Order Code RL34022
The Department of Housing and Urban
Development: FY2008 Appropriations
May 29, 2007
Maggie McCarty, Libby Perl, and Bruce E. Foote
Domestic Social Policy Division
Eugene Boyd
Government and Finance Division
Meredith Peterson
Knowledge Services Group

---

The Department of Housing and Urban Development:
FY2008 Appropriations
Summary
On February 5, 2007, President Bush released his FY2008 budget request, ten
days before the Congress finished work on the FY2007 spending bills by approving
a revised year-long continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). The FY2007 CR funded most
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs at their FY2006
level, but with decreases for some programs, and increases for other programs. The
CR provided HUD with over $36.6 billion for FY2007.
The President’s FY2008 budget requests about a billion dollar decrease in
funding for HUD. It proposes to provide no new funding for several programs that
have been targeted for elimination in recent years, but that Congress has continued
to fund (HOPE VI, Rural Housing and Economic Development, Brownfields
Redevelopment, and Section 108 Loan Guarantees). The President’s FY2008 budget
also requests decreased funding for several programs, including Section 202 Housing
for the Elderly, Section 811 Housing for the Disabled, the Community Development
Block Grant program, Lead Hazard Reduction, Fair Housing programs, and the
Public Housing Capital Fund. Each of these programs has been targeted for
decreases in past budget requests, but Congress did not approve the requested
decreases. The President’s budget requests funding increases for several programs,
including programs for the homeless, persons with AIDS, and first-time homebuyers.
The FY2008 funding debate will also be shaped by the ongoing decline in
receipts from the Federal Housing Administration available to offset the cost of the
budget. For FY2007, it was estimated that FHA would generate a net surplus of over
$650 million that could offset the cost of the HUD budget; for FY2008, that amount
is estimated to be about $250 million, although Congress may consider legislative
proposals that could increase that amount.
This report, which will be updated, tracks congressional appropriations for HUD
and provides a detailed discussion of the funding and issues related to the majority
of accounts in the Department’s budget.

---

Contents
Introduction to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) . . . . 1
FY2007 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The FY2008 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Housing Certificate Fund Rescission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Public Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Native American Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Rural Housing and Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Community Development Fund/Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The HOME Investment Partnership Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Homeless Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Research and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Fair Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) . . . . . . . . 22
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) . . . . . . . . . 23
List of Tables
Table 1. Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,
FY2003-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 3. Section 8 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Vouchers),
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 4. Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . 7
Table 5. Public Housing, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 6. Native American Block Grants, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 7. HOPWA, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 8. Rural Housing and Economic Development, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . 12
Table 9. Community Development Fund (CDF): Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG) and Related Set-Asides, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . 13
Table 10. CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantees, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 11. Brownfields Redevelopment, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 12. The HOME Investment Partnership Program, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . 15
Table 13. HUD Homeless Programs, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 14. Self Help and Assisted Homeownership, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . 17

---

Table 15. Sections 202 and 811, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 16. Research and Technology, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 17. Fair Housing Programs, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 18. Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 19. Federal Housing Administration, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 20. Government National Mortgage Association, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . 22

---

The Department of Housing and Urban
Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Introduction to the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Most of the appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) are designed to address housing problems faced by households
with very low incomes or other special housing needs. These include programs of
rental assistance for the poor, elderly, or disabled, housing assistance for persons with
AIDS, and shelter for those who are homeless. The two large HUD block grant
programs, HOME and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), also help
communities finance a variety of activities to address the housing and community
development needs of disadvantaged populations. In recent years, HUD has focused
more attention on efforts to increase the homeownership rates for lower-income and
minority households. HUD’s Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insures
mortgages made by lenders to lower-income home buyers, many with below-average
credit records, and to developers of multifamily rental buildings containing relatively
affordable units.
Table 1. Department of Housing and
Urban Development Appropriations, FY2003-FY2007
(net budget authority in billions)
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
$31.01 $31.20 $31.92
$50.68a
$36.63
Source: Figures are from the House Appropriations Committee estimate tables. Final appropriations
levels for any fiscal year include all supplemental appropriations or rescissions. They do not reflect
revised estimates of offsetting receipts.
a. Figure includes $17.1 billion ($11.9 billion in P.L. 109-148 and $5.2 billion in P.L. 109-234) in
emergency supplemental appropriations enacted in response to the 2005 Hurricanes. Regular
FY2006 HUD appropriations totaled just under $33.6 billion.
FY2007 Appropriations
Congress did not complete most FY2007 appropriations bills before the
beginning of the fiscal year, or before the close of the 109th Congress, when the party
control of Congress changed. In order to keep the government running, Congress
approved a series of stop gap funding measures, called continuing resolutions, that
maintained government funding at the lower of the FY2006 enacted, House-passed,

---

CRS-2
or Senate-passed level. On February 15, 2007, the 110th Congress approved a revised
continuing resolution covering the remainder of FY2007 (P.L. 110-5). It funded
most programs at their FY2006 level, although it specified higher or lower funding
levels for some programs, including several HUD programs. Specifically, the CR
funded six HUD accounts above their FY2006 level —
! Tenant Based Rental Assistance: $15,920 million for FY2007;
! Project-Based Rental Assistance: $5,976 million for FY2007;
! Public Housing Operating Fund: $3,864 million for FY2007;
! Indian Housing Loan Guarantee: $6 million for FY2007;
! Homeless Assistance Grants: $1,442 million for FY2007; and
! Salaries and Expenses: the FY2006 levels, plus such sums as
necessary to meet 50% of the need for cost-of-living increases for
federal employees for FY2007.
The CR funded three HUD accounts below their FY2006 level —
! Self Help and Assisted Homeownership: $49 million for FY2007;
! Research and Technology: $50 million for FY2007; and
! Community Development Fund: $3,772 million for FY2007.
The 110th Congress approved an FY2007 supplemental funding bill that
proposes to make several changes to the FY2007 CR. The U.S. Troop Readiness,
Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Act (H.R. 2206) was
introduced on May 8, 2007. The bill, which was in conference as of the date of this
report, contains identical housing-related provisions. Specifically, H.R. 2206
provides additional funding for HUD’s Inspector General in order to oversee
Hurricane Katrina funding, additional funding for the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight, language clarifying how the Department should distribute
FY2007 Section 8 voucher funding, language extending the availability of Katrina
voucher funds, and language clarifying how HUD should treat the renewal of certain
project-based voucher contracts. (For more details on the FY2007 budget for HUD,
see CRS Report RL33344, The Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD): FY2007 Budget, by Maggie McCarty et al.)

---

CRS-3
The FY2008 Budget
Table 2 presents the President’s FY2008 HUD budget request compared to the
prior year’s appropriations.
Table 2. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,
FY2007-FY2008
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Program
Enacteda
Request
Appropriations
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (includes advanced
appropriation) (Sec. 8 vouchers)
$15.920
$16.007
Project Based Rental Assistance (Sec.8)
5.976
5.813
Public housing capital fund
2.439
2.024
Public housing operating fund
3.864
4.000
HOPE VI
0.099
0.000f
Native American housing block grants
0.624
0.627
Indian housing loan guarantee
0.006
0.007
Native Hawaiian Block Grant
0.009
0.006
Native Hawaiian loan guarantee
0.001
0.001
Housing, persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
0.286
0.300
Rural Housing Economic Development
0.017
0.000
Community Development Fund (Including CDBG)
3.772
3.037
CDBG Sec.108 loan guarantee; subsidy
0.004
0.000
Brownfields Economic Development
0.010
0.000
HOME Investment Partnerships
1.757b
1.967b
Homeless Assistance Grants
1.442
1.586
Self-help and Assisted Homeownership
0.049
0.070
Housing for the elderly
0.735
0.575
Housing for the disabled
0.237
0.125
Housing Counseling Assistanceb
b
0.050b
Rental Housing Assistance
0.026
0.000
Research and technology
0.050
0.065
Fair housing activities
0.046
0.045
Office, lead hazard control
0.150
0.116
Salaries and expenses
0.581c
0.654
Working capital fund
0.195
0.220
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fundd
0.013
0.016
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversightd
0.060
0.066
FHA Expensesd
0.722
0.767
GNMA Expensesd
0.011
0.011

---

CRS-4
FY2007
FY2008
Program
Enacteda
Request
Inspector General
0.082
0.088
Appropriations Subtotal
39.182
38.242
Rescissions
Housing Certificate Fund (Section 8) rescission
-1.650
-1.300
HOPE VI rescission
0.000
-0.099f
Neighborhood Initiatives (NI) rescission
0.000
-0.050g
Economic Developments Initiative (EDI) rescission
0.000
-0.307g
Rescissions Subtotal
-1.650
-1.755
Offsetting Receipts/Program Savingse
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund
-0.013
-0.016
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
-0.060
-0.066
Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
-0.652
-0.250
GNMA
-0.181
-0.185
Legislative Proposals
NA
-0.366h
Offsets Subtotal
-0.906
-0.883
Total
$36.626
$35.604
Source: Prepared by CRS based on tables provided by the Appropriations Committee, the President’s
FY2008 Budget documents and HUD Congressional Budget Justifications.
a. The FY2007 year-long continuing resolution funded most accounts at their FY2006 enacted level;
however, the CR specified higher or lower funding levels for some HUD accounts.
b. Housing Counseling Assistance is typically funded as a set-aside in the HOME account. In
FY2007, it was funded at $42 million within HOME. In recent years, including FY2008, the
President’s budget has requested that the program be funded in a separate account.
c. The CR appropriated such sums as may be necessary to fund 50% of the cost of the statutory cost-
of-living increase approved for FY2007. The amount shown here may change if estimates
of the cost of this provision change.
d. The cost of these accounts is generally covered (partially, if not fully) by offsetting receipts that
are listed further down in Table 2.
e. Estimates of offsetting receipts are subject to change.
f. The President has requested that Congress rescind the amount provided in FY2007 for HOPE VI.
g. The President’s budget requests a rescission of FY2007 EDI and NI funds, but no EDI or NI funds
were provided in FY2007.
h. The President has proposed a series of cost-saving FHA modernization proposals, which are
discussed later in this report in the discussion of the Federal Housing Administration.

---

CRS-5
Accounts
The following section of the report provides a detailed discussion of the
majority of accounts included in Table 2. Note that the unit of funding used for
tables may vary between millions and thousands.
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers). The tenant-
based rental assistance account funds the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
program. (See CRS Report RL32284, An Overview of the Section 8 Housing
Program, by Maggie McCarty.) Section 8 vouchers are portable rent subsidies that
low-income families use to reduce their housing costs in the private market. HUD
currently funds more than 2 million Section 8 vouchers, which are administered at
the local level by quasi-governmental Public Housing Authorities (PHAs). This
account funds the cost of those vouchers and the cost of administering the program.
Table 3. Section 8 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Vouchers),
FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Section 8 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (vouchers)
$15,920b,c
$16,007d
Voucher renewals
14,436c
14,445
Rental subsidy reserve
100c
100
Administrative costs
1,238
1,351
Family Self Sufficiency
47
48
Tenant Protection
178
150
Working Capital Fund
6
7
Source: See Table 2.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore
assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
b. Not all subaccount amounts for the tenant-based rental assistance account were specified in the
year-long CR. Only the total amount, the voucher renewal amount, and the rental subsidy
reserve amount were specified. The remainder of the subaccounts are presumably funded at
their FY2006 level. However, if funded at the FY2006 level, the sum of the set-asides would
not equal the total provided to the account ($15,905 million compared to $15,920 million). It
is unclear how the additional $15 million would be spent. The FY2007 supplemental
appropriations bill (H.R. 2206) would amend the FY2007 CR to provide $1,282 million for
administrative fees and $149 million for tenant-protection vouchers.
c. The FY2007 CR specified an amount for this account.
d. The subaccount amounts do not total to the account total owing to the FY2007 advance
appropriation. Each year, the tenant-based rental assistance account is funded in part by an
advance appropriation provided in the previous year, and, each year, Congress funds advance
appropriations for the subsequent year. Most years, the amount is $4.2 billion. In FY2007, the
amount provided in advance appropriations for FY2008 was $4.193 billion. For FY2008, the
President has asked for $4.2 in advance appropriations for FY2009. That net difference, $7
million, appears in the account total shown here but is not shown in the President’s budget
request.

---

CRS-6
Voucher Renewals. The majority of tenant-based rental assistance funding
is dedicated to voucher renewals. Congress has authorized the creation of more than
2 million vouchers over the history of the program, and the funding for virtually all
of them expires every year. If a family is using a voucher to lease an apartment but
funding is not sufficient to renew it, then the family will lose its assistance. Since
FY2004, Congress has made changes each year in the way that HUD distributes
voucher renewal funding to PHAs. (For more information, see CRS Report
RL33929, Recent Changes to Section 8 Housing Voucher Renewal Funding, by
Maggie McCarty.) Several voucher reform proposals have been considered that
would alter the statutory formula for distributing voucher funds, although any
language included in appropriations bills could override such statutory changes. (For
more information, see CRS Report RL34002, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program: Issues and Reform Proposals in the 110th Congress, by Maggie McCarty.)
The FY2007 CR did not adopt the same allocation formula that was in place in
FY2006. In FY2006, PHAs were funded based on what they had received in
FY2005, with some adjustments (including for inflation and some first-time voucher
renewals), and prorated to fit within the amount appropriated. For FY2007, Congress
directed HUD to fund PHAs based on their actual leasing and costs from the
previous 12 months, adjusted for inflation and for the cost of the first-time renewal
of tenant-protection vouchers and vouchers set-aside for project-based use, and
prorated to fit within the amount appropriated. Moving to Work (MTW)
demonstration agencies were funded based on their agreements, subject to proration.
Of the amount provided for renewals, $100 million was set-aside to adjust the
budgets of agencies that (1) had experienced an increase in voucher costs due to
unforeseen circumstances or portability and (2) were adversely affected by the
formula change and risked losing vouchers.
In his FY2008 budget, the President requested that PHAs receive renewal
funding using a formula similar to the one in place in FY2006. Specifically, the
President requested that agencies be funded based on what they received in FY2007;
adjusted for inflation, the costs of deposits to escrow accounts, and the first time
renewal of tenant protection vouchers; and prorated to fit within the amount
appropriated. MTW agencies would be funded pursuant to their agreements, subject
to proration. The President’s budget also requests that $100 million be set aside for
additional rental subsidy needs resulting from unforeseen circumstances and to make
portability adjustments.
Administrative Fees. Prior to FY2004, PHAs were paid a fixed fee per
voucher administered. Beginning in FY2004, at Congress’ direction, HUD changed
the way it distributed administrative fees, providing agencies with a pro-rata share
of the amount appropriated for administrative fees, based on what they had received
in the previous year. The change was designed to contain the cost of administrative
fees, which were estimated to have grown to account for 10% of the cost of a
voucher.
The FY2007 CR did not specify an amount for administrative fees, so they were
funded at their FY2006 level ($1,238 million). The FY2007 supplemental
appropriations bill approved by both the House and the Senate (H.R. 2206) would
amend the CR to increase funding for administrative fees to the amount requested by

---

CRS-7
the President for FY2007 ($1,281 million). For FY2008, the President has requested
$1,351 million for administrative fees and has asked that $5 million be set aside for
incentive bonuses for PHAs that voluntarily consolidate. The President’s budget also
requests the authority to allocate administrative fee funding based on the number of
families assisted by PHAs, as opposed to the pro-rata allocation that has been in place
in recent years.
Tenant Protection Vouchers. Tenant protection vouchers are provided to
families in a variety of circumstances, including families who are threatened with
displacement because the contract on their assisted unit is ending (project-based
Section 8, for example), families who are displaced from public housing (due to
demolition or disposition), families in the witness protection program, and families
in the child welfare system (through the Family Unification Program).
The FY2007 CR did not specify an amount for tenant protection vouchers, so
they were funded at their FY2006 level ($178 million). The FY2007 supplemental
appropriations bill that has passed the House and Senate (H.R. 2206) proposes to
amend the CR to reduce the amount for tenant protection vouchers to $149 million.
For FY2008, the President has requested $150 million for tenant protection vouchers
and has requested the authority to supplement the appropriated funds with funds
recaptured from unobligated balances.
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance. This account provides
funding to administer and renew existing project-based Section 8 rental assistance
contracts between HUD and private landlords. Under those contracts, HUD provides
subsidies to units owned by private landlords that allow eligible low-income families
to live in the units but pay only 30% of their incomes toward rent. No new contracts
have been entered into under this program since the early 1980s; the funding
provided is used only to renew existing contracts and pay administrative costs.
Table 4. Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance,
FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
$5,976b
$5,813
Project-Based Renewals
5,829b
5,522
Contract Administrators
146
286
Working Capital Fund
1
4
Source: See Table 2.
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore
assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
b. The FY2007 CR specified an amount for this account.

---

CRS-8
Contract Administrators. Contract administrators are subcontracted by
HUD to manage the contracts between landlords and the Department. HUD formerly
administered all of the contracts directly, but has set a goal to transfer all contract
administration to subcontractors.
The President’s FY2008 budget requests a 96% increase in appropriations for
contract administrators. HUD’s Congressional Budget Justifications indicate that
this funding increase is necessary in order to maintain the same level of service
provided in FY2005 and FY2006, when the appropriations were supplemented by
recaptured funds. The justifications note that HUD obligated almost $265 million
for contract administrators in FY2006, even though only $146 million was provided
in appropriations. For FY2008, the justifications indicate that additional funding is
not available from recaptured funds, so all of the account needs would have to be met
through new appropriations.
Housing Certificate Fund Rescission. The two Section 8 programs —
tenant-based rental assistance and project-based rental assistance — were previously
funded under a joint account called the Housing Certificate Fund (HCF). The HCF
was split by the FY2005 appropriations law, although the account still retains funding
from prior years’ appropriations. Each year, the Administration makes available for
rescission an amount it estimates will be available from unobligated or recaptured
Section 8 funds within the HCF. In recent years, there has been some controversy
surrounding whether or not there are sufficient unobligated balances in the HCF to
meet the rescission. If HUD cannot meet the rescission from the HCF, it has the
authority to take the funds from other accounts. The FY2007 CR rescinded $1.65
billion from the HCF. The President’s FY2008 budget requests that Congress
rescind $1.3 billion.
Public Housing. The public housing program provides publicly owned and
subsidized rental units for very low-income families. Although no new public
housing developments have been built for many years, Congress continues to provide
funds to the more than 3,100 public housing authorities (PHAs) that maintain the
existing stock of more than 1.2 million units. Through the Operating Fund, HUD
provides funds to PHAs to help fill the gap between tenants’ contributions toward
rent and the cost of ongoing maintenance, utilities, and administration. Through the
Capital Fund, HUD provides funding to PHAs for large capital projects and
modernization needs. HOPE VI is a competitive grant program that provides funds
to help demolish and/or redevelop severely distressed public housing developments,
with a focus on building mixed-income communities.

---

CRS-9
Table 5. Public Housing, FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008

Enacteda
Request
Public Housing Operating Fund
$3,864b
$4,000
Operating Subsidies
3,864
3,994
Transition to asset-based management/new formula
0
6
Public Housing Capital Fund
$2,439
$2,024
Formula Grants
NS
1,966
Technical assistance/remediation
11
15
Administrative receivership
9
10
Emergency reserve
17
0
Service coordinators and supportive services
38
0
(ROSS)
Financial and physical assessments
0
15
Neighborhood Networks
7
0
Working Capital Fund
11
17
HOPE VI
$99
-$0c
Source: See Table 2.
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore
assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law. Amounts not specified
in the FY2006 law (even if specified in conference report) are denoted by an “NS.”
b. The FY2007 CR specified an amount for this account.
c. The President has requested that Congress rescind the amount provided in FY2007 for HOPE VI.
Operating Fund. The President’s FY2008 budget requests a $130 million
increase in funding for the public housing Operating Fund. In recent years, HUD has
not requested, and Congress has not provided, sufficient appropriations to fund all
PHAs at 100% of their Operating Fund formula eligibility. Instead, PHAs generally
receive some percentage of their eligible budgets, referred to as the proration level.
The FY2007 CR provided $3.86 billion for the Operating Fund, which resulted in a
proration of 83%. For FY2008, the President has requested $4 billion ($3.99 billion
for formula grants), which is estimated to result in a proration level of just over 80%.
(For more information, see CRS Report RS22557, Public Housing: Fact Sheet on the
New Operating Fund Formula, by Maggie McCarty).
Capital Fund. For FY2008, the President is proposing a $400 million
reduction in funding for the Capital Fund. About $35 million of that reduction comes
from changes in the amount requested for set-asides within the account. The budget
proposes to eliminate funding for Resident Opportunities for Supportive Services
grants, Neighborhood Networks technology grants, and emergency reserve funding.
It also proposes an increase for technical assistance and physical and financial
assessments. The majority of the reduction would come from the formula grants that

---

CRS-10
HUD provides to PHAs to use to modernize their public housing. The Department’s
Congressional Budget Justifications indicate that one of HUD’s priorities is to
support alternative financing of public housing (for example, using federal public
housing funding to leverage private investment). The justifications also note that the
Department is undertaking a modernization needs study and will develop a protocol
to measure the performance of PHAs in meeting modernization needs, including
incentives for PHAs that excel in modernizing the stock with limited Capital Fund
resources.
HOPE VI. Each year since FY2004, the President has requested that Congress
provide no new funds for the HOPE VI program, although each year the Congress
has continued to fund the program. The Department argues that the program has
largely met its goal of eliminating the worst public housing and that it has a backlog
of unspent funds that need to be addressed. Since FY2005, the President has also
requested that Congress rescind the funds it provided for the program in previous
years, before they are awarded to grantees, although Congress has not approved such
a rescission. The FY2008 budget requests that Congress rescind the funds it
provided to the program in FY2007. (For more information, see CRS Report
RL32236, HOPE VI Public Housing Revitalization Program: Background, Funding,
and Issues, by Maggie McCarty.)
Native American Block Grants. The Native American Housing Assistance
and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) reorganized the system of federal
housing assistance to Native Americans by eliminating several separate programs of
assistance and replacing them with a single block grant program. In addition to
simplifying the process of providing housing assistance, the purpose of NAHASDA
was to provide federal assistance for Indian tribes in a manner that recognizes the
right of Indian self-determination and tribal self-governance. NAHASDA provides
block grants to Indian tribes or their tribally designated housing entities (TDHE) for
affordable housing activities. Affordable housing activities include any programs
currently authorized in law, as well as model activities as approved by HUD.
Table 6. Native American Block Grants, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Native American housing block grants
$623,700
$626,965
Formula Grants
616,275
620,735
Loan Guarantee (Title VI Credit Subsidy)
1,831
1,831
Administrative Expenses
149
149
Technical Assistance
4,455
4,250
National American Indian Housing Council
990
0
Source: See Table 2.
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore assumed to be the same
as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.

---

CRS-11
For FY2008 the Administration is requesting $627 million in appropriations for
the Native American Block Grant (NABG) program. No set-aside is proposed for
the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC). In past years NAIHC used
these funds to perform training and technical assistance for Indian tribes and TDHEs.
The Administration argues that sufficient funding has already been provided to
NAIHC for these purposes.
The Administration’s budget is proposing a bond financing program for NABG
recipients. The recipients would sell tax-exempt bonds to private investors and the
bonds would be backed by current and future NABG funds. The bond proceeds
would be used to finance eligible housing activities.
Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). HOPWA provides housing
assistance and related supportive services for low-income persons with HIV/AIDS
and their families. Funding is distributed both by formula allocation and competitive
grants to states, localities, and nonprofit organizations. (For background, see CRS
Report RS20704, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), by Libby
Perl.)
Table 7. HOPWA, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
$286,110
$300,100
Source: See Table 2.
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore assumed to be the same
as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
The President’s budget for FY2008 would provide $300 million for the
HOPWA program, an increase of $14 million over the FY2007 appropriation.
According to HUD, the requested funding would support approximately 67,000
housing units. In addition, the Administration proposes to change the method of
allocating formula grants. The current formula uses the cumulative number of AIDS
cases in a jurisdiction (including those individuals who have died) in determining
how funds are distributed. The new method would use the number of persons living
with AIDS, as well as take into account the cost of housing in each jurisdiction.
Rural Housing and Economic Development. This program provides
competitive grants to states and localities to fund capacity building and innovative
housing and economic development activities in rural areas. As in previous years,
the Administration is proposing no funding for the program for FY2008.

---

CRS-12
Table 8. Rural Housing and Economic Development,
FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Rural Housing and Economic Development
$16,830
$0
Source: See Table 2.
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore assumed to be the same
as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
Community Development Fund/Block Grants. The Community
Development Fund account funds the Community Development Block Grant
program, and, in past years, has funded various other community development-
related programs.
The CDBG program is the largest source of federal assistance in support of the
housing, community, and economic development activities of states and local
governments. The President’s FY2008 budget recommendation for the formula
portion of the CDBG is $736 million or 20% less than the $3.711 billion
appropriated for distribution to entitlement communities and states in FY2007. In
addition, the President’s budget states that the Administration will “re-propose” the
CDBG Reform Act during the 110th Congress, but as of May 2007, no formal
legislative proposal has been introduced in the House or the Senate. During the
109th Congress the Administration unveiled a proposal that would have restructured
the CDBG distribution formula. The legislative proposal, the Community
Development Block Grant Reform Act of 2006, which was not formally introduced
during the 109th Congress, would have
! eliminated the dual CDBG formula and replaced it with a single
weighted formula that targeted assistance based on a community’s
or state’s relative share of households living in poverty (excluding
college students), female-headed households with minor children,
overcrowded housing, housing 50 years or older occupied by low-
income families, and per capita income;
! no longer allocated funds to entitlement communities and states
using a 70%/30% formula allocation split; instead, states and
entitlement community allocations would have been drawn from a
single pool of funds;
! required entitlement communities to meet a minimum grant
threshold in order to receive a direct annual allocation —
communities that failed to meet the minimum grant amount could
have joined with their urban county, creating a new combined
entitlement community, or could have had their data included in the
state totals;
! established a two-year transition for communities that no longer met
the minimum grant threshold amount;

---

CRS-13
! directed HUD to establish a set of performance measures and
accountability standards; and
! created a $200 million bonus grant program dubbed the Economic
Development and Revitalization Challenge Grant, which would
have rewarded entitlement communities that had programs resulting
in improved living conditions in distressed neighborhoods.
In addition to reduced funding for CDBG formula grants, the Administration’s
budget proposes eliminating funding for several other community development
related programs, including Rural Housing and Economic Development Grants,
Community Development Block Grant Section 108 loan guarantees, and Brownfields
Economic Development Initiatives. The budget characterizes these programs as
duplicative of the activities funded by the CDBG formula grant program.
Economic Development Initiatives (EDIs) and Neighborhood Initiatives
(NIs). During the past few budget cycles, Congress used both the EDI and NI
accounts to fund hundreds of congressionally earmarked projects. For FY2006,
Congress approved $307 million in EDI funds for 1,126 earmarked projects and $49
million in NI funds for 50 projects identified in the conference report (H.Rept.
109-307) accompanying the FY2006 TTHUD Appropriations Act, P.L. 109-115.
The FY2007 CR , included language specifying that none of the funds appropriated
under the CDF account were to be used to fund EDI or NI activities for FY2007. The
Administration’s FY2008 budget proposal requests no new funding for EDI or NI
activities and proposes to rescinded any unobligated balances remaining from EDI
and NI funds appropriated in FY2007. Because no new EDI or NI funds were
provided in FY2007, it is unclear how the rescission would be met if it was enacted.
Table 9. Community Development Fund (CDF):
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
and Related Set-Asides, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Program
Enacteda
Request
CDF $3,771,900b
$3,036,570
CDBG (Formula-based grants)c
3,710,916b
2,974,580c
Set-asides (see below for details):
60,984b
61,990
Indian Tribes
59,400
57,420
Sec. 107 technical assistance
0
3,000
Working Capital Fund transfer
1,584
1,570
Neighborhood Initiative demonstration
0
0
Economic Development Initiatives
0
0
Source: See Table 2.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore
assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
b. The FY2007 CR specified an amount for this account.
c. Includes $7 million for distribution to insular areas.

---

CRS-14
CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantees. The Section 108 loan guarantee
program allows states and entitlement communities to leverage their annual CDBG
allocation in order to help finance brownfield redevelopment, large scale economic
development, and housing projects. CDBG entitlement communities and states are
allowed to borrow up to five times their annual CDBG allocation for qualifying
activities. As security against default, states and entitlement communities must
pledge their current and future CDBG allocation. The President’s FY2008 budget
proposal does not include funding for the program.
Table 10. CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantees, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Sec. 108 loan guarantee
$3,713
$0
Source: See Table 2.
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore assumed to be the same
as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative. The Brownfields
Economic Development Initiative program is a competitive grant program that
provides funds to assist cities with the redevelopment of abandoned, idled, and
underused industrial and commercial facilities where expansion and redevelopment
are burdened by real or potential environmental contamination. The President’s
budget recommends termination of the program.
Table 11. Brownfields Redevelopment, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Brownfields Redevelopment
$9,900
$0
Source: See Table 2.
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore assumed to be the
same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
The HOME Investment Partnership Program. Created in 1990, the
HOME Investment Partnership Program provides formula-based block grant funding
to states, units of local government, Indian tribes, and insular areas to fund affordable
housing initiatives. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, and new
construction of affordable housing, as well as rental assistance for eligible families.
The HOME program account has also been used to fund related programs. The
American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI), created in 2003 (P.L. 108-186),
funds HOME grantees to provide downpayment, closing cost, and rehabilitation
assistance to first-time home buyers. Housing counseling assistance is authorized

---

CRS-15
under Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-
448). HUD provides competitive grants to local housing counseling agencies,
intermediaries, and state Housing Finance Agencies to provide several categories of
housing counseling, including comprehensive counseling, counseling services that
address predatory lending, counseling in conjunction with HUD’s Homeownership
Voucher Program, counseling services that specifically target colonias (rural
communities on the U.S.-Mexico border), and Home Equity Conversion Mortgage
counseling.
Table 12. The HOME Investment Partnership Program,
FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
HOME (total)
$1,757
$1,967
Formula grantsb
NS
1,903
American Dream Downpayment Initiative
25
50
HOME/CHDO technical assistance
NS
10
Housing counseling assistance
42
c
Working capital fund transfer
1
4
Source: See Table 2.
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore assumed to be the
same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law. Amounts not specified in the FY2006 law
(even if specified in conference report) are denoted by an “NS.” Totals may not add due to
rounding.
b. Includes funding for insular areas.
c. The FY2008 budget would fund Housing Counseling at $50 million in a separate account; see line
item in Table 2.
Formula Grants. The bulk of the funding increase requested for FY2008
would go to formula grants. The Department notes that HOME has consistently
received high ratings from the Office of Management and Budget’s Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis.
American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI). For FY2008, the
President requests a doubling of ADDI funding. At an average assistance level of
$7,500 per family (according to HUD’s Congressional Budget Justifications), the $50
million requested would be sufficient to serve over 6,600 households.
Housing Counseling Assistance. Since FY2003, the President has
requested that Congress provide funding for housing counseling assistance in a
separate account, rather than as a set-aside within the HOME program. Each year,
Congress has rejected that proposal and funded the program as a set-aside within
HOME. The FY2007 CR funded Housing Counseling Assistance at the FY2006
level, which was a $42 million set-aside in the HOME program. In the FY2008

---

CRS-16
budget, the President requests that Congress fund the program at $50 million in a
separate account.
Homeless Programs. Homeless Assistance Grants is the blanket title given
to the four homeless programs authorized by the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (P.L. 100-77) and administered by HUD. Three of the four programs
are competitive grants: the Supportive Housing Program (SHP), the Shelter Plus
Care program (S+C), and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Assistance for
Single Room Occupancy program (SRO). Funding for the fourth HUD program, the
Emergency Shelter Grants program (ESG), is distributed via a formula allocation to
states and local communities.
Table 13. HUD Homeless Programs, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Homeless Assistance Grants
$1,441,600b
1,585,990
Formula and Competitive Grants
NS
1,550,515c
Technical Assistance/Data
11,557
8,000
Working Capital Fund
990
2,475
Prisoner Re-entry Initiative
0
25,000
Source: See Table 2.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore
assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law. Amounts not specified
in the FY2006 law (even if specified in conference report) are denoted by an “NS.”
b. The FY2007 CR specified a funding amount for this account.
c. Includes up to $50 million for a Samaritan bonus for the chronically homeless.
The President’s budget for FY2008 would increase funding for the Homeless
Assistance Grants by $144 million above the FY2007 level, to $1.586 billion. Note,
however, that $25 million of the FY2008 requested appropriation would be
transferred to the Department of Labor to fund a Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative. In each
year since FY2005, the Administration has proposed funding for a Prisoner Re-Entry
Initiative, but Congress has not yet appropriated the requested funds. For the sixth
year in a row, the Administration’s budget also proposes to consolidate the three
competitive Homeless Assistance Grants — SHP, S+C, and SRO — into one
competitive grant. The new consolidated grant would also include up to $50 million
for a Samaritan Housing Initiative, which would provide permanent supportive
housing for the chronically homeless. This proposal is similar to an incentive
currently provided in the Homeless Assistance Grants application process. (For more
information about the distribution of the Homeless Assistance Grants see CRS
Report RL33764, The HUD Homeless Assistance Grants: Distribution of Funds, by
Libby Perl.)

---

CRS-17
Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership. Under the Self-Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), HUD makes grants to national and
regional organizations and consortia that have experience in providing or facilitating
self-help homeownership opportunities. Prospective home buyers and volunteers
provide “sweat equity” by contributing labor toward the construction of their homes.
For FY2008, the Administration is proposing $40 million for the SHOP
program and $30 million for the National Community Development Initiative
(NCDI), which seeks to develop the capacity of nonprofit community development
corporations to undertake community development and affordable housing projects.
No funding is requested for the other organizations that have received funding in the
past.
Table 14. Self Help and Assisted Homeownership,
FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Self Help and Assisted Homeownership
$49,390b
69,700
Self Help Homeownership (SHOP)
19,800b
39,700
National Community Development Initiative
29,590b
30,000
Housing Assistance Council
0c
0
National Housing Development Corp.
0c
0
Technical Assistance
0c
0
National American Indian Housing Council
0c
0
Special Olympics
0c
0
National Council of La Raza
0c
0
Source: See Table 2.
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore
assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
b. The FY2007 CR specified an amount for this account.
c. The amount specified for the Self Help and Assisted Homeownership account in the CR is not
sufficient to fund these accounts, so presumably, they will receive no funding in FY2007.
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled. Formerly known
together as Housing for Special Populations, the Section 202 housing for the elderly
program and the Section 811 housing for the disabled program provide capital grants
and ongoing project rental assistance contracts (PRAC) to developers of new
subsidized housing for these populations. In addition, the Section 811 program
provides vouchers for tenants with disabilities to use in the private housing market.
(For more information on Section 202, see CRS Report RL33508, Section 202 and
other HUD Rental Housing Programs for the Low-Income Elderly, by Libby Perl.)

---

CRS-18
Table 15. Sections 202 and 811, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Housing for the Elderly (202)
$734,580
$575,000
New Capital Grants and PRAC
NS
390,450
PRAC Renewals and Amendments
NS
62,400
Service coordinators
51,084
71,000
Grants for conversion to assisted living
24,552
24,750
Pre-development grants
19,800
0
Working Capital Fund
396
1,400
Leveraging Financing Demonstration
—
25,000
Intergenerational Housing Demonstration
0
0
Housing for the Disabled (811)
$236,610
$125,000
New Capital Grants and PRAC
NS
14,500
PRAC Renewal and Amendments
NS
20,155
New Mainstream Vouchers
4,950
0
Mainstream Voucher Renewal
77,517
74,745
Working Capital Fund
396
600
Leveraging Financing Demonstration
—
15,000
Source: See Table 2.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore assumed to be the same
as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law. Amounts not specified in the FY2006 law (even
if specified in conference report) are denoted by an “NS.”
The President’s FY2008 budget proposal for the Housing for the Elderly
program would reduce funding by almost $160 million (nearly 29%) from the
FY2007 level, to $575 million. Funding for Service Coordinators would increase by
approximately $20 million, from $51 million in FY2007 to $71 million in FY2008,
while funding for the Assisted Living Conversion program would remain
approximately the same. Reduced funding would affect new capital grants and
project rental assistance; HUD estimates that funds for FY2008 would support 3,100
new units of Section 202 housing, down from the estimated 4,994 units for FY2007.
The Administration’s budget also proposes to allocate $25 million to a Leveraging
Financing Demonstration program. Through the program, HUD would work with
private sector professionals to increase the use of mixed financing arrangements,
such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, to develop Section 202 housing.
HUD’s goal is that the program would leverage one dollar of outside financing for
every dollar of Section 202 funding.

---

CRS-19
The President’s budget for FY2008, like that for FY2007, proposes to cut
funding for the Section 811 Housing for the Disabled program nearly in half. In
FY2007, the program was funded at just under $237 million. In FY2008, the
Administration would provide $125 million for Section 811. The proposal would not
provide any funds for new housing vouchers, and the estimated number of new units
supported by capital grants and project rental assistance would fall from 980 in
FY2007 to 103 in FY2008. Like its proposal for the Section 202 program, the
Administration’s budget for Section 811 would provide funds ($15 million) for a
Leveraging Financing Demonstration program. Under the proposal, HUD would
work with professionals in the private sector to develop mixed financing
arrangements for Section 811 projects, using the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit,
as well as other funding sources.
Research and Technology. The Office of Policy Development and
Research (PD&R) at HUD is responsible for maintaining current information on
housing needs, market conditions, and existing programs, as well as conducting
research on priority housing and community development issues. The Research and
Technology account funds PD&R’s core research. Beginning in FY2006, the account
was expanded to fund the Section 107 University Partnerships, which were
previously funded as set-asides within the CDF account. Section 107 grants are
awarded to institutions of higher education to assist them in building partnerships
with the communities in which they are located to foster and achieve neighborhood
development and revitalization. The President requested just over $65 million for
Research and Technology for FY2008.
Table 16. Research and Technology, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Research and Technology
$50,087b
$65,040
Core Research and Technology
NS
39,700
PATH
0b
c
Section 107 Grants
20,394
25,340
Historically Black Colleges & Universities
8,910
8,476
Hispanic-Serving Institutions
5,940
5,650
Community Development Work Study
0
0
Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions
2,970
2,825
Tribal Colleges and Universities
2,574
2,449
Community outreach partnership
0
5,940
Source: See Table 2.
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore
assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law. Amounts not specified
in the FY2006 law (even if specified in conference report) are denoted by an “NS.”
b. The FY2007 CR specified an amount for this account.
c. The President did not request a set-aside amount of funding for PATH, but noted that it remains
an eligible activity under Core Research and Technology.

---

CRS-20
Fair Housing. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity enforces
the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights laws that make it illegal to discriminate
in the sale, rental, or financing of housing based on race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, disability, or family status. This is accomplished through the Fair Housing
Assistance Program (FHAP) and the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP).
FHAP provides grants to state and local agencies to enforce laws that are
substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Housing Act. It provides grants on a non-
competitive basis. FHIP provides funds for public and private fair housing groups,
as well as state and local agencies, for activities that educate the public and housing
industry about the fair housing laws.
The Administration requests $45 million for the Fair Housing programs during
FY2008. This includes $24.8 million for the Fair Housing Assistance program and
$20.2 million for the Fair Housing Initiatives program.
Table 17. Fair Housing Programs, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Fair Housing
$45,540
$45,000
Fair Housing Assistance
25,750
24,820
Fair Housing Initiatives
18,800
20,180
Source: See Table 2.
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore assumed to be the same
as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction. The Office of Lead Hazard Control
at HUD administers both the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program and
the Healthy Homes Initiative (HHI), designed to reduce the hazards of lead-based
paint in homes.
The Budget requests a total of $116 million for the programs under the Office
of Lead Hazard Control. This is a reduction of $34 million from the FY2007
appropriation.
Table 18. Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Office of Lead Hazard Control
$150,000
$116,000
Source: See Table 2.
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the CR and are therefore assumed to be the same
as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.

---

CRS-21
Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The FHA administers a variety
of mortgage insurance programs that insure lenders against loss from loan defaults
by borrowers. Through FHA insurance, lenders make loans that otherwise may not
be available, and enable borrowers to obtain loans for home purchase and home
improvement, as well as for the purchase, repair, or construction of apartments,
hospitals, and nursing homes. The programs are administered through two program
accounts: the Mutual Mortgage Insurance/Cooperative Management Housing
Insurance fund account (MMI/CMHI) and the General Insurance/Special Risk
Insurance fund account (GI/SRI). The MMI/CMHI fund provides insurance for home
mortgages. The GI/SRI fund provides insurance for more risky home mortgages, for
multifamily rental housing, and for an assortment of special-purpose loans such as
hospitals and nursing homes. (For more information, see CRS Report RS20530,
FHA Loan Insurance Program: An Overview, by Bruce Foote and Meredith
Peterson.)
Table 19. Federal Housing Administration, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Net Total FHA Appropriations
$70,403
$516,647
Net Appropriations — MMI
237,424
428,850
Total Expenses
413,424
428,850
Offsetting receipts
(176,000)
0
Net Appropriations — GI/SRI
(167,021)
87,797
Total Expenses
300,267
307,197
Offsetting receipts
(476,000)
(250,000)
Move programs to MMI
n/a
22,000
Credit Subsidy
8,712
8,600
Source: See Table 2.
a. Amounts for FHA were not specified in the FY2007 CR. These figures come from tables provided
by the House Appropriations Committee.
For FY2008, the difference between the total FHA administrative expenses and
the total FHA offsetting receipts is estimated at a positive $517 million. This is a
significant change from a few years ago when the income to the insurance funds
exceeded the costs and resulted in negative appropriations for FHA. The President’s
budget proposes to move several accounts from the GI/SRI fund to the MMI fund.
The President’s FY2008 budget proposes comprehensive reform of the FHA
single family insurance program to enable FHA to be more flexible in responding to
changes in the mortgage market, and to provide a lower cost alternative to borrowers
who might otherwise choose subprime mortgage products or even become the
victims of predatory lending. The President’s FY2008 budget includes three
legislative proposals that are estimated to generate budget savings. The aggregate

---

CRS-22
limit on the number of Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs) would be
removed, and the loan limit for HECMs would be set at 100% of the conforming loan
limits rather than vary by area. The National Housing Act would be amended to
permit HUD to increase the loan limits on the various multifamily housing programs
by up to 170% on an area-by-area basis and by up to 215% on a project-by-project
basis. The Ginnie Mae fee for guaranteeing mortgage-backed securities would be
increased by six basis points. These three proposals are estimated to generate $362
million in budget savings; they are not shown in this table, but are shown as
legislative savings in Table 2 under “Offsetting Receipts/Program Savings.”
Most of these proposals are also included in H.R. 1852 as reported in the House.
The bill would raise the FHA loan limit to the lesser of 100% of the median home
price in an area or 100% of the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae conforming loan limit.
Certain first-time homebuyers would be able to obtain FHA-insured loans with no
downpayment. FHA would be permitted to charge borrowers a mortgage insurance
premium based upon the risk that the borrowers would pose to the insurance fund.
The aggregate limit on the number of Home Equity Conversion Mortgages would be
removed and the national mortgage limit for such mortgages would be equal to 100%
of the conforming loan limit.
Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). Ginnie
Mae is the entity within HUD that guarantees the timely payment of principal and
interest on securities backed by mortgages insured or guaranteed by FHA, the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), or the Rural Housing Service.
Table 20. Government National Mortgage Association,
FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
Enacteda
Request
Net Appropriations
(170,000)
(174,000)
Total Expenses
10,700
11,000
Offsetting Receipts
(181,000)
(185,000)b
Source: See Table 2.
a. Amounts for GNMA were not specified in the FY2007 CR. These figures come from tables
provided by the House Appropriations Committee.
b. Assumes $22 million in receipts from a legislative proposal to move several single-family programs
from the GI/SRI fund to the MMI fund (see Table 16).
For FY2008, the President’s budget requests $11 million for the administrative
expenses of carrying out the mortgage-backed securities program as well as a
legislative change that would convert a portion of the GNMA administrative fees that
are currently classified as mandatory funding to discretionary funding. The budget

---

CRS-23
also proposed that issuers of Ginnie Mae securities be charged an upfront fee to
offset the administrative expense of the program.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO). OFHEO
is the office within HUD that is responsible for regulating the safety and soundness
of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s operations. The appropriations for OFHEO are
completely offset by fees collected from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

---