, developed by the bureau and its communications contractor, VMLY&R.

As the bureau has explained, VMLY&R includes "multicultural advertising agencies, seasoned in reaching diverse audiences." An advertising campaign "in English and 12 other languages" will be part of the communications strategy. The languages are Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese), French, Haitian Creole, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. As discussed under question 11, below, online questionnaires are to be available in the same languages. The bureau's schedule calls for paid advertising to begin running in January 2020, "across multiple platforms, including print and digital outlets, television and radio, billboards," and ads "at transit stations, grocery stores, and movie theaters." The two largest shares of the total paid media campaign budget are 39.0% for television and 29.1% for digital media. The campaign is expected to reach "99% of all households" nationwide, "particularly in multicultural and hard-to-count populations."

Another part of the communications strategy is the partnership program, which, in the bureau's explanation, "integrates two essential programs." The Community Partnership Engagement Program "employs the strengths of tribal, state, and local governments, as well as community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, schools, media, businesses, social services, ethnic organizations, and others." Much of the community partnership work is being "conducted by partnership specialists who are employed in the field leading up to and during" the census. The National Partnership Program "builds and strengthens relationships with businesses, industries and organizations with national reach." The two programs "are intended to be complementary" and draw on "the expertise of various Census Bureau employees to help maximize" census participation.

The community partnership effort has, among other goals, the formation of Complete Count Committees (CCCs) in all 50 states, tribal areas, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and cities with at least 200,000 residents. A CCC, according to the Census Bureau, comprises "a broad spectrum of government and community leaders from education, business, healthcare," and other organizations. CCC members are to develop census awareness and encourage cooperation with the census "based upon their knowledge of the local community." Still being formed, CCCs are "identifying budget resources and establishing local work plans" for implementation in 2020. The bureau has compiled and posted on its website a guide for those interested in forming CCCs and an alphabetized list of existing committees, with any available contact information.

An additional component of the partnership program is Statistics in Schools, which, in general, promotes statistical literacy for students from kindergarten through high school and, specifically, explains to students why the census is important. One goal is for students to bring this message home. A related goal is to make school-age children and the adults in their households aware of the need to count all children in a household, being sure not to miss any babies or other children under age five. They sometimes can be erroneously omitted from the list of household residents, as has happened in past censuses.

The Census Bureau has developed an application, the Response Outreach Area Mapper (ROAM), to facilitate identifying hard-to-count areas and provide socioeconomic and demographic profiles of these areas using American Community Survey (ACS) estimates. ROAM has helped the bureau, in its words, "create a tailored communications and partnership campaign" and inform "outreach activities and hiring practices across the country," in order to hire "an adequate number of staff and staff with the necessary language skills for a given area." One advantage of ROAM for census partners is that they can use it to identify specific areas most needing their attention.

5. How and when will people know that the census is underway?

As the Census Bureau has explained, it will let most people know by mail. In March 2020, about 95% of U.S. households are to receive mailed "invitations" from the bureau to answer the census online. A household that does not respond is to receive reminders in the mail, then, in April, a paper questionnaire to complete. Almost 5% of householdsâincluding those who receive their mail at post office boxes and those recently displaced by natural disastersâare to have an invitation delivered by census workers. Not quite 1% of households are to be enumerated in person during the initial phase of the census. These households are in remote areas, like parts of Alaska and northern Maine and certain American Indian areas that have asked to be counted in person.

The census form asks for the following basic information: the number of people living or staying in the respondent's home as of April 1, 2020; whether any additional people living or staying in the home were not counted; whether anyone in the home usually lives or stays somewhere else; whether the home is owned, with or without a mortgage, or rented; the respondent's telephone number (in case the Census Bureau needs to contact the person to clarify any responses); the name of each person in the household and the person's relationship to the respondent; each person's sex; the person's age and birthdate; whether the person is "of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin"; and the person's race. The bureau has emphasized that the census never asks a person for his or her Social Security number or bank or credit card account information, for any "money or donations," or for "anything on behalf of a political party." A form purporting to be a census form that requests such information is not from the Census Bureau and is not legitimate.

7. Some people expected the census form to include a Middle Eastern or North African (MENA) racial or ethnic category. WhyÂ doesn't it?

The Census Bureau announced on January 26, 2018, that the form would not have a separate MENA category. A study the bureau released in 2017 noted that the "inclusion of a MENA category" in the 2015 National Content Test helped MENA respondents "more accurately report their MENA identities" and characterized the use of this category as "optimal." Later feedback, however, reportedly indicated the opinion of "a large segment" of the MENA population "that MENA should be treated as a category not for race but ethnicity," which "the bureau so far has not specifically tested." People of MENA background may continue to report themselves as "White." Two examples of "White" shown on the census form are Lebanese and Egyptian, both in the MENA category. The current Office of Management and Budget standards for federal reporting of race and ethnicity, which apply to the Census Bureau, designate "White" as "A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa."

8. The census form does not have a question about citizenship, despite the widespread public perception that it might. What happened?

The 2020 census will collect only the basic data described under question 6, above. It will not ask people for detailed social, demographic, economic, or housing information, including about their legal, immigration, or citizenship status. A citizenship question was proposed, challenged, and ultimately not retained on the census form.

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced on March 26, 2018, that the 2020 census form would include the current American Community Survey question on citizenship. The question is, as it has been in the ACS since before 2010, "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" A checkbox appears beside each of the following possible answers: "Yes, born in the United States"; "Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas"; "Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents"; "Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalizationâPrint year of naturalization"; and "No, not a U.S. citizen."

The Department of Justice maintained that the census, not a survey like the ACS, was "the most appropriate vehicle for collecting" citizenship data "critical to the Department's enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act" and its "protections against racial discrimination in voting."

Opponents of the citizenship question expressed concern that it might depress immigrants' census response rates or cause them to falsify data, especially if their status in the United States, or that of their friends or families, was illegal. Census Bureau fieldworkers in 2017 noted heightened anxiety about data confidentiality among certain foreign-born respondents and reluctance to answer questions, particularly about citizenship status. Six former bureau directors signed a January 26, 2018, letter to Secretary Ross, opposing the late-date introduction of a citizenship question that, at the time, had not been tested for the 2020 census.

Multiple lawsuits were filed to block the question. Judge Jesse Furman, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled on July 26, 2018, that a consolidated suit by the State of New York and others could proceed. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case as Department of Commerce et al. v. New York et al. on April 23, 2019. The Court's decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and issued on June 27, 2019, found that the addition of a citizenship question did not violate the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution or the Census Act (Title 13, U.S. Code , Census ), but the Court held that Secretary Ross's decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act because his sole stated reason for adding the citizenship question was not the real reason for his decision. On July 11, 2019, the President issued an executive order stating that the ruling had "made it impossible, as a practical matter, to include a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census questionnaire." The order, instead, directed "all executive departments and agencies" to give the department "the maximum assistance permissible, consistent with law, in determining the number of citizens and non-citizens in the country, including by providing any access" requested by the department to relevant administrative records. This action, the order continued, "will ensure that the Department will have access to all available records in time for use in conjunction with the census." On September 13, 2019, the organization LUPE and others filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the Commerce Secretary, the Director of the Census Bureau, the Commerce Department, and the Census Bureau, seeking to block implementation of the executive order. The outcome of the suit remains to be determined.

9. Where are all the detailed socioeconomic and housing questions that some people say the census asks?

The American Community Survey is occasionally confused with the decennial census. In past decades, through the 2000 census, the census consisted of a short form, with questions that applied to all U.S. residents, and a long form, which included the short form questions plus many more questions covering social, demographic, economic, and housing topics. The long form went to a representative sample of all U.S. residents, a 17% sample in 2000, and the results could be generalized to the whole resident population. The bureau discontinued the long form after 2000 and launched its replacement, the ACS, in 2005 and 2006. The bureau considers the ACS a part of the decennial census program but conducts it separately from the census. Although the census is administered once a decade, the ACS goes to a small sample of the population every month and, as did the long form, collects myriad data. ACS results are aggregated over time to produce one-year and five-year estimates. For the most populous areas, those with at least 65,000 people, sample data collected over just 12 months can be generalized to an area's whole population. For less populous areas, down to below 20,000 people, data have to be collected over five years to generate representative samples. All areas, however, receive new sets of estimates (either one-year or five-year estimates) every year.

10. What options will people have for responding?

In 2020, for the first time, people will be able to answer the census online. Some people have heard or assumed that because they can answer online, they must answer online or the census will miss them. This concern is based on inaccurate perceptions. The bureau is emphasizing online responses because they can be quick and easy and because they can help control the cost of the census. Anyone who lacks internet access or simply prefers not to respond online, however, can fill out a paper questionnaire. People also will be able to submit their census answers by telephone, by calling Census Questionnaire Assistance centers.

11. How can people answer the census if they are not proficient in English or need language support?

The Census Bureau will make the 2020 census questionnaire available online in 12 non-English languages: Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese), French, Haitian Creole, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. The bureau will provide Census Questionnaire Assistance in the same languages and through a telecommunications device for the deaf. In addition, the bureau will make field enumeration materials available in Spanish and will provide bilingual (English and Spanish) paper questionnaires and related mailings. It also will provide language guides, language glossaries, and language identification cards in 59 non-English languages. The language guides will be available in video and print, including large print, and braille, as well as American Sign Language.

12. Can people ignore the census or refuse to answer it if theyÂ wish?

Refusing or willfully neglecting to answer the census is illegal. Title 13, U.S. Code , Section 141, "Population and other census information," specifies that a decennial census is to be conducted. Section 221, "Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers," states, in full

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.

(c) Not withstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

Title 18, U.S. Code , Crimes and Criminal Procedure , Sections 3559 "Sentencing Classification of Offenses," and 3571, "Sentence of Fine," effectively update the penalties for certain broad classes of offenses, without any specific mention of the census. Under this title and these sections, the possible penalty for the type of offense constituted by refusing or willfully neglecting to answer the census (13 U.S.C. 221(a)) is a fine of not more than $5,000. The possible penalty for providing any false census answer (13 U.S.C. 221(b)) is also $5,000.

13. Some people say that they filled out a census form in 2018 or 2019. Do they still have to answer the 2020 census?

Yes. The Census Bureau did conduct limited 2020 census tests in 2018 and 2019. The 2018 test was the so-called dress rehearsal for the 2020 census, which the bureau described as "the last operational field test" before the actual census. The test was designed to "assess the readiness and integration of planned" 2020 "operations, procedures, systems and field infrastructure." It began in 2017 with address canvassing (explained under question 14. How will the Census Bureau know where people live so that it can contact them in 2020? , below) in Bluefield-Beckley-Oak Hill, West Virginia; Pierce County, Washington; and Providence County, Rhode Island. The enumeration phase of the test occurred in 2018 in Providence County only. As the bureau marked the "successful completion" of the test, a bureau official noted that work would continue through 2019 "to refine and scale" census systems "to ensure the best possible performance" in 2020. In 2019, the bureau selected a nationally representative sample of about 480,000 housing unit addresses to test how a proposed citizenship question might affect census response rates. The test did not involve nonresponse follow-up in the field. Although respondents' cooperation with these tests was helpful to the Census Bureau, the tests were not the actual decennial census. The 2020 census, the complete count of the U.S. resident population, is to occur only in 2020. Even if a person participated in a census test, the person still is obligated to answer the 2020 census questions and can be part of the census count only by doing so.

14. How will the Census Bureau know where people live so that it can contact them in 2020?

Even though people will be able to answer the census online, an accurate Master Address File, with the addresses, geocodes, and other attributes of living quarters, will be, as in past decades, the foundation for contacting the public and conducting a good census. It will enable the bureau to notify the public about the census and, as necessary, send census forms and enumerators to nonresponding households. For the 2010 census, the bureau hired about 150,000 "address canvassers" to walk 11 million census blocks, updating addresses and maps as they went. In preparation for 2020, the bureau created Block Assessment, Research, and Classification Application software to compare satellite images of the United States at successive times. Using this software, the bureau could identify new housing developments, changes in existing houses, and other houses that were built after 2010. The bureau could compare, too, "the number of housing units in current imagery with the number of addresses on file for each block." Satellite imagery enabled the bureau to verify 65% of addresses without going into the field, leaving 35% for field verification. The bureau recruited and trained about 32,000 temporary workers to verify more than 50,000 addresses nationwide, covering about 1.1 million census blocks. On August 12, 2019, the bureau announced the start of this work, the first major field operation of the 2020 census. The operation ended on October 11, 2019.

15. What other census jobs are still available?

The bureau expects to hire up to 500,000 temporary census field workers. Enumerators for the nonresponse follow-up operation, beginning in May 2020 and continuing through early July, are the main example. They will go door-to-door, collecting data from households that have not yet answered the census online, by mail, or by phone. Additionally, in certain remote areas, such as northern Maine and Alaska, visits from census-takers may be the only way for residents to report their census data.

16. Who can apply for these jobs, and when?

According to a bureau official, "Recent high school graduates, veterans, retirees, military spouses, seasonal workers," and people who are bilingual are "highly encouraged to apply." Others are welcome, too. "It's important we hire people in every community in order to have a complete and accurate census," the official said. People are encouraged to apply now to be considered for positions in the spring of 2020. Recruitment has begun; paid training is to occur in March and April.

17. What are the requirements for temporary census workers?

To qualify for temporary census employment, a person must be at least age 18, generally must be a U.S. citizen, must be proficient in English, must have a valid email address, and must complete an application that includes the applicant's Social Security number and answers to a set of assessment questions. For some positions, the applicant has to fill out a background questionnaire. Applicants must be fingerprinted, and their fingerprint images will go to the FBI to be processed and checked for criminal records, although a criminal record will not invariably disqualify an applicant.

18. What are the benefits of being a temporary census worker?

Pay rates, which will vary according to where census jobs are located, will range from $13.50 to $30.00 an hour. Workers will receive paid training. They will be paid weekly, and their hours of work will be flexible. Veterans may be eligible for veterans' preference in hiring, and census employment has no upper age limit.

19. How can the public know that authorized census workers, not impostors or criminals, are in their neighborhoods and knocking on their doors?

Every census field worker should have an identification badge (ID) that shows the worker's photograph, an expiration date for the ID, and a U.S. Department of Commerce watermark. Every respondent can check this identification and, if unsure about its authenticity, contact a regional census center to talk to a bureau representative.

20. The census form asks people to report sensitive personal information. How can they be sure that the confidentiality of these data will be protected?

Legal protections for census data exist, and the Census Bureau also continues working to address cybersecurity vulnerabilities that have been, or are being, identified.

Title 13, U.S. Code , both requires respondents to provide their data and provides for maintaining the confidentiality of data on individuals.

Title 13, Section 9, "Information as confidential; exception," states, in part

(a) Neither the Secretary, nor any other officer of employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, or local government census liaison, may, except as provided in section 8 or 16 or chapter 10 of this title or section 210 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 or section 2(f) of the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997â

(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which it is supplied; or

(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or

(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual reports.

No department, bureau, agency, officer, or employee of the Government, except the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of this title, shall require, for any reason, copies of census reports which have been retained by any such establishment or individual. Copies of census reports which have been so retained shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the individual or establishment concerned, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding.

Title 13, Section 214, "Wrongful Disclosure of Information," states, in full

Whoever, being or having been an employee or staff member referred to in subchapter II of chapter 1 of this title, having taken and subscribed to the oath of office, or having sworn to observe the limitations imposed by section 9 of this title, or whoever, being or having been a census liaison within the meaning of section 16 of this title, publishes or communicates any information, the disclosure of which is prohibited under the provisions of section 9 of this title, and which comes into his possession by reason of his being employed (or otherwise providing services) under the provisions of this title, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Under Title 18, Sections 3559 and 3571, the possible penalty for disclosing "any information, the disclosure of which is prohibited" (13 U.S.C. 214) is a substantially increased fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of less than five years, or both.

The Census Bureau's operational plan has acknowledged the risk that "cybersecurity incidents," including data breaches and denial-of-service attacks, could affect its information technology (IT) systems, such as the online census questionnaires, "mobile devices used for fieldwork, and data processing and storage systems." Under the plan, "IT security controls will be put in place to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the IT systems and data," with the goal of preventing any such incidents from negatively affecting census operations.

At a July 24, 2019, congressional hearing, Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham summarized the bureau's cybersecurity efforts for the 2020 census. He stated, in part

A key feature of the security is encryption of data at every stageâin transit over the internet, at rest within our systems, and on the enumeration devices. Also, enumeration devices are secured with multiple credentials, and if a device is lost, it will be remotely disabled and have all its contents wiped.

Our cybersecurity program is designed to adapt and respond to a changing threat landscape. We incorporate protections in our technology, have processes to continuously monitor systems, and have a team ready to respond immediately to any potential threat.

The Census Bureau works with the Department of Homeland Security, the federal intelligence community, and industry experts to share threat intelligence, giving us the most visibility possible to enable immediate action to protect data. With this cooperation, we identify threats early so that we may proactively respond and improve security.

Our developers and security engineers work together to integrate security into systems design and development. Our systems are independently assessed for cybersecurity before deployment, and ongoing testing of cybersecurity capabilities is conducted throughout the time systems are operational.

Security staff monitor our systems for cybersecurity vulnerabilities with industry-leading tools. We continuously test for more than 100,000 known vulnerabilities, with thousands of new potential vulnerabilities added to the list on a regular basis. If a vulnerability is identified, or security enhancement required, the security team will act quickly to ensure the most effective security posture.

At the same hearing, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted delays or gaps in the bureau's progress toward cybersecurity for 2020:

The Bureau has established a risk management framework that requires it to conduct a full security assessment for nearly all the systems expected to be used for the 2020 Census and, if deficiencies are identified, to determine the corrective actions needed to remediate those deficiencies. As of the end of May 2019, the Bureau had over 330 corrective actions from its security assessments that needed to be addressed, including 217 that were considered "high-risk" or "very high-risk." However, of these 217 corrective actions, the Bureau identified 104 as being delayed. Further, 74 of the 104 were delayed by 60 or more days. According to the Bureau, these corrective actions were delayed due to technical challenges or resource constraints. GAO recently recommended that the Bureau take steps to ensure that identified corrective actions for cybersecurity weaknesses are implemented within prescribed time frames.

GAO commended the bureau for working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "to support" its "cybersecurity efforts." During the past two years,

as a result of these activities, the Bureau has received 42 recommendations from DHS to improve its cybersecurity posture. GAO recently recommended that the Bureau implement a formal process for tracking and executing appropriate corrective actions to remediate cybersecurity findings identified by DHS. Implementing the recommendation would help better ensure that DHS's efforts result in improvements to the Bureau's cybersecurity posture.

The GAO testimony also called attention to a Commerce Department Office of Inspector General (IG) report identifying challenges in the bureau's "cloud based systems" supporting the census. The bureau "agreed with all eight" of the IG's recommendations concerning these systems and "identified actions taken to address them."

In addition, recognizing that "many of the same digital and social channels" being used to promote the census can work against it as well, the bureau established a "trust and safety team" to combat "the spread of misinformation (incorrect information spread unintentionally) and disinformation (incorrect information spread intentionally)." According to the bureau, the team comprises "more than a dozen communications and social media experts under the executive leadership of career senior officials." It is coordinating the bureau's "efforts with external technology and social media platforms, partner and stakeholder organizations, and cybersecurity officials." Drawing on "best practices from the public and private sectors," the team is monitoring "all available channels and open platforms for misinformation and disinformation about the census." The bureau also has launched a "Fighting 2020 Census Rumors" page on its website and has asked members of the public to email [email address scrubbed] if they see any "resources," social media postings, or websites that they think contain incorrect information about the census.

Noteworthy in this context is a December 19, 2019, press report of an announcement by the social media company Facebook that, starting in 2020, it "will remove posts, photos," and other contents "that mislead people" about the census, "aiming to prevent malicious actors from interfering" with the process. "Under the new rules, Facebook will ban posts from misrepresenting when and how the census occurs, who can participate and what happens to the personal information people submit to the government, company executives said." According to the article, "Facebook and other tech giants, including Google and Twitter, have huddled with government officials in recent months to prevent census disinformation." Other companies "have unveiled their own defensive measures: Google in December said it prohibited ads and YouTube videos that aim to misinform about the 2020 count. Twitter's rules, meanwhile, prohibit 'misleading information about how to participate in an election or other civic event'," which presumably could include the census.


Reauthorization of Federal Highway Programs

Summary: Federal highway construction and safety programs are currently authorized through September 30, 2020, under the five-year Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94 ). For the 1,027,849-mile system of federal-aid highways, the FAST Act provided an average of $45 billion annually. Although there are exceptions, federally funded projects are generally limited to this system that includes roughly 25% of all U.S. public road mileage. Of these funds, nearly 93% are distributed to the states via formula. The states have nearly complete control over the use of these funds, within the limits of federal planning, eligibility, and oversight rules. Money is not provided up front. A state is reimbursed after work is started, costs are incurred, and the state submits a voucher to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The highway program focuses on highway construction and planning, and does not support operations or routine maintenance. The federal share of project costs is generally 80%, but 90% for Interstate System projects.

Summary: Nearly all highway funding comes from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The excise taxes on gasoline and diesel, which are the main support of the HTF, are fixed in terms of cents per gallon (18.3 cents for gasoline and 24.3 cents for diesel), and do not adjust for inflation or change with fuel prices. The rates were last raised in 1993. These taxes no longer raise enough money to support the programs Congress has authorized. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections estimate that the HTF shortfall for a five-year reauthorization bill, FY2021-FY2025, will be $68.8 billion, of which the highway portion will be $46.5 billion.

Summary: The funding shortfall is a major issue framing the reauthorization debate. The FAST Act transferred $70 billion in general Treasury funds to the HTF, $51.9 billion of which were for highways. Congress could deal with the shortfall that is projected to persist over the coming years in three ways: again transfer money from the Treasury general fund; cut spending by roughly 25%; and raise revenue dedicated to the HTF. Widely discussed revenue options include increasing the rates of existing gasoline, diesel, and truck taxes or imposing new charges such as a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) charge.

Summary: Other issues likely to be considered by Congress include the following:

Summary: Whether any additional federal spending for highways should be distributed by formula, giving the states greater control, or through discretionary programs that distribute funds based on Administration or congressional priorities. Whether to retain the current highway funding formula, which links states' annual apportionments to their funding shares in past years, or to introduce such formula factors as each state's lane miles, population growth, or VMT. Whether to create stand-alone programs to address issues such as bridge conditions or climate change mitigation and adaptation. Whether the stand-alone National Highway Freight Program, a formula program that has been highly popular with the states, should be funded at a higher level relative to the other formula programs. Whether the Emergency Relief program should be expanded to cover a wider range of resilience needs. Whether states should be permitted to place tolls on free Interstate Highway lanes, and whether to regulate the use of tolls.

Summary: The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) reported the America ' s Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019 (ATIA; S. 2302 ) on August 1, 2019 . The bill includes the highway elements of surface transport ation reauthorization under EPW' s jurisdiction. It is the only active FAST Act reauthorization bill to date.

Federal aid to highways is provided through highway programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These programs and activities are authorized as part of multiyear surface transportation reauthorization acts. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94 ) authorized federal highway spending from FY2016 through September 30, 2020. This report examines the major highway issues Congress will likely consider during reauthorization.

There are over 4 million miles of public roads in the United States, of which roughly 25% are eligible for federal aid. These eligible roads, designated federal-aid highways, include all of the nation's major roads. Federal highway funds generally cannot be spent on local roads, neighborhood streets, or minor rural collectors.

The federal government provides funds to the states and territories for the building and improvement of eligible roads under the Federal-Aid Highway Program. The major characteristics of this program have been constant since the early 1920s. Most funds are apportioned to the states by formulas established in law. State departments of transportation largely determine which projects are funded, award the contracts, and oversee project development and construction. The states are required to pay 20% of the cost of non-Interstate System road projects and 10% for Interstate System projects. Federal assistance is focused on construction, and may not be used to fund operating costs or routine maintenance activities.

The five-year FAST Act authorized a total of $225 billion for highways from FY2016 to FY2020. It provided for modest annual increases in federal highway spending over that period ( Figure 1 ).

Apportioned (Formula) and Allocated (Discretionary) Programs

Apportionment is the distribution of funds among the states by statutory formula. Under the FAST Act, roughly 93% of federal highway funds were apportioned to the states ( Figure 2 ). The remaining sums were allocated for roads on federally owned lands or Indian reservations, for discretionary highway grants awarded by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and for FHWA administrative expenses.

Historically, many discretionary programs were established by Congress to target specific policy objectives, such as promoting bridge construction. However, from the late 1990s until 2011, nearly all competitive grant program funds were earmarked, that is, directed to projects specified by Congress in authorization or appropriations acts. Earmarks have not been permitted since 2011.

The apportioned programs within the Federal-Aid Highway Program include five "core" programs plus the Metropolitan Planning Program. The core programs are the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), and the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP). The FAST Act does not use separate formulas to determine each state's apportionments under each core program. Instead, all the formula programs under the FAST Act are funded from a single annual authorization. From this amount, every state receives a single gross apportionment that is calculated based on the state's share of the FY2015 apportionments. Each state is then guaranteed that its apportionment represents at least a return of 95 cents for every dollar the state contributed to the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), the mechanism through which formula funding is distributed to the states. Each state's total apportionment is then divided among the five formula programs and the Metropolitan Planning Program according to statute. Figure 3 charts the nationwide outcome of the distribution among the programs.

The FAST Act provided an annual average of $45 billion for highways, about 10% more (unadjusted for inflation) than the annual average under the previous authorization bill, the two-year Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141 ).The America's Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019 ( S. 2302 ), reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on August 1, 2019, would provide a roughly 27% increase above the FAST Act authorizations.

With the United States building few entirely new highways, the condition of existing highway infrastructure is a key issue in determining funding needs. FHWA's most recent biennial Conditions and Performance (C&P) report, drawing on FY2014 data, showed a mixed picture of the federal-aid system: the share of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on pavements with good ride quality rose from 44.2% in 2004 to 47.0% in 2014, but the share of VMT on pavements with poor ride quality also increased, from 15.1% to 17.3%, over that period. The Interstate Highways were the road category in the best condition.

Based on FY2014 data, the C&P report found that annual spending, $105.4 billion on all public roads from all sources of government, was more than sufficient to sustain the system condition and performance at the current level through 2034. Given the subsequent spending increases under the FAST Act, highway and bridge conditions may be better today than reflected in the FY2014 data.

The C&P report also estimated the cost of completing all proposed work on federal-aid highways for which the benefits are expected to exceed the costs. The report found that annual spending by all levels of government would need to be roughly 30% higher than the 2014 level through 2034 if all such improvements were to be funded.

Rather than appropriating funds annually, Congress has funded federal-aid highway programs through the HTF. The HTF is able to receive revenue from dedicated taxes and spend it on highways and public transportation prior to an appropriation; a mechanism called the obligation limit, included in the authorization act and appropriations acts, caps the amount of highway funding FHWA can promise the states in any year. About 85%-90% of the tax revenues that flow into the HTF are from an 18.3 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline and a 24.3 cents-per-gallon tax on diesel fuel, with the remainder coming mainly from taxes on sales of trucks and truck tires as well as a heavy vehicle use tax.

The HTF has two separate accounts, one for highway programs and the other for public transportation. The highway account, which funds the Federal-Aid Highway Program, much of the budget of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the entire budget of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, receives 15.4 cents per gallon from the gasoline tax and 21.4 cents per gallon from the diesel fuel tax, as well as all of the revenue from the taxes imposed on trucks and truck use. The reliance of the HTF on the gasoline and diesel taxes has become problematic because tax receipts do not increase with inflation in highway construction costs or with the price of fuel. The rates have not been increased since 1993. In 2018 a gasoline tax of approximately 45 cents per gallon would have been needed to equal the purchasing power of the 18.3-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax in 1998.

In addition, sluggish growth in vehicle travel and improved vehicle efficiency have depressed the growth of gallons consumed, further constraining revenues. Since 2008, Congress has transferred nearly $144 billion to the HTF ($114.7 billion to the highway account alone) from the Treasury general fund and other sources in order to fill the gap between the tax revenue flowing into the fund and the outlays Congress has authorized. Despite these transfers, without a reduction in the size of the surface transportation programs, an increase in revenues, or further general fund transfers, the highway account balance in the HTF is projected to be close to zero in the first month of FY2022. At that point, FHWA would likely have to delay payments to state departments of transportation for completed work.

The closures and stay-at-home orders implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic may make the HTF's funding shortfall more severe. As many employers closed or shifted to telework and fewer Americans drove to work, gasoline tax revenues will likely fall below projections. If states continue road projects as planned, the highway account balance could approach zero sooner than previously expected unless Congress provides additional funds.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that HTF highway account outlays (spending) will continue to outpace revenues through F2026 ( Figure 4 ) under current law. This projection, made prior to the COVID-19-related shutdowns, estimates that in funding a five five-year reauthorization beginning in FY2021 Congress faces a projected highway account shortfall of $46.5 billion. This is the amount of additional revenue Congress would need to provide to the HTF, whether from increased taxes, transfers from the general fund, or other sources, in order to avoid reducing the scope of the highway program. These are the amounts that the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee would have to deal with if Congress decides to fund reauthorization at current levels plus expected inflation. CBO's March 2020 projection did not consider the impact of COVID-19 on HTF revenues and spending.

Consequently, a major reauthorization issue is assuring that the HTF has sufficient resources over the life of the act to pay for the authorizations Congress provides. The options include the following:

Continue Transfers from the General Fund

Since 2008 Congress has had a de facto policy of dealing with the HTF shortfall via transfers, mostly from the Treasury general fund, weakening the long-standing link between highway user revenues and the construction and maintenance of highways. Congress could continue this policy in a reauthorization act or make the policy permanent. In the recent past, a rule of the House of Representatives has required Congress to identify "offsets" in the form of other revenues or spending reductions equal to the amounts transferred from the general fund to the HTF. This requirement has not been a House rule since January 2019.

Congress could reduce spending on the Federal-Aid Highway Program. To bring outlays into line with anticipated revenues, the needed reduction would be roughly 25%. Rather than reducing highway outlays, Congress could eliminate the HTF's mass transit account and use all HTF revenues for highway purposes only, leaving public transportation to be funded entirely from the general fund. However, even if all HTF revenues were dedicated to highways, the HTF is projected to face annual shortfalls beginning in FY2024. According to CBO, annual HTF revenue is projected to be almost $20 billion less than the cost of maintaining the present level of highway spending, adjusted for inflation, in FY2026, even if no HTF money goes to public transportation.

Congress could make a major reduction in federal funding by devolving responsibility for highways to the states and reducing federal motor fuel and truck taxes accordingly. States could then raise their own highway revenues or reduce spending as they see fit. The challenge of making these adjustments would vary greatly from state to state. Devolution would have significant federal front-end costs, as the federal government would remain obligated to reimburse the states for highway projects committed to in previous years.

Increase Tax Revenue Dedicated to the HTF

Although there is a wide variety of revenue sources that could be used to provide revenues to the HTF, the four that have received significant interest in Congress in recent years are: raising the gasoline and diesel tax rates; imposing a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) charge; imposing a carbon tax; and taxing electric vehicles.

The gasoline and diesel taxes could be raised enough to make up for loss of purchasing power and then be adjusted annually for inflation and fuel efficiency. Based upon the current level of fuel consumption, an initial increase of fuel taxes in the range of 10 cents to 15 cents per gallon would be required to fund highway and public transportation programs at their current levels, adjusted for anticipated inflation. Electric vehicles (EVs), which currently do not contribute to the HTF, could be charged for road use. Finding an efficient way for the federal government to tax EVs presents a challenge, as it does not collect information about their ownership or use. Some recent proposals would use the personal income tax to reach EV owners, rather than taxing the vehicles based on use. Approximately 1.5 million EVs are currently in use, according to the Edison Electric Institute, so an annual fee approximating the roughly $80 in federal fuel taxes paid for the average passenger vehicle each year would raise comparatively little revenue over the life of a five-year reauthorization act. Charging vehicle owners for each mile of travel has been discussed for many years as an alternative to the motor fuel taxes. However, a VMT charge would have relatively high collection and enforcement costs (estimates range from 5% to 13% of collections) and the administrative challenge of collecting the charge from roughly 268 million vehicles. Setting and adjusting VMT rates would likely be as controversial as increasing motor fuel taxes. Imposing a VMT on heavy trucks only, as has been done in Germany, might be less onerous to implement because it would involve a much smaller number of collection points. A truck-only VMT concept has already run into stiff opposition from trucking interests. A national VMT on heavy trucks could also face tax administrative issues. The payments to Toll Collect, the contractor that collects Germany's truck VMT charge, are estimated to be as high as 13% of annual revenues. A carbon tax could be assessed on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with a share of the revenue dedicated to federal transportation programs. In December 2019, CBO estimated that a carbon tax of $25 per metric ton would increase federal revenues by $1.1 trillion between 2019 and 2028.The effect on the HTF would depend on the design of the tax and how much of the revenue would be reserved for the HTF.

Federal law permits the vast majority of roads in the United States to be converted to toll roads. However, the law bans the tolling of existing Interstate System highway lane capacity. For an existing road or bridge to be converted to a toll facility, it must be reconstructed or replaced. FHWA does not regulate toll rates, but it does enforce statutory limitations on the use of toll revenues. In general, these limitations require that a toll facility's revenues be spent on the toll facility.

All revenue from tolls flows to the state or local agencies or private entities that operate tolled facilities; the federal government does not collect any revenue from tolls. While tolls may be an effective way of financing specific facilitiesâespecially major roads, bridges, or tunnels that are located such that the tolls are difficult to evadeâthey may not be cost-effective in areas with low population densities. However, a major expansion of tolling might reduce the need for federal expenditures on roads.

Within the context of surface transportation reauthorization, there are several approaches to tolling that Congress could consider:

allowing states to toll existing Interstate Highway lane capacity under certain circumstances, such as following major capacity expansion; permitting or prohibiting toll schedules that favor in-state vehicles or that toll only trucks; regulating rate setting under certain or all conditions; and expanding or restricting states' ability to use toll revenue to substitute for the non-federal share of federal-aid highway projects.

A perennial question in highway reauthorization is how much of the funding should be distributed by formula to the states and how much should be distributed at the discretion of DOT. Prior to the ban on congressional earmarking in FY2011 virtually all of the discretionary program funding was earmarked by Congress. This, in effect, meant that the project spending decisions for the discretionary funds were under the direct control of Members of Congress. Under the earmarking ban, discretionary program project awards are selected by DOT under criteria set in the legislative language establishing the program. Although this congressional influence over project selection is not as direct as earmarking, Congress exercises more control over the use of discretionary funds than over the core program formula funds, which are under the control of the states.

In reauthorization, Congress could increase the share of highway funding that is distributed by formula, diminishing the role of discretionary programs, or expand discretionary programs rather than formula funding. Recent surface transportation bills have reduced the number of discretionary programs, but Congress could choose to create new ones to address specific issues, for example, bridge conditions.

Studies have indicated that large increases in federal highway spending can lead to a substitution of federal funds for state spending on highways. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5 ), the stimulus bill enacted in the midst of the 2007-2009 financial crisis, contained a "maintenance of effort" provision requiring the governor of a state receiving stimulus funds to certify that the state would maintain its spending for specific purposes, including transportation infrastructure, in return for greater federal funding. A maintenance of effort requirement could be included in FAST Act reauthorization, especially if the bill provides a large increase in highway funding. However, declines in states' revenue resulting from employer closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic could make it more challenging for states to maintain spending levels.

Formula Distribution/State Equity Issues

Because the formula distributions in both the FAST Act and MAP-21 were based on the apportionment of the federal-aid highway formula programs to the states in the last year of the previous authorization bill, the relative distribution of funds among the states is basically the same as it was in 2009. It has not been adjusted for population growth, internal migration, highway and bridge infrastructure growth, or traffic growth.

Defining the formula in this way carries over the "equity" adjustments made in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity ActâA Legacy for Users (SAFETEA; P.L. 109-59 ), enacted in 2005. These adjustments ensured that each state received formula funds equal to at least a specified percentage of the amount of motor fuel taxes its drivers paid into the highway account of the HTF. By effectively carrying over the equity redistribution, the current funding formula minimizes debates over the fairness of the distribution to individual states.

In reauthorization, Congress could continue to retain a formula based on the previous distribution, or could replace it with a new formula paradigm that might incorporate factors intended to achieve specific policy goals. In the past, funding for individual highway programs was apportioned to the states using such formula factors as the ratio of federal-aid highway lane miles or vehicle miles traveled to the national total.

The FAST Act did not authorize a stand-alone highway bridge program. Instead, bridge improvements under the Fast Act are funded primarily via the NHPP and STBG based on states' priorities. As of December 31, 2018, of the 616,096 bridges in the U.S. National Bridge Inventory, 47,045 (7.6%) were in poor condition. This number has been declining for many years, but there is still a significant backlog of bridges awaiting major repairs or replacement. Should Congress wish to accelerate the reduction in the number of bridges in poor condition through the reauthorization process it could create a stand-alone bridge program. If this were a formula program, the states would select the projects; if it were a discretionary program, project choices would likely be made by DOT.

Another highway bridge issue is how much federal bridge spending should be dedicated to bridges off the federal-aid highway network. Many of these are rural county-owned bridges. Under the FAST Act, each state must devote at least 15% of the amounts it received under the Highway Bridge Program in FY2009 to bridges. This amount is taken from the state's STBG funds. If it wishes to give priority to repairing rural bridges, Congress could raise the states' minimum spending level or could dedicate a specific amount to rural bridge projects.

Current law penalizes states whose structurally deficient bridge deck area on the National Highway System, a network of 220,169 road-miles, exceeds 10% of its total National Highway System bridge deck area for three years in a row. In such a case, the state must devote NHPP funds equal to 50% of the state's FY2009 Highway Bridge Program apportionment to improve bridge conditions until the deck area of structurally deficient bridges falls to 10% or below. Congress could increase the penalty to encourage more spending of NHPP funds on bridges or eliminate the penalty and leave the bridge spending of NHPP funds entirely up to the states.

When state officials determine that a bridge is unsafe, they are to close it to traffic immediately. The actual closing of a bridge is usually done by the state, but in some states closures are under the authority of county commissioners. The recent failure of local officials in Mississippi to close unsafe bridges until the state was threatened with the withholding of federal funds suggests that unsafe bridge closures do not always happen immediately. Congress may wish to consider the safety of bridges not directly under the control of the states in reauthorization.

The FAST Act created two new programs to facilitate highway freight movement. The National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) is a formula program that provided up to $1.5 billion annually to the states for highway components designated as being especially important to freight movement. Having a separate freight formula program helps states concentrate funding for projects on freight routes.

The FAST Act also created a discretionary grant program, the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program, now called Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA), with funding of $1 billion in FY2020. INFRA discretionary grants are mostly for relatively large projects to enhance freight movement. They may be applied for by virtually any government entity. The program has received applications for far more funding than has been authorized. Despite the program's popularity, DOT has been criticized for a lack of transparency in the selection process and for selecting projects that do not have the highest cost/benefit ratios.

Given the popularity of these programs, the likely reauthorization issues are the funding levels, eligibility changes, and, in the case of INFRA, oversight of the project selection process. If Congress wishes to allocate additional funding to improve freight movement, it would need to determine the share that would be distributed under the NHFP formula for spending at the discretion of the states versus the funding dedicated to INFRA and administered by DOT. Although the National Freight Network is vast, the worst congestion on freight routes occurs in a limited number of locations, mostly around Interstate Highway junctions in major urban areas.

Highway transportation is a major source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), the main human-related greenhouse gas (GHG) contributing to climate change. Highway infrastructure will also bear the effects of climate change, such as extreme heat, sea level rise, and stronger storms. Highway policy responses to climate change can involve mitigation provisions that aim to reduce GHG emissions or adaptation provisions that aim to make the highway infrastructure more resilient to a changing climate.

The federal-aid highway program already includes some programs that can be seen as being mitigation programs. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program (CMAQ), for example, although not designed to address climate change, typically funds projects that reduce pollutant emissions from cars and trucks that also co-emit CO 2 . Other surface transportation programs that may contribute indirectly to the reduction of GHG emissions include the Transportation Alternatives program, which funds bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, as well as core formula program eligibility and funding transfer provisions that allow highway funds to support mass transit. Congress may wish to consider mitigation options that encourage or support activities such as ride sharing, truck stop electrification, alternative fuel fueling stations, the use of hybrid electric and electric vehicles, and congestion relief policies.

Adaptation is action to reduce the vulnerabilities and increase the resilience of the transportation system to the effects of climate change. Adaptation options for highways and bridges include structural and nature-based engineering and policy-based activities. For example, highway bridges can be engineered structurally to withstand the threats of stronger winds, higher storm surges, and increased flooding.

Although currently there is no dedicated highway funding for adaptation projects, federal-aid highway funds can be used to assess the potential impacts of climate change and to apply adaptation strategies. Congress could add programs or program provisions to encourage or pay for adaptation and resiliency measures. The federal matching share could be increased for protective features and disaster relief definitions could be expanded to include resiliency measures.

The Emergency Relief program provides federal assistance to state departments of transportation for emergency repairs and restoration of federal-aid highway facilities following a natural disaster or catastrophic failure. Congress has long authorized $100 million per year to be spent from the HTF for Emergency Relief, but spending exceeds this amount virtually every year. Additional funding is provided via appropriations on a "such sums as needed" basis, usually following major disasters. These additional funds both pay for both quick release funds dispersed immediately following a disaster that are in excess of the annual $100 million authorization and pay for permanent repairs for damage from both recent disasters and the repair backlog from previous disasters. This situation raises two policy questions: whether to raise the annual authorization to reduce the reliance on supplemental disaster appropriations and how to resolve the repair backlog.

States seeking Emergency Relief funds now must consider resilience to climate change in designing and constructing highway and bridge repairs. Resilience is broadly defined as "the capability to anticipate, prepare for, respond to and recover from significant multi-hazard threats with minimum damage to social well-being, the economy and the environment." Using risk-based analyses, this approach is designed to reduce the potential for future losses. However, states may be tempted to use Emergency Relief funding, which requires no state match, to make improvements that might otherwise have been made with federal formula funds or state funds.

Emergency Relief is a basically a reactive program, and is not designed to fund resilience measures in advance of disasters. Congress could consider expanding the scope of the program to allow for the funding of resilience measures to some undamaged facilities that are at high risk, or could establish a separate resilience program while leaving Emergency Relief to retain its focus on disaster response and repair.

Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation Programs

Congress has established three separate programs to fund highways on federal and tribal lands. Their total funding under the FAST Act has averaged about $1.1 billion per year.

The Federal Lands Transportation Program's average annual authorization is $355 million under the FAST Act. Most of this amount is for the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service.

The Federal Lands Access Program supports projects that are on, adjacent to, or provide access to federal lands. Funding is allocated among the states by a formula.

The Tribal Transportation Program distributes funds among tribes, mainly under a statutory formula based on road mileage, tribal population, and relative need.

In addition, the FAST Act established the Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects Program to support large projects on federal and tribal lands. Projects must have an estimated cost of at least $25 million, with priority given to projects costing over $50 million. The program is authorized at $100 million annually, but requires an appropriation to make funds available. It has received appropriations of $300 million for FY2018, $25 million for FY2019, and $70 million for FY2020.

Funding for all of these programs is likely to be an issue in reauthorization. The National Park Service, for example, has a considerable backlog of road repairs, but repairs to the agency-owned Memorial Bridge in Washington, DC, which cost 80% of the Park Service's average annual allocation under the FAST Act, made it difficult for the Park Service to address other repair needs. In addition, some states and Indian tribes have called for revising the formulas used to allocate Federal Lands Access Program and Tribal Transportation Program funds.

Although the majority of highway funds are awarded as grants, the federal government also supports highway infrastructure financing under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA).

The TIFIA program provides secured loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit for major surface transportation projects. Loans must be repaid with a dedicated revenue stream; for highway projects this is typically a toll. TIFIA is funded at $300 million for FY2020. Assuming an average subsidy cost of 7%, this funding may allow lending of roughly $4.3 billion in the year. States may use their funds from two formula programs, NHPP and STBG, to pay the administrative and subsidy costs of the program. Additionally, the FAST Act allows project sponsors to use discretionary INFRA grants to pay these costs, although this has not occurred.

The main issue in reauthorization is the funding level. Despite the program's popularity, DOT calculated that it had $1.65 billion unobligated budget authority at September 30, 2018. Congress could encourage greater use of TIFIA funds by increasing the federal project share allowable, broadening eligibility, and accelerating the processing of applications. Should Congress wish to increase the availability of TIFIA financing without increasing the program authorization, it could also change the subsidy calculation. A less conservative calculation by DOT and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) could allow DOT to lend a greater amount with the same amount of budget authority, although this would increase the level of risk to the federal government. Congress could also lower TIFIA funding to eliminate the unobligated balances.

TIFIA is one means of financing projects without relying on pay-as-you-go funding, thereby accelerating construction. Other financing proposals, such as creation of a National Infrastructure Bank and expanded funding of state infrastructure banks, might also be considered in reauthorization. In the past, such proposals have faltered, in part due to their apparent duplication of intent with the TIFIA program.

The length of time between project inception and completion has long been a concern of Congress. The many reasons for delays include difficulty in achieving agreement on the commitment of funds, public opposition, litigation, public comment requirements, contractor and materials delays, and the environmental review process. The FAST Act included 18 provisions intended to accelerate project delivery, mainly directing changes in how the environmental review process is implemented. In highway reauthorization, Congress may want to require studies evaluating the impacts of the FAST Act changes and FHWA's implementation actions.

A number of highway data and study issues have emerged recently that could be considered in reauthorization.

FHWA's Highway Statistics series is designed to provide a broad range of annual statistical tables and charts on the extent, condition, funding, and other attributes of U.S. highways. However, in recent years some of the tables have not been produced, while others are produced years after the fiscal year they describe, lessening their value to policymakers. Congress could request an explanation from FHWA or request the Government Accountability Office to review the FHWA's data collection and publication procedures. FHWA is dependent on the states for much of the underlying data.

The recently released 23 rd edition of the biennial Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance; Report to Congress was released two years late and based on FY2014 data. The report contains the most comprehensive information about the condition of U.S. highway and mass transit infrastructure conditions, along with estimates of the future funding needed to maintain or improve the conditions and transportation system performance. The most recent report does not reflect the increased funding authorized in the FAST Act or recent transportation appropriations bills, so it is difficult to judge the impact of these spending increases. Congress could consider requiring a study of why DOT relies on five-year-old data to prepare the report.

FHWA formerly produced Highway Cost Allocation Studies (HCASs) to estimate the cost, in terms of wear and tear, imposed by different types of vehicles (including trucks categorized by weight) using U.S. highways. In these studies, highway taxes per mile paid into the HTF by different types of vehicles were compared to the cost per mile of pavement, bridge, and other highway-related damage caused by each vehicle type. The last FHWA Highway Cost Allocation Study was the 2000 supplement to the 1997 study. Without a congressional directive and funding to complete a new study, the FHWA has chosen not to conduct one. Congress could consider funding and requesting a new study, which might be helpful in judging whether the current rates of highway-related taxes paid by various users adequately reflect the damage their vehicles cause to highway infrastructure.

Because freight infrastructure decisions are often made at the state or local level, it would be helpful for transportation planners to know the characteristics of the trucks traveling particular highway segments. DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the Census Bureau conduct a survey of shippers every five years that provides information on shipments leaving factories, warehouses, and ports. However, the sample size is not sufficient to provide reliable data for any specific urban area, and the survey is too infrequent to identify recent trends. The survey was designed more to provide a national picture of freight transport than to meet local or regional needs. A policy question for Congress is whether the federal government should be responsible for providing more robust and tim ely freight data for state and local transportation planners.

Measures to improve the safety of roadway infrastructure are funded primarily through the FHWA Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Measures related to vehicles and to driver behavior are handled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and, in the case of commercial vehicles and drivers, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

HSIP is the largest safety program up for reauthorization. HSIP primarily funds infrastructure improvements, such as rumble strips, roadway striping, intersection redesign, and safety-related technologies. HSIP is one of the few highway programs that allows for spending on any public road, not just federal-aid highways. Reauthorization issues include funding amounts and eligibility changes.

Driver behavior is the primary factor in the vast majority of fatal crashes. However, driver behavior is generally a state matter and not under federal control. When Congress wishes to change driver behavior, it typically does so by providing grants to states or by withholding grants if states fail to implement federal policies. For example, states that fail to establish 21 as the minimum age to purchase alcoholic beverages can be subject to funding reductions. A review of the effectiveness of such penalties could be part of the reauthorization process. Past issues in driver behavior that could emerge in reauthorization include restrictions on federal funding of automated devices to enforce speed limits, motorcycle helmet laws, and state measures concerning impaired driving.

NHTSA also establishes minimum standards for passenger vehicles. The time it takes NHTSA to update these standards has been an issue. NHTSA also tests vehicles for compliance with safety standards, rates the crashworthiness of vehicles, and monitors consumer complaints about vehicles for evidence of safety defects that may necessitate a vehicle recall. A study of the effectiveness of NHTSA's early warning reporting (EWR) system could be of interest to Congress.

Unlike the behavior of ordinary drivers whose behavior is regulated by the state and local governments, the behavior of commercial drivers who engage in interstate commerce is a federal matter under the auspices of FMCSA. Issues that could be considered in reauthorization include the regulation of hours of service for commercial drivers and the related mandate for use of electronic logging devices, the roadside safety examination of intercity buses, specific driver health requirements, and possible modification of age restrictions on commercial drivers.