Order Code RL34046
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies (THUD):
FY2008 Appropriations
Updated July 23, 2007
David Randall Peterman and John Frittelli
Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bound by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current
program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the Subcommittees on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations. It summarizes the current legislative status of the
bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists
the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web Version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at [http://beta.crs.gov/cli/
level_2.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=73].

---

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies (THUD): FY2008 Appropriations
Summary
The FY2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill provides funding for the Department of Transportation
(DOT), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and five
independent agencies related to these two departments.
The Bush Administration requested $100.3 billion (after scorekeeping
adjustments) for these agencies for FY2008, an increase of $300 million (less than
1%) over FY2007. Of that request, DOT would receive $64.5 billion, $1.3 billion
more than provided in FY2007. HUD would receive $35.6 billion, $1.0 billion less
than provided in FY2007.
The requested increase in funding for DOT came primarily in the highway and
transit programs. The request would cut funding for some other transportation
programs. Similar cuts were proposed by the Administration for FY2007, and
rejected by Congress. Likewise, cuts similar to those proposed for HUD were also
proposed by the Administration for FY2007, and were rejected by Congress.
Both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have reported out
FY2008 THUD appropriations bills that provide more funding for both DOT and
HUD than requested by the Administration. The House bill (H.R. 3074) would
appropriate a total of $104.4 billion, $4.1 billion more than requested, with $65.5
billion going to DOT and $38.7 billion going to HUD. The Senate bill (S. 1789)
would appropriate a total of $104.7 billion, $4. 4 billion more than requested, with
$65.7 billion going to DOT and $38.7 billion going to HUD. Both bills would
provide $235 million to the related agencies.
For DOT, both H.R. 3074 and S. 1789 provide increases in the requested level
for highways, transit, Amtrak, and aviation. For HUD, both bills provide increases
in the requested level for Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance, Housing for the
Elderly, Housing for the Disabled, and the Community Development Block Grant
program, and both bills would provide funding for the HUD programs that were
slated for elimination in the President’s budget.
This report will be updated.

---

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Telephone
Area of Expertise
Name
Div.
#
Department of Transportation
Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation
Bart Elias
RSI
7-7771
Administration
Airport Improvement Program, Transportation
Infrastructure Policy, Transportation Trust
John W. Fischer
RSI
7-7766
Funds
Federal Railroad Administration; Maritime
John Frittelli
RSI
7-7033
Administration; Surface Transportation Board
Airport Improvement Program, Federal
Robert S. Kirk
RSI
7-7769
Highway Administration
Surface transportation policy; transit policy
William J. Mallett
RSI
7-2216
Amtrak, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Federal Transit
David Randall
Administration, National Highway Traffic
RSI
7-3267
Peterman
Safety Administration, Surface Transportation
Safety
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Low-income housing programs and issues and
general HUD: Section 8, Public Housing,
Maggie McCarty
DSP
7-2163
HOPE VI, HOME
Community Development programs and
issues: Community Development Block Grants
Eugene Boyd
DSP
7-8689
(CDBG), EZ/EC, Brownfields redevelopment
Housing programs and issues for special
populations: Elderly (202), Disabled (811),
Libby Perl
DSP
7-7806
Homeless, AIDS housing
Homeownership and other housing issues:
Bruce E. Foote
G&F
7-7805
FHA, Rural, Indian housing, Fair Housing
Related Agencies
Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Nancy Lee Jones
ALD
7-6976
Compliance Board
Federal Maritime Commission
John Frittelli
RSI
7-7033
National Transportation Safety Board
Bart Elias
RSI
7-7771
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Eugene Boyd
G&F
7-8689
United States Interagency Council on
Maggie McCarty
DSP
7-2163
Homelessness
ALD = American Law Division
DSP = Domestic Social Policy Division
G&F = Government and Finance Division
RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Changing Appropriations Subcommittee Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Transportation Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) . . . . . . . . . . . 10
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . . . . . . . 10
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Maritime Administration (MARAD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers) . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Public Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Community Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Homeless Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies, FY2003-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 4. Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 5. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

---

Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies (THUD):
FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On July 18, 2007 the House Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R.
3074, an FY2008 THUD appropriations bill. The committee had approved a draft
of the legislation on July 11 and ordered it to be reported. The committee
recommended a total $104.4 billion (after rescissions and other adjustments). This
is $4.4 billion (4%) more than the comparable amount provided for FY2007, and
$4.1 billion (4%) more than requested for FY2008.
On July 16, 2007, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out S.
1789, an FY2008 THUD appropriations bill. The committee had approved a draft
of the legislation on July 12 and ordered it to be reported. The committee
recommended a total of $104.7 billion (after rescissions and other adjustments). This
is $4.7 billion (5%) more than the comparable amount for FY2007, and $4.4 billion
(4%) more than requested for FY2008.
Overview
The President’s net FY2008 request for the programs covered by this
appropriations bill was $100.3 billion (after scorekeeping adjustments). This was
$300 million (less than 1%) over the net total provided for FY2007.
The DOT request was $64.5 billion, $1.3 billion (2%) more than the amount
provided for FY2007. This increase was largely for highway (net $1.7 billion
increase) and transit (net $447 million increase) programs. These increases reflected
the increase in the FY2008 authorized funding level over the FY2007 level for these
two programs, which receive almost all of their funding from transportation trust
funds. However, the request did not provide the full authorized funding level: it was
$631 million below the authorized level for highway programs and $309 million
below the authorized level for transit programs.
The HUD request was $35.6 billion, $1.0 billion (3%) less than the amount
provided for FY2007. This reduction reflected the Administration’s continued effort
to reduce or eliminate funding for a number of HUD programs that it regards as
ineffective or inefficient. Secretary Jackson’s introductory letter to the FY2008 HUD
budget summary document noted, “In a budget season marked by the President’s goal

---

CRS-2
to continue to support what works and cut the Federal budget deficit, the FY 2008
HUD budget request demonstrates an effort to prioritize funding towards programs
with measurable, documented results.”1
The Administration’s FY2008 budget request include spending reductions that
have been proposed by the Administration in previous budgets, without success.
These proposed reductions from FY2007 funding included roughly $1 billion from
reductions in several HUD programs and elimination of several other programs, and
roughly $1 billion from cuts to several DOT programs. These proposed reductions
included:
! DOT’s Airport Grants (-$764 million), Amtrak (-$494 million), and
subsidies for air service to small communities (-$59 million)
programs;
! HUD’s Community Development Funds (-$735 million), Housing
for the Elderly (-$160 million), and Housing for the Disabled (-$112
million) programs; and
! No funding requested for HUD’s HOPE VI, Rural Housing and
Economic Development, Brownfields Redevelopment, and Section
108 Loan Guarantees programs (-$130 million total).
The House Committee on Appropriations has reported out H.R. 3074, an
FY2008 appropriations bill for THUD. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
has also reported out an FY2008 THUD appropriations bill, S. 1789. Both bills
reject the Administration’s proposed reductions, and provide increases for both DOT
and HUD over both the FY2007 levels and the FY2008 requested levels.
H.R. 3074 would provide a total of $104.4 billion, $4.1 billion (4%) more than
requested and $4.4 billion (4%) more than the FY2007 funding. Within that total the
bill provides $65.5 billion for DOT ($1.1 billion more than requested and $2.4 billion
more than FY2007), $38.7 billion for HUD ($3.1 billion more than requested and
$2.0 billion more than FY2007), and $235 million for the related agencies ($1
million more than requested and $12 million more than FY2007).
S. 1789 would provide a total of $104.7 billion, $4.4 billion (4%) more than
requested and $4.7 billion (5%) more than the FY2007 level. Within that total the
bill provides $65.7 billion for DOT ($1.2 billion more than requested and $2.6 billion
more than the FY2007 level), $38.7 billion for HUD ($3.1 billion more than
requested and $2.1 billion over the FY2007 level), and $235 million for the other
independent agencies ($1 million more than requested and $12 million over the
FY2007 level).
Table 1 notes the status of the FY2008 THUD appropriations bill.
1 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Summary, p. 1.

---

CRS-3
Table 1. Status of FY2008 Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Conference
Subcommittee
Report
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
Report Passage
Report
Passage Report
Approval
Law
House
Senate
House Senate
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
6/11/07 7/10/07 110-238
110-131
7/18/07
7/16/07
Table 2 lists the total funding provided for each of the titles in the bill for
FY2007 and the amount requested for that title for FY2008.
Table 2. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2007-FY2008
(millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Title
Committee
Committee
Title I: Department of
$63,181
$64,479
$65,542
$65,718
Transportation
Title II: Housing and Urban
36,633
35,597
38,666
38,744
Development
Title III: Related Agencies
223
234
235
235
Total
$100,038
$100,310
$104,444
$104,697
Source: The budget tables in H.Rept. 110-238 and S.Rept. 110-131. “Total” represents total
budgetary resources after scorekeeping adjustments. Totals may not add up due to rounding and
scorekeeping adjustments.
Changing Appropriations Subcommittee Structures
Since 2003, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have
reorganized their subcommittee structure three times. In 2003, a new subcommittee
(Homeland Security) was added; in order to maintain the existing number of
subcommittees at 13, the Transportation appropriations subcommittees were
combined with the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations
subcommittees, becoming the Subcommittees on Transportation, Treasury, and
Independent Agencies.
In early 2005, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations again
reorganized their subcommittee structures. The House Committee on Appropriations
reduced its number of subcommittees from 13 to 10. This change included combining
the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies subcommittee with the
District of Columbia subcommittee; to the resulting subcommittee, in addition,
jurisdiction over appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Judiciary, as well as several additional independent agencies,
was added. The subcommittee was then known as the Subcommittee on

---

CRS-4
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District
of Columbia, and Independent Agencies (or TTHUD).
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of subcommittees
to 12. The Senate also added jurisdiction over appropriations for the Departments
of Housing and Urban Development and the Judiciary to the Transportation,
Treasury, and Independent Agencies subcommittee. The Senate retained a separate
District of Columbia Appropriations subcommittee. As a result, the areas of
coverage of the House and Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction over this
appropriations bill were almost, but not quite, identical; the major difference being
that in the Senate the appropriations for the District of Columbia originate in a
separate bill.
At the beginning of the 110th Congress in 2007, the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations again reorganized their subcommittee structures. The
House and Senate committees divided the responsibilities of the TTHUD
subcommittees between two subcommittees: Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies (THUD); and Financial Services and General
Government, whose jurisdiction included the Treasury Department, the Judiciary, the
Executive Office of the President, the District of Columbia, and many of the
independent agencies formerly under the jurisdiction of the TTHUD subcommittees.
These changes make year-to-year comparisons of Transportation and Housing
and Urban Development appropriation bills complex, as their appropriations appear
in different bills in combination with various other agencies. Other factors, such as
supplemental appropriations for response to disasters (such as the damage caused by
the Gulf Coast hurricanes in the fall of 2005) and changes in the makeup of the
Department of Transportation (portions of which were transferred to the Department
of Homeland Security in 2004), also complicate comparisons of year-to-year funding.
Table 3 shows funding trends over the five-year period FY2003-FY2007, and the
amounts requested for FY2008, for the Departments of Transportation and Housing
and Urban Development. The purpose of Table 3 is to indicate trends in the funding
for these agencies, so emergency supplemental appropriations are not included in the
figures. The agencies generally experienced funding increases during the period
FY2003-FY2007.
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies, FY2003-FY2008
(billions of current dollars)
FY2008
Department
FY2003b
FY2004c
FY2005d
FY2006e
FY2007
Request
Title I: Transportationa
$55.7
$58.4
$59.6
$59.5
$63.1
$64.5
Title II: Housing and Urban
31.0
31.2
31.9
34.0
36.6
35.6
Development
Source: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Comparative
Statement of Budget Authority tables from fiscal years 2003 through 2008. Figures for FY2006 do
not reflect emergency appropriations. Figures for FY2008 are the Administration requested figures
from a table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations.

---

CRS-5
a. Figures for Department of Transportation appropriations for FY2003 have been adjusted for
comparison with FY2004 and later figures by subtracting the United States Coast Guard, the
Transportation Security Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, and by adding the Maritime
Administration.
b. FY2003 figures reflect a 0.65% across-the-board rescission.
c. FY2004 figures reflect a 0.59% across-the-board rescission.
d. FY2005 figures reflect a 0.83% across-the-board rescission.
e. FY2006 figures reflect a 1.0% across-the-board rescission, but do not reflect emergency
supplemental appropriations provided for DOT and HUD. DOT and HUD received emergency
funding for response to the effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes; DOT’s total FY2006 funding,
including emergency funding, was $62.3 billion; HUD’s total FY2006 funding, including
emergency funding, was $45.5 billion.
Transportation Appropriations
Table 4. Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars; totals may not add)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Department or Agency (Selected Accounts)
House
Senate
Enacted
Request
Comm
Comm
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
$171
$96
$150
$160
Essential Air Servicea
109
50 110
110
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Operations (trust fund & general fund)
8,374
8,726
8,717
8,762
Facilities & Equipment (F&E) (trust fund)
2,516
2,462
2,515
2,517
Grant-in-aid for Airports (AIP) (trust fund) (limit.
3,515
2,750
3,600
3,515
on oblig.)
Research, Engineering & Development (trust fund)
130
140
140
149
Subtotal, FAA
14,482
14,077
14,622
14,593
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(Limitation on Obligations)
39,086
39,585
40,216
40,216
(Exempt Obligations)
739
739
739
739
Additional funds (trust fund)
—
—
—
—
Additional funds (general fund)
23
—
—
40
Rescissions of contract authority
(4,343)
(2,000)
(3,385)
(3,121)
Subtotal, FHWAb
36,255
37,915
37,565
37,875
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
517
528
528
531
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA)c
821
833
813
813
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
1,478
1,081
1,667
1,657
Amtrak
1,294
800
1,450
1,370
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
General Funds
1,712
1,550
1,884
1,692
Capital Investment Grants (New Starts)
1,566
1,400
1,700
1,566
Trust Funds
7,263
7,872
7,873
7,873
Subtotal, FTA
8,975
9,422
9,710
9,565
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
16
17
17
17
Maritime Administration (MARAD)d
214
295
292
326

---

CRS-6
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Department or Agency (Selected Accounts)
House
Senate
Enacted
Request
Comm
Comm
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
Pipeline safety program
75
75
79
82
Emergency preparedness grants
14
28
28
28
Subtotal, PHMSA
134
148
154
156
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
8
12
12
12
Office of Inspector General
64
66
66
66
Surface Transportation Board
25
22
25
24
Total, Department of Transportation
$63,181
$64,479
$65,542
$65,718
Source: Figures are from the Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority tables in H.Rept. 110-
238 and S.Rept. 110-131. Because of differing treatment of offsets, the figures for “FY2008 Request”
will not always match the Administration’s budget figures from other sources. The figures within this
table may differ slightly from those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and
other funding actions. Columns may not add due to rounding or exclusion of smaller program
line-items.
a. The total comes from a $50 million annual authorization for the Essential Air Service program to
be funded out of overflight fee collections and an additional amount appropriated for the
program.
b. FHWA was appropriated $39.8 billion for FY2007. The $36.3 billion figure represents the
budgetary total after subtraction of a $3.5 billion rescission of previously provided contract
authority and the transfer of $121 million to NHTSA. The House and Senate committees
recommended $41.0 billion for FHWA for FY2008; rescissions of contract authority resulted
in those proposals being scored as $37.6 billion and $37.9 billion, respectively.
c. The House and Senate committees recommended $836 and $835 million, respectively, in new
funding for NHTSA; those totals were reduced by rescissions of unobligated contract authority.
d. MARAD was appropriated $291 million for FY2007. The $214 million figure represents the
budgetary total after subtraction of a $74 million rescission of previously appropriated funds for
the National Defense Tank Vessel Program.
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues
The President’s FY2008 budget proposed a total of $64.5 billion for the
Department of Transportation (DOT).2 This was $1.3 billion (2%) more than the
$63.2 billion enacted for FY2007. The major funding changes requested from the
FY2007 enacted levels were
! an increase of $500 million (1%) in the obligation limitation for
highways and $447 million (5%) for transit, reflecting the authorized
levels in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59);
! an increase of $12 million (10%) for the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Administration, reflecting a requested increase in grants
to states for emergency preparedness;
! an increase of $4 million (55%) for the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration;
2 This total includes $66.9 billion in new appropriations and $2.4 billion in rescissions.

---

CRS-7
! a decrease of $765 million (-22%) in the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Airport Improvement Program, similar to a
requested decrease for FY2007 that was rejected by Congress;
! a decrease of $494 million (-38%) in the request for Amtrak, similar
to a requested decrease for FY2007 that was rejected by Congress;
and
! a decrease of $59 million (-54%) in funding for the Essential Air
Service Program.
The Administration request also proposed restructuring the FAA budget, reflecting
the Administration’s reauthorization proposal for the FAA.
Both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations recommended a
higher level of DOT funding than requested by the Administration: $65.5 billion
($1.1 billion more) by the House committee and $65.7 billion ($1.2 billion more) by
the Senate committee. Neither the House nor Senate committee supported the
Administration’s requested decreases in the various transportation accounts. Nor did
their recommendations reflect the proposed restructuring of the FAA budget, as
Congress is still considering the reauthorization of the FAA. Among the largest
increases over the requested levels were those for the FAA Aviation Improvement
Program ($850 million by the House committee, $765 million by the Senate
committee) and for Amtrak ($600 million by the House committee, $570 million by
the Senate committee), and the inclusion by both committees of a $631 million
increase in funding for the federal-aid highway program (authorized by the Revenue-
Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) mechanism included in SAFETEA-LU).
The Administration’s budget for DOT identified three priorities of the FY2008
request: reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a new
highway congestion initiative, and alteration of Amtrak’s spending priorities.3
FAA Reauthorization. The FAA’s authorization expires at the end of
FY2007. The Administration’s proposal for aviation reauthorization includes reform
of the financial structure of the air traffic control system, a reform reflected in the
budget request for FAA. The Administration proposal would also change the
revenue sources for FAA funding. Reauthorization of the FAA is still under
consideration by Congress. (For more information about FAA reauthorization, see
CRS Report RL33920, Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization: An
Overview of Selected Provisions in Proposed Legislation, coordinated by Bart Elias.)
Highway Congestion Initiative. The highway congestion initiative would
redirect $175 million (largely from unused funds previously designated by Congress
for specific projects) for pilot programs in cities to test comprehensive congestion
reduction strategies, including such strategies as congestion pricing, flexible work
schedules to reduce the concentration of commuter traffic during peak rush hour
periods, and more use of real-time traffic information to encourage drivers to adjust
the timing and route of their trips in light of current traffic conditions.
3 United States Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, pp. 108-
110.

---

CRS-8
The House committee rejected the request for $175 million for the congestion
initiative, noting that DOT has considerable discretion with regard to awarding grants
from the FY2007 funding for highway and transit discretionary programs, and that
a congestion initiative should be more comprehensive in scope than the
Administrative proposal, involving other modes besides highways.
The Senate committee recommended $136 million for the congestion initiative,
but provided the funds from the additional funding produced by the RABA
mechanism, rather than by taking money from projects previously designated by
Congress.
Reducing Amtrak’s Federal Subsidy. For FY2008, the House committee
recommended $1.4 billion for Amtrak — $475 million for operating assistance and
$925 million in capital assistance and debt service — plus another $50 million for
a matching grant program to encourage state investment in passenger rail. The
Senate committee recommended $1.37 billion for Amtrak — $485 million for
operating assistance and $885 million for capital assistance and debt service — plus
another $100 million for a matching grant program to encourage state investment in
passenger rail. Both committees expressed concerns about Amtrak’s failure to reach
collective bargaining agreements with the majority of its workforce since the
expiration of the previous agreements several years ago, and about the role of freight
railroads in Amtrak’s poor on-time performance.
The Administration requested $900 million for Amtrak for FY2008. This was
$394 million (31%) less than the amount provided in FY2007, and of the $900
million requested, $100 million would not go to Amtrak directly, but to a matching
grant program to encourage states to invest in intercity passenger rail-related capital
improvements. Only $300 million was requested for operating assistance; Amtrak
received $490 million in operating assistance in FY2006 and FY2007, as part of a
total appropriation of $1.3 billion.
Amtrak’s Board of Directors, whose current members have been appointed by
the Bush Administration, submits a separate grant request to Congress each year. For
FY2008, the Board requested $1.5 billion to maintain operations and $100 million
for a matching grant program to encourage states to make intercity passenger rail-
related capital improvements.
For the past several years, the Administration has sought to force changes in
Amtrak’s operations, and in intercity passenger rail policy in general, by requesting
less funding for Amtrak than is needed to maintain Amtrak’s status quo level of
operations, arguing that “only a constrained budget will force Amtrak to change the
way it conducts business.”4 In its FY2008 budget, the Administration states that it
expects “the Board’s newly-installed management to make significant changes
required to enable the company to succeed without Federal operating subsidies.”5 In
previous years, Congress has provided more funding for Amtrak than requested by
4 United States Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222.
5 United States Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, p. 110.

---

CRS-9
the Administration, though less than requested by Amtrak’s Board, while imposing
conditions on Amtrak in the annual appropriations bill.
Amtrak is a quasi-governmental corporation that provides intercity passenger
rail service throughout the country and operates and maintains rail infrastructure in
the Northeast. It operates at a deficit, and requires federal support each year to
continue its operations. Amtrak’s authorization expired at the end of FY2002.
Reauthorization efforts since then have been stalled by fundamental disagreements
between Congress and the Administration over the future shape of federal intercity
passenger rail policy.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA budget provides both
capital and operating funding for the nation’s air traffic control system, and also
provides federal grants to airports for airport planning, development, and expansion
of the capacity of the nation’s air traffic infrastructure. The President’s budget
requested $14.1 billion for FY2008, $1.0 billion less than was provided for FY2007.6
Most of that reduction would come from the Airport Improvement Program.
The House committee recommended $14.6 billion for FAA for FY2008. The
Senate committee also recommended $14.6 billion.
Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The President’s budget proposed
a cut of $764 million to AIP funding, from $3.5 billion in FY2007 to $2.8 billion for
FY2008. A similar cut was proposed by the Administration for FY2007, but was not
supported by Congress.
The House committee rejected the proposed cut, recommending $3.6 billion for
FY2008, a $95 million increase over FY2007. The Senate committee likewise
rejected the proposed cut, recommending $3.5 billion, the same amount provided in
FY2007.
AIP funds are used to provide grants for airport planning and development, and
for projects to increase airport capacity (such as construction of new runways) and
other facility improvements. Some Members of Congress have expressed concern
at proposed cuts in the AIP program in the face of forecasts of growth in aviation
traffic.
Essential Air Service. The President’s budget requested $50 million for the
Essential Air Service program, a $59 million (54%) reduction from the $109 million
provided for FY2007. A similar decrease was proposed by the Administration for
FY2007, but was rejected by Congress.
The House and Senate committees both rejected the proposed decrease. Both
committees recommended $110 million for the program for FY2008.
6 Total enacted new FY2007 FAA funding was $15.1 billion. The net total was reduced to
$14.5 billion by a rescission of contract authority.

---

CRS-10
This program seeks to preserve air service to small airports in rural communities
by subsidizing the cost of that service. Supporters of the Essential Air Service
program contend that preserving airline service to rural communities was part of the
deal Congress made in exchange for deregulating airline service in 1978, which was
expected to reduce air service to rural areas. Some Members of Congress have
expressed concern that the proposed cut in funding for the Essential Air Service
program could lead to a reduction in the transportation connections of rural
communities. Previous budget requests from the current Administration, as well as
budget requests from previous Administrations, have also proposed reducing funding
to this program.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The President’s budget
requested $40.3 billion in new funding for federal highway programs for FY2008, an
increase of $600 million (2%) over the comparable level of $39.7 billion provided
in FY2007.7 These increases reflect the originally authorized level of funding
provided for surface transportation programs by SAFETEA (P.L. 109-59).
The authorized level of FY2008 highway funding was increased by $631 million
over its original level as a result of higher-than-expected revenues to the Highway
Trust Fund, an adjustment provided for in SAFETEA through a mechanism known
as RABA. The Administration request did not include this additional funding. The
DOT Secretary noted that the Highway Trust Account is projected to go into deficit
in FY2009 unless some preventive action is taken, and stated that not requesting the
additional $631 million authorized for FY2008 by the RABA adjustment was one of
the steps the Administration was taking to forestall the projected FY2009 deficit.8
Both the House and Senate committees recommended $41.0 billion in new
funding for federal highway programs for FY2008, an increase of $1.1 billion (3%)
over the comparable FY2007 amount. This represents the full authorized level for
FY2008, as increased by the $631 million RABA adjustment.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The
Administration requested the authorized level of funding for FMCSA, $528 million.
This is $11 million (2%) over the amount provided for FY2007; $300 million of the
request is for grants to states to enforce commercial truck and bus safety regulations.
The House committee recommended $528 million, the authorized level and the
amount requested by the Administration. The Senate committee recommended $531
million.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The
Administration requested $833 million for NHTSA, the amount authorized for
7 The FY2007 enacted figure and FY2008 request were reduced, for accounting purposes,
by rescissions of contract authority, resulting in net budgetary totals of $36.3 billion for
FY2007 and $37.9 billion for the FY2008 request.
8 Testimony of Mary Peters, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, before the U. S.
House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, March 14, 2007.

---

CRS-11
FY2008. This is an increase of $12 million (1%) over the amount provided for
FY2007; $599 million of this amount is for grants to states for highway safety
programs to reduce deaths and injuries from motor vehicle crashes.
The House committee recommended $836 million in new funding, $3 million
more than authorized and requested. The Senate committee recommended $835
million in new funding, $2 million more than the level authorized and requested.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The Administration requested
$1.1 billion for FRA for FY2008. This is a decrease of $400 million (28%) from the
$1.5 billion provided for FY2007. The largest portion of FRA’s budget is for support
of Amtrak, and virtually all of the proposed reduction was in funding for Amtrak, as
discussed above. The next largest portion of FRA’s budget is for safety programs
intended to reduce railroad accidents. The Administration requested $148 million,
$2 million (1%) less than provided for FY2007. The other component of the FRA
budget is research and development of rail safety improvements. The Administration
requested $32 million for this, $2 million (6%) less than the $35 million provided for
FY2007.
The House committee recommended $1.7 billion for FRA, an increase of $188
million over FY2007 and $586 million over the Administration request. Aside from
$35 million for a rail line relocation grant program that was authorized in SAFETEA,
but not previously funded, and an extra $1 million for research and development, all
of the increase over the Administration request is for Amtrak.
The Senate committee recommended $1.7 billion for FRA, an increase of $179
million over the FY2007 funding and $577 million over the Administration request.
All but $7 million of the increase over the Administration request is related to
Amtrak.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Administration requested $9.4
billion for FTA for FY2008. This was an increase of $447 million (5%) over the
amount provided for FY2007, but was $309 million below the authorized FY2008
funding. The increase was in funds provided to states and localities through formula
programs. The requested reduction from the authorized funding level was in the
popular New Starts program, which helps fund the construction of new transit
projects and extensions to existing transit systems. The Administration requested
$1.4 billion for New Starts, a decrease of $166 million (1%) from the FY2007 figure
and $309 million (2%) less than the authorized level of $1.7 billion. The
Administration defended the reduction in New Starts funding by saying that difficult
budget choices had to be made,9 and asserted that it had requested enough funding
to cover all the New Starts projects that were ready for funding in FY2008, as well
as having set aside funding for projects that might become ready for funding during
FY2008. The request also included $100 million for the newly created Small Starts
portion of the New Starts program, which provides funding for projects whose total
cost is less than $250 million. The Small Starts portion is authorized for $200
9 Funding for the New Starts Program comes from the General Fund, while almost all other
FTA programs are funded from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund.

---

CRS-12
million for FY2008, but that program’s regulations had not been finalized as of the
publication of the Administration budget request, so the Administration did not
expect that the program would be able to make $200 million in grants in FY2008.
The House committee recommended $9.7 billion for FTA, the authorized level
for FY2008. This is $701 million more than the FY2007 level and $288 million
more than the Administration request. The committee recommended the $1.7 billion
authorized funding level for the Capital Improvement (i.e. New Starts) program,
including the $200 million authorized funding level for the new Small Starts portion
of that program. The committee recommended several recipients for a portion of the
Small Starts funding.
The Senate committee recommended $9.6 billion for FTA, an increase of $590
million over the FY2007 level and $143 million over the Administration request, but
$134 million less than the authorized level for FY2008. The primary difference from
the House recommendation, and the authorized level, was recommending $1.566
million for the New Starts program. This is the same amount provided for FY2007,
and $166 million more than requested for FY2008, but $134 million less than the
FY2008 authorized level. The Senate committee also recommended several
recipients for a portion of the funding provided for the Small Starts component of the
New Starts program.
Maritime Administration (MARAD). The Administration requested $295
million for MARAD for FY2008, $4 million (2%) above the $291 million enacted
for FY2007.10 MARAD supports the maritime transportation sector. The largest
components of its budget are the Maritime Security Program and Operations and
Training.
The Administration requested $154 million (identical to the amount provided
for FY2007) for the Maritime Security Program. This provides payments of roughly
$2.6 million per ship to retain a fleet of 60 active, militarily useful, privately owned
vessels to be available to the federal government in the event they are needed for
security purposes. A total of $115 million was requested for Operations and Training,
$4 million (3%) more than the $111 million provided for FY2007. This program
funds the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, State Maritime Schools, and MARAD’s
operations.
The House committee recommended $$295 million in new funding for
MARAD, $4 million more than the comparable amount for FY2007 and equal to the
amount requested for FY2008. The Senate committee recommended $330 million
in new funding for MARAD, $39 million more than the comparable FY2007 figure
and $35 million more than requested. The increase is largely due to $20 million
provided in assistance to small shipyards and $10 million provided for loan
guarantees under the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program; no funding was provided
for either of those purposes in FY2007, nor was any requested for FY2008.
10 MARAD’s FY2007 enacted appropriation was scored at $214 million, the $291 million
total being reduced by $76 million in rescissions of previously appropriated funding,
primarily from the National Defense Tank Vessel Program.

---

CRS-13
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations
Table 5. Appropriations:
Housing and Urban Development, FY2007-FY2008
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Program
enacteda
request
House
Senate
Appropriations
Tenant Based Rental Assistance
(includes advanced
appropriation)
(Sec. 8 vouchers)
$15.920
$16.000
$16.330
$16.606
Project Based Rental Assistance
(Sec.8)
5.976
5.813
6.480
5.813
Public housing capital fund
2.439
2.024
2.439
2.500
Public housing operating fund
3.864
4.000
4.200
4.200
HOPE VI
0.099
0.000f
0.120
0.100
Native American housing block
grants
0.624
0.627
0.627
0.630
Indian housing loan guarantee
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.007
Native Hawaiian Block Grant
0.009
0.006
0.009
0.009
Native Hawaiian loan guarantee
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Housing, persons with AIDS
(HOPWA)
0.286
0.300
0.300
0.300
Rural Housing Economic
Development
0.017
0.000
0.017
0.017
Community Development Fund
(Including CDBG)
3.772
3.037
4.180
4.060
Sec.108 loan guarantee; subsidy
0.004
0.000
0.004
0.006
Brownfields redevelopment
0.010
0.000
0.010
0.010
HOME Investment Partnerships
1.757
1.967b
1.757
1.970
Homeless Assistance Grants
1.442
1.586
1.561
1.586
Self-help and Assisted
Homeownership
0.049
0.070
0.060
0.070
Housing for the elderly
0.735
0.575
0.735
0.735
Housing for the disabled
0.237
0.125
0.237
0.237
Housing Counseling Assistanceb
b
0.050b
b
b
Rental Housing Assistance
0.026
0.028i
0.028i
0.028i
Research and technology
0.050
0.065
0.058
0.059
Fair housing activities
0.046
0.045
0.046
0.052
Office, lead hazard control
0.150
0.116
0.130
0.157
Salaries and expenses
0.581c
0.654
0.643
1.206j
Working capital fund
0.195
0.220
0.125
0.175
Manufactured Housing Fees
Trust Fundd
0.013
0.016
0.016
0.016
Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversightd
0.066k
0.066
0.066
0.066
FHA Expensesd
0.722
0.767
0.745
0.169j

---

CRS-14
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Program
enacteda
request
House
Senate
GNMA Expensesd
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.010j
Inspector General
0.089k
0.088
0.090
0.112
Appropriations
Subtotal
39.195
38.263
41.029
40.907
Rescissions
Housing Certificate Fund
(Section 8) rescission
-1.650
-1.300
-1.300
-1.100
HOPE VI rescission
0.000
-0.099f
0.000
0.000
Neighborhood Initiatives (NI)
rescission
0.000
-0.050g
0.000
0.000
Economic Developments
Initiative (EDI) rescission
0.000
-0.307g
0.000
0.000
Rental Housing Assistance
rescission
0.000
-0.028i
-0.028i
-0.028i
Rescissions Subtotal
-1.650
-1.783
-1.328
-1.128
Offsetting Receipts/Program
Savingse
Manufactured Housing Fees
Trust Fund
-0.013
-0.016
-0.016
-0.016
Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight
-0.066k
-0.066
-0.066
-0.066
Federal Housing Administration
(FHA)
-0.652
-0.250
-0.250
-0.250
GNMA
-0.181
-0.185
-0.163
-0.163
Legislative Proposals
NA
-0.366h
-0.540
-0.540
Offsets Subtotal
-0.912
-0.883
-1.035
-1.035
Total
$36.633
$35.597
$38.666
$38.744
Source: Prepared by CRS based on the President’s FY2008 Budget documents, HUD Congressional
Budget Justifications, H.R. 3074, H.Rept. 110-238, S. 1789, and S.Rept. 110-131.
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. Both H.R.
3074 and S. 1789 would continue to fund it as a set-aside within the HOME account. H.R. 3074
would provide $42 million; S. 1789 would provide $150 million.
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.
i. The additional $28 million for rental housing assistance would be fully offset by a rescission of $28
million in unobligated and recaptured balances from the rental housing assistance account.

---

CRS-15
j. S. 1789 proposes to change the way that salaries and expenses are funded. In the past, HUD has
transferred funds from FHA and GNMA to cover management and administrative salaries.
According to the committee report, the committee has eliminated such transfers and replaced
them with direct appropriations to specific salaries and expenses accounts within each HUD
mission area in order to provide more transparency. The net funding levels for salaries and
expenses and FHA and GNMA administrative costs match the President’s request.
k. The FY2007 emergency supplemental appropriations law (P.L. 110-28) provided $7 million in
additional funding for HUD’s Inspector General and authorized over $6 million in additional
funding for the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, fully offset by additional
OFHEO fees.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Budget and Key Policy Issues
On February 5, 2007, President Bush released his FY2008 budget request, 10
days before the Congress finished work on the FY2007 spending bills by enacting a
revised year-long continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). The FY2007 CR funded most
HUD programs at their FY2006 level, but with decreases for some programs and
increases for other programs. The CR provided HUD with more than $36.6 billion
for FY2007. The 110th Congress has enacted a FY2007 supplemental funding bill,
the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Act (P.L. 110-28), which contains several provisions that made changes to FY2007
funding levels for HUD programs. (For more details, see CRS Report RL33344, The
Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2007 Budget, by Maggie
McCarty, Libby Perl, Bruce E. Foote, Eugene Boyd, and Meredith Peterson.)
The President’s FY2008 budget requests about a billion-dollar decrease in
funding for HUD. Although the budget calls for increased funding to programs for
the homeless, persons with AIDS, and first-time homebuyers, several programs are
targeted for elimination (HOPE VI, Rural Housing and Economic Development,
Brownfields Redevelopment, and Section 108 Loan Guarantees) or funding cuts
(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). The FY2008 funding
debate will also be shaped by the ongoing decline in receipts from the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) available to offset the cost of the budget. For
FY2007, it was estimated that FHA would generate a net surplus of more than $650
million that could offset the cost of the HUD budget; for FY2008, the amount is
estimated to be about $250 million, although Congress may consider legislative
proposals that could increase the amount. (For a more detailed discussion, see CRS
Report RL34022, The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2008
Appropriations, by Maggie McCarty, Libby Perl, Bruce E. Foote, Eugene Boyd, and
Meredith Peterson.)
On July 11, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee approved its version of
the FY2008 THUD funding bill (H.R. 3074). The following day, the Senate
Appropriations committee approved its version (S. 1789). Both bills would increase
funding above the President’s request for a number of programs, including Section
8 tenant-based rental assistance, Housing for the Elderly and Housing for the
Disabled, and CDBG and both bills would provide funding for the programs that
were slated for elimination in the President’s budget.

---

CRS-16
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers). The
President’s budget requests $16 billion for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, a slight
increase over the $15.9 billion enacted for FY2007. H.R. 3074 as reported by the
House Appropriations Committee would provide $16.3 billion. The Senate bill
would increase funding for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance to $16.6 billion.
The majority of tenant-based rental assistance funding is dedicated to voucher
renewals. Since FY2004, Congress has made changes each year in how HUD is to
distribute voucher renewal funding to public housing authorities (PHAs). 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. For FY2007, Congress directed HUD to fund PHAs based on
their actual leasing and costs from the previous 12 months, with some adjustments.
In his FY2008 budget, the President requested that PHAs receive renewal
funding using a formula similar to the one in place in FY2006. H.R. 3074 would
adopt a formula similar to the one requested by the President. The House
Appropriations Committee notes in the committee report (H.Rept. 110-38) that the
committee chose not to use updated data for allocating FY2008 funding because
HUD delayed allocating FY2007 funding under the new formula, and therefore the
committee wanted to give PHAs additional time to adjust to their FY2007 allocations
before changing the formula again. S. 1789 would allocate funding based on PHAs’
most recent 12 months of leasing and cost data, with adjustments, similar to the
formula used in the FY2007 CR. (For more information, see CRS Report RL33929,
Recent Changes to Section 8 Housing Voucher Renewal Funding, by Maggie
McCarty, and CRS Report RL34002, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program:
Issues and Reform Proposals in the 110th Congress, by Maggie McCarty.)
No new vouchers — called incremental vouchers — have been funded since
FY2002. Both the House and Senate bills provide funding for new incremental
vouchers targeted to certain populations. H.R. 3074 would provide $30 million for
incremental vouchers for certain non-elderly disabled families and homeless veterans.
S. 1789 would provide $105 million for incremental vouchers for homeless veterans
and for families with children in the child welfare system or youth transitioning out
of foster care.
Public Housing. 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 $3.8 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%.
Both H.R. 3074 and S. 1789 would provide $200 million more than the President’s
request for the Operating Fund. (For more information, see CRS Report RS22557,
Public Housing: Fact Sheet on the New Operating Fund Formula, by Maggie
McCarty.)

---

CRS-17
For FY2008, the President is requesting $2 billion for the Capital Fund, a $400
million reduction from FY2007 funding. The majority of the reduction would come
from the formula grants that HUD provides to PHAs to use to modernize their public
housing. Both H.R. 3074 and S. 1789 would increase funding above the President’s
requested level for the public housing Capital Fund. H.R. 3074 would fund the
account at the FY2007 level ($400 million above the President’s request) and S. 1789
would provide almost $500 million above the President’s request.
The President has again requested that Congress provide no new funds for the
HOPE VI program, and that Congress rescind the $99 million provided to the
program in FY2007. Both H.R. 3074 and S. 1789 would provide funding for the
HOPE VI program and neither bill would rescind FY2007 funding, as requested in
the President’s budget. H.R. 3074 would fund the program at $120 million and S.
1789 would fund the program at $100 million.
Community Development Programs. The President’s FY2008 budget
recommendation for the formula portion of the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) is just over $3 billion, 20% less than the $3.7 billion appropriated for
distribution to entitlement communities and states in FY2007. As reported by the
House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 3074, would provide $3.9 billion for CDBG
formula grants. The Senate Appropriations Committee would fund CDBG formula
grants at $3.7 billion.
The Administration’s budget also proposes eliminating funding for Brownfields
Redevelopment, Section 108 loan guarantees, and Rural Housing and Economic
Development Grants. The budget also eliminates funding for the Economic
Development Initiatives (EDI) and Neighborhood Initiatives (NI) accounts, used to
fund congressionally earmarked projects. The budget characterizes these programs
as duplicative of the activities funded by the CDBG formula grant program.
The President’s request for no new funding for these accounts was rejected by
both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The House bill would fund
Section 108 loan guarantees at $3.7 million, Brownfields Redevelopment at $9.9
million and Rural Housing and Economic Development Grants at the enacted level
for FY2007, $16.8 million. The Senate bill provides $6 million for Section 108 loan
guarantees, $10 million for Brownfields Redevelopment, and $17 million for Rural
Housing and Economic Development. Both committees also provide funding for
EDI and NI earmarks. H.R. 3074 recommends $160 million for EDI and $20 million
for NI; S. 1789 would provide $248 million for EDI and $40 million for NI.
Homeless Programs. 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. However, $25 million of the FY2008 requested appropriation
would be transferred to the Department of Labor to fund a Prisoner Re-Entry
Initiative. As in past years, the Administration has proposed to consolidate the three
competitive Homeless Assistance Grants — the Supportive Housing Program (SHP),
the Shelter Plus Care (S+C) program, and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for
Single Room Occupancy Dwellings (SRO) program — into one competitive grant.

---

CRS-18
The House Appropriations Committee’s HUD spending bill (H.R. 3074) does
not include the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative, and instead proposes to fund the
homeless programs at $25 million less than the President’s request — $1.561 billion.
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the HUD spending bill (S. 1789)
also fails to include the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative. However, S. 1789 proposes to
fund the homeless programs at $1.586 billion, the same level recommended by the
President. Of that amount, $25 million would fund a new demonstration program to
rapidly rehouse homeless families living in shelters. Neither the House nor the
Senate bill include the President’s proposal to consolidate the competitive grants.
However, separate legislation introduced in both the House (H.R. 840) and Senate
(S. 1518) propose to consolidate the programs. (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.)
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled. The President’s
FY2008 budget proposal for the Section 202 Housing for the Elderly program would
reduce funding by almost $160 million (nearly 29%) from the FY2007 level, to $525
million. The House bill (H.R. 3074) would provide just under $735 million for
elderly housing programs, while the Senate bill (S. 1789) would provide $735
million. (For more information, see CRS Report RL33508, Section 202 and Other
HUD Rental Housing Programs for the Low-Income Elderly, by Libby Perl.)
The President’s budget, 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’s
budget would provide $125 million for the Section 811 Housing for the Disabled
program. The decrease results from the President’s proposal to stop funding the
capital grants component of the program and to only fund the rental voucher
component of the program. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees
would both provide funding at the FY2007 level.
Federal Housing Administration (FHA). For FY2008, the FHA account
is expected to generate $250 million in offsetting receipts, which is less than the
amount of administrative expenses expected to be incurred by the account. This is
a significant change from a few years ago when the income to the insurance funds
(which was regularly in excess of $1 billion) exceeded the costs and resulted in
negative appropriations for FHA. This decline in offsetting receipts tracks FHAs
declining market share.
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
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 varying 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

---

CRS-19
basis. The fee charged by the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie
Mae) for guaranteeing mortgage-backed securities would be increased by six basis
points. These three proposals are estimated to generate $362 million in budget
savings. The President’s budget also proposes to move several accounts from the
General Insurance/Special Risk Insurance fund to the Mutual Mortgage Insurance
fund. Most of these proposals are also included in the FHA reform bill (H.R. 1852)
as reported in the House.

---