Order Code RL34046
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies (THUD):
FY2008 Appropriations
Updated November 16, 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 FY2008, an increase of $300 million (less than 1%) over FY2007.
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 conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446) on H.R. 3074, the FY2008 THUD
appropriations bill, follows both the House- and Senate-passed versions of the bill
in recommending more funding for both DOT and HUD than requested by the
Administration. The agreement recommends $105.8 billion (after rescissions and
other adjustments), $6.2 billion more than the FY2007 enacted funding level, and
$5.5 billion over the Administration’s budget request. Within that total, the
agreement recommends $66.7 billion for DOT and $38.8 billion for HUD.
For DOT, the agreement recommends increases in the requested level for
highways, transit, Amtrak, and aviation. The agreement also includes a provision
included in both the House- and Senate-passed bills that would bar FY2008 funding
for the DOT’s cross-border trucking pilot program, which allows Mexican trucking
companies to operate beyond the commercial zones on the United States-Mexico
border. For HUD, the agreement recommends 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 recommends
funding for HUD programs that were slated for elimination in the President’s budget.
The conference agreement was published on November 13 and brought to the
House floor and approved on November 14, 2007. The primary topics of discussion
were that members had less than 24 hours to review the agreement, that some
earmarks had been added in conference, and that conferees had included a provision
prohibiting the agencies covered by the bill from providing their FY2009 budget
justifications to any congressional committees other than the appropriations
committees until May 31, 2008.
The President threatened to veto the conference agreement because it exceeded
the amount of the Administration’s request (a similar threat has been issued against
other FY2008 appropriations bills, and the President did veto the FY2008 Labor-
HHS bill). The agreement’s margin of approval in the House was short of the two-
thirds majority that would be required to override a veto.
FY2008 funding is being provided, generally at FY2007 funding levels, through
December 14, 2007, by a continuing resolution passed by Congress as Division B of
P.L. 110-116, enacted on November 13, 2007. 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
G&F
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
DSP
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
The President’s Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
House and Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Conference Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Changing Appropriations Subcommittee Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Transportation Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) . . . . . . . . . . . 13
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . . . . . . . 13
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Maritime Administration (MARAD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and Key
Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers) . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Public Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Community Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Homeless Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies, FY2003-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 4. Department of Transportation Appropriations, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . 7
Table 5. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

---

Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies (THUD):
FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On November 14, 2007, the House approved the conference agreement on H.R.
3074, the FY2008 THUD appropriations bill. The conference committee reported
the conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446) on November 13, 2007. The committee
recommended $105.8 billion (after rescissions and other adjustments). This is $6.2
billion more than the FY2007 enacted funding level, and $5.5 billion over the
Administration’s budget request.
On November 8, 2007, Congress passed a continuing resolution (Division B of
P.L. 110-116, enacted on November 13, 2007) that provides FY2008 funding,
generally at FY2007 funding levels, through December 14, 2007.
On September 12, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 3074, which provides $105.9
billion (after rescissions and other adjustments) for transportation and housing and
urban development appropriations for FY2008. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations had reported a draft of the legislation (in the form of S. 1789) on July
16, 2007. The committee recommended a total of $104.7 billion (after rescissions
and other adjustments); $1.2 billion was added to the bill during deliberations on the
Senate floor for highway bridge repair and replacement, in response to concerns
about the integrity of bridges raised by the collapse of an interstate highway bridge
in Minnesota on August 1, 2007. This is $5.9 billion (6%) more than the comparable
amount for FY2007, and $5.6 billion (6%) more than requested for FY2008.
On July 24, 2007, the House passed H.R. 3074, which provides $104.4 billion
(after rescissions and other adjustments) in THUD appropriations for FY2008. This
is $4.4 billion (4%) more than the comparable amount provided for FY2007, and
$4.1 billion (4%) more than requested for FY2008.
Overview
The President’s Budget Request. 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.

---

CRS-2
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
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 included spending reductions that
had also been proposed by the Administration in previous budget requests, 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. Among the
programs proposed for reductions or elimination were
! 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
! HUD’s HOPE VI, Rural Housing and Economic Development,
Brownfields Redevelopment, and Section 108 Loan Guarantees
programs, for which no funding was requested (-$130 million total).
House and Senate Action. Both the House and the Senate have passed
versions of H.R. 3074, the FY2008 appropriations bill, for THUD. Both chambers
rejected the Administration’s proposed reductions, and provided increases for both
DOT and HUD over both the FY2007 levels and the FY2008 requested levels.
The House-passed version of 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).
1 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Summary, p. 1.

---

CRS-3
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3074 would provide a total of $105.9 billion,
$5.6 billion (6%) more than requested and $6.3 billion (6%) more than the FY2007
level. Within that total, the bill provides $66.9 billion for DOT ($2.4 billion more
than requested and $3.8 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). The Senate bill’s major funding difference with the
House bill is in providing more funding for DOT; most of that additional funding is
for repairs to bridges in response to the collapse of an interstate highway bridge in
Minnesota after passage of the House version of the bill.
The Conference Agreement. The conference agreement on H.R. 3074
recommends a total of $105.8 billion. This is $5.5 billion (6%) more than requested
and $6.2 billion (6%) more than the FY2007 enacted level. The agreement
recommends $66.7 billion for DOT, $2.2 billion more than requested and $3.5 billion
more than provided in FY2007. The conferees recommended $38.7 billion for HUD,
$3.1 billion more than the budget request and $2.4 billion more than the amount
provided in FY2007.
The conference agreement was reported on November 13, 2007. It was brought
to the House floor on November 14, 2007, and approved by a vote of 270-147 later
that day. The primary topics of discussion during consideration of the agreement had
to do with the time available to review the bill and additions made by conferees.
Some members complained that not only had the rule that members should be given
three days to review a bill before voting on it been waived, but also that the informal
practice that members be given at least 24 hours to review a bill was being ignored.
There were also criticisms of the number of earmarks in the bill, and of the addition
by conferees of some earmarks that had not been in either the House- or Senate-
passed versions of the bill (a practice known as “air-dropping” earmarks).
Complaints were also voiced about a provision (Section 193) added by
conferees that would prohibit any funds in the agreement from being used to provide
budget justifications to any congressional committee, other than the appropriations
committees, prior to May 31, 2008. In 2006, the Office of Management and Budget
began directing agencies to make their budget justifications available to the public,
and to post the justifications on the Internet, within two weeks of the transmittal of
those materials to Congress in early February. A similar provision was inserted in
the conference agreement on the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2006 (TTHUD) (P.L. 109-115, Section 182), and was added
to the Senate-passed version of the FY2007 TTHUD appropriations bill (H.R. 5576);
that bill was never passed by the Senate, and the prohibition was not included in the
continuing resolution that provided funding for those agencies for FY2007 (P.L. 110-
5).
The President issued a Statement of Administration Policy on the conference
agreement, threatening to veto the bill for exceeding the level of funding requested
by the Administration. The margin of passage of the bill in the House was less than
the two-thirds majority that would be required to override a veto.

---

CRS-4
Table 1 notes the status of the FY2008 THUD appropriations bill.
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.
7/24/07
9/12/07
110-446 11/14/07
6/11/07 7/10/07 110-238
110-131
268-153
88-7
11/13/07 270-147
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
FY2008
Title
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conf
Enacted
Title I: Department of
$63,181
$64,479
$65,542
$66,913
$66,712
Transportation
Title II: Housing and
36,633
35,597
38,666
38,737
38,659
Urban Development
Title III: Related Agencies
223
234
235
235
435
Total
$100,038
$100,310
$104,444
$105,885 $105,806
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

---

CRS-5
Development and the Judiciary, as well as several additional independent agencies,
was added. The subcommittee was then known as the Subcommittee on
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
FY2008
Department
FY2003b
FY2004c FY2005d FY2006e FY2007 Request
Conf
Title I: Transportationa
$55.7
$58.4
$59.6
$59.5
$63.2
$64.5
$66.7
Title II: Housing and
31.0
31.2
31.9
34.0
36.2
35.6
38.7
Urban Development

---

CRS-6
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.
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.

---

CRS-7
Transportation Appropriations
Table 4. Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars; totals may not add)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Department or Agency (Selected Accounts)
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
$171
$96
$150
$160
$159
Essential Air Servicea
109
50 110
110
110
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Operations (trust fund & general fund)
8,374
8,726
8,717
8,762
8,750
Facilities & Equipment (F&E) (trust fund)
2,516
2,462
2,515
2,517
2,527
Grant-in-aid for Airports (AIP) (trust fund)
3,515
2,750
3,600
3,515
3,515
(limit. on oblig.)
Research, Engineering & Development (trust
130
140
140
149
147
fund)
Subtotal, FAA
14,482
14,077
14,622
14,593
14,633
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(Limitation on Obligations)
39,086
39,585
40,216
41,216
41,216
(Exempt Obligations)
739
739
739
739
739
Additional funds (trust fund)
—
—
—
—
—
Additional funds (general fund)
23
—
—
40
30
Rescissions of contract authority
(4,343)
(2,000)
(3,385)
(3,121)
(3,409)
Subtotal, FHWAb
36,255
37,915
37,565
39,070
38,766
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
517
528
528
531
530
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)c
821
833
813
813
815
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
1,478
1,081
1,667
1,657
1,656
Amtrak
1,294
800
1,450
1,370
1,375
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
General Funds
1,747
1,550
1,838
1,692
1,776
Capital Investment Grants (New Starts)
1,566
1,400
1,700
1,566
1,650
Trust Funds
7,263
7,872
7,873
7,873
7,873
Subtotal, FTA
8,975
9,422
9,710
9,565
9,649
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
16
17
17
17
17
Maritime Administration (MARAD)d
214
295
292
326
307
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
Pipeline safety program
75
75
79
82
80
Emergency preparedness grants
14
28
28
28
28
Subtotal, PHMSA
134
148
154
156
154
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
8
12
12
12
12
Office of Inspector General
64
66
66
66
66
Surface Transportation Board
25
22
25
24
25
Total, Department of Transportation
$63,181
$64,479
$65,542
$66,913
$66,712
Source: Figures are from the Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority tables in H.Rept. 110-
238, S.Rept. 110-131, and a statement of new budget authority provided by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations. 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

---

CRS-8
funding actions. Columns may not add due to rescissions, rounding, and 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;
! 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 chambers have passed bills providing a higher level of DOT funding than
requested by the Administration: $65.5 billion ($1.1 billion more) by the House and
$66.9 billion ($2.4 billion more) by the Senate. The major difference between the
House and Senate totals is that the Senate version provides an additional $1 billion
for the FHWA’s Bridge Repair and Replacement Program and an additional
2 This total includes $66.9 billion in new appropriations and $2.4 billion in rescissions.

---

CRS-9
appropriation of up to $195 million for emergency funding to Minnesota, both in
response to the collapse of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis on August 1, 2007.
Neither chamber supported the Administration’s requested decreases in the various
transportation accounts. Nor did either chamber’s bill 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
FHWA Bridge Program ($1 billion by the Senate), the FAA Aviation Improvement
Program ($850 million by the House, $765 million by the Senate), and for Amtrak
($600 million by the House, $570 million by the Senate), and the inclusion by both
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).
Conferees reported a conference agreement on the bill on November 13, 2007.
The conference committee recommended $66.7 billion for DOT. This is $3.5 billion
more than the amount enacted for FY2007 and $2.2 billion more than the
Administration request for FY2008. The agreed-upon increases include an additional
$1 billion for highway bridge repair and replacement and an additional $631 million
reflecting the RABA adjustment to the authorized funding level for the federal
highway program; an additional $750 million for the FAA airport grant program,
restoring the cut proposed by the budget request; and an additional $475 million for
Amtrak (the budget requested a $394 million cut from the FY2007 level). This
agreement was approved by the House on November 14, 2007.
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-10
The House 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 approved $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 provided
$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 provided $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 amounts represent an
increase over the $1.3 billion provided for FY2007. The Senate also approved a floor
amendment eliminating a provision in the FY2006 THUD appropriations act (P.L.
109-115, 119 Stat. 2414, continued in FY2007 by P.L. 110-5, 121 Stat. 9) that
prohibited Amtrak from offering discounts of more than 50% off the normal peak
fare on a route. Both the House and Senate appropriations 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 conference agreement recommends $1.375 billion for Amtrak — $475
million for operating assistance and $900 million for capital assistance and debt
service. This is $80 million (6%) more than the amount provided for FY2007. The
conference agreement also recommends $75 million for a matching grant program
to encourage states to investment in passenger rail service. The grants will provide
a 50% federal share of the capital costs of improving existing intercity passenger rail
service and providing new intercity passenger rail service
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.
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

---

CRS-11
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
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. Both
the House and Senate approved $14.6 billion for FAA for FY2008, as did the
conference agreement.
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.
Both the House and Senate rejected the proposed cut. The House approved $3.6
billion for FY2008, a $95 million increase over FY2007. The Senate approved $3.5
billion, the same amount provided in FY2007. The conference agreement also
recommends $3.5 billion.
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.
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.
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-12
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. Both the House and Senate again rejected
the proposed cut, providing $110 million for FY2008. The conference agreement
also recommends $110 million.
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
The House approved $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. The Senate approved $42.2 billion in new funding, adding $1
billion to the FHWA bridge program and up to $195 million in emergency funding
for repair of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The conference
agreement also recommends $42.2 billion in new funding.
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-13
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 approved $528 million, the authorized level and the amount
requested by the Administration. The House also prohibited any funds in the act
from being used to implement the DOT’s pilot program allowing Mexican trucking
companies to operate beyond the commercial zone (a zone extending 20 miles into
the United States from the U.S.-Mexico border). The Senate provided $531 million,
and also prohibited the funds from being used to implement the cross-border trucking
program. The cross-border program began operating on September 7, 2007. The
conference agreement recommends $530 million, and also prohibits any funds in the
act from being used to implement the cross-border trucking program.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The
Administration requested $833 million for NHTSA, the amount authorized for
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 approved $836 million in new funding, $3 million more than
authorized and requested. The Senate approved $835 million in new funding, $2
million more than the level authorized and requested. The conference agreement
recommends $838 million in new funding ($815 million after a $23 million
rescission of contract authority).
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The Administration requested
$1.081 billion for FRA for FY2008. This is a decrease of $400 million (28%) from
the $1.478 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 approved $1.667 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 approved $1.657 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.
The conference agreement recommends $1.656 billion. This represents the
same level of funding as FY2007 for FRA’s safety and operations account, an

---

CRS-14
increase of $1.5 million over the FY2007 funding for FRA’s research and
development program, an increase of $81 million over the FY2007 funding for
Amtrak, and funds for two programs that were not funded in FY2007 — $75 million
for a capital grant program for states to support passenger rail service and $20 million
for a rail line relocation and improvement program.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Administration requested
$9.422 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
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 approved $9.710 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 House provided the $1.7 billion authorized funding
level for the Capital Improvement (i.e., New Starts) program, including the $200
million authorized for the new Small Starts portion of that program. The House
Appropriations Committee’s report on the bill recommended several recipients for
a portion of the Small Starts funding.
The Senate approved $9.565 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
funding, and the authorized level, was the $1.566 million provided 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. The Senate also
approved a floor amendment prohibiting FTA from finalizing its proposed New Start
evaluation rule.
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-15
The conference agreement recommends $9.649 billion for FTA. The primary
difference between this level and the levels approved by the House and Senate is the
funding for the New Starts program: the House approved $1.700 billion, the Senate
$1.566 billion, and the conference agreement recommends $1.650 billion.
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 approved $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 approved $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 for 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.
The conference agreement recommends $313 million in new funding for
MARAD for FY2008. This is $23 million more than the comparable amount
provided for FY2007 and $18 million more than the comparable amount requested
for FY2008. These increases are largely due to additional funding provided for
MARAD’s operations and training account, $10 million provided for assistance to
small shipyards, and $5 million provided for loan guarantees under the Maritime
Guaranteed Loan Program. No funding was provided for the latter two 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-16
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations
Table 5. Appropriations:
Housing and Urban Development, FY2007-FY2008
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Program
Enacteda
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Appropriations
Tenant Based Rental Assistance
(includes advanced
appropriation)
(Sec. 8 vouchers)
$15.920
$16.000
$16.330
$16.599
$16.443
Project Based Rental Assistance
(Sec.8)
5.976
5.813
6.480
5.813
6.382
Public housing capital fund
2.439
2.024
2.439
2.500
2.439
Public housing operating fund
3.864
4.000
4.200
4.200
4.200
HOPE VI
0.099
0.000f
0.120
0.100
0.120
Native American housing block
grants
0.624
0.627
0.627
0.630
0.630
Indian housing loan guarantee
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
Native Hawaiian Block Grant
0.009
0.006
0.009
0.009
0.009
Native Hawaiian loan guarantee
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Housing, persons with AIDS
(HOPWA)
0.286
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
Rural Housing Economic
Development
0.017
0.000
0.017
0.017
0.017
Community Development Fund
(Including CDBG)
3.772
3.037
4.180
4.060
4.000
Sec.108 loan guarantee; subsidy
0.004
0.000
0.004
0.006
0.005
Brownfields redevelopment
0.010
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.010
HOME Investment Partnerships
1.757
1.967b
1.764l
1.970
1.767
Homeless Assistance Grants
1.442
1.586
1.561
1.586
1.586
Self-help and Assisted
Homeownership
0.049
0.070
0.060
0.070
0.060
Housing for the elderly
0.735
0.575
0.735
0.735
0.735
Housing for the disabled
0.237
0.125
0.237
0.237
0.237
Housing Counseling Assistanceb
b
0.050b
b
b
b
Rental Housing Assistance
0.026
0.028i
0.028i
0.028i
0.028i
Research and technology
0.050
0.065
0.058
0.061
0.061
Fair housing activities
0.046
0.045
0.046
0.052
0.050
Office, lead hazard control
0.150
0.116
0.130
0.157
0.145
Salaries and expenses
0.581c
0.654
0.643
1.206j
1.222m
Working capital fund
0.195
0.220
0.125
0.173
0.155
Manufactured Housing Fees
Trust Fundd
0.013
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversightd
0.066k
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
FHA Expensesd
0.722
0.767
0.745
0.169j
0.169m

---

CRS-17
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Program
Enacteda
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
GNMA Expensesd
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.010j
n
Inspector General
0.089k
0.088
0.083l
0.112
0.112
Appropriations
Subtotal
39.195
38.263
41.029
40.900
40.972
Rescissions
Housing Certificate Fund
(Section 8) rescission
-1.650
-1.300
-1.300
-1.100
-1.250
HOPE VI rescission
0.000
-0.099f
0.000
0.000
0.000
Neighborhood Initiatives (NI)
rescission
0.000
-0.050g
0.000
0.000
0.000
Economic Developments
Initiative (EDI) rescission
0.000
-0.307g
0.000
0.000
0.000
Rental Housing Assistance
rescission
0.000
-0.028i
-0.028i
-0.028i
-0.028i
Rescissions Subtotal
-1.650
-1.783
-1.328
-1.128
-1.278
Offsetting Receipts/Program Savingse
Manufactured Housing Fees
Trust Fund
-0.013
-0.016
-0.016
-0.016
-0.016
Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight
-0.066k
-0.066
-0.066
-0.066
-0.066
Federal Housing Administration
(FHA)
-0.652
-0.250
-0.250
-0.250
-0.250
GNMA
-0.181
-0.185
-0.163
-0.163
-0.163
Legislative Proposals
NA
-0.366h
-0.540
-0.540
-0.540
Offsets Subtotal
-0.912
-0.883
-1.035
-1.035
-1.035
Total
$36.633
$35.597
$38.666
$38.737
$38.659
Source: Prepared by CRS based on the President’s FY2008 Budget documents, HUD Congressional
Budget Justifications, H.R. 3074 , H.Rept. 110-238, S.Rept. 110-131, funding tables updated for floor
action provided by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and H.Rept.110-446.
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. The
House version of H.R. 3074 would provide $49 million (see table note l), the Senate version
would provide $150 million, and the conference agreement would provide$50 million, for
housing counseling assistance.
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-18
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.
l. A floor amendment transferred $6.76 million from the Inspector General account to the HOME
account to be used for housing counseling assistance.
m. Similar to the Senate bill, the conference agreement would fund salaries and expenses directly.
n. $8.25 million for GNMA expenses is included in the salaries and expenses account.
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 requested about a billion-dollar decrease in
funding for HUD. Although the budget called for increased funding to programs for
the homeless, persons with AIDS, and first-time homebuyers, several programs were
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 is also influenced 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 Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act (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

---

CRS-19
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. On July 24,
2007, the House approved H.R. 3074. Several floor amendments made administrative
changes to HUD programs, but only one amendment changed funding levels, by
transferring $6.76 million to housing counseling assistance from HUD’s Inspector
General account. On September 11, 2007, the Senate began consideration of its
version of H.R. 3074 after substituting the content with the language of S. 1789. On
September 12, 2007, the Senate approved the legislation after adopting several
housing-related amendments, including:
! a set-aside of $100 million in the HOME account to fund foreclosure
prevention activities;
! a transfer of $380,000 from HUD’s salaries and expenses account to
the fair housing account in order to fund the creation and promotion
of translated materials to help in serving persons with limited
English proficiency;
! a set-aside of $25 million in the HOME account to fund the
American Dream Downpayment Initiative; and
! a transfer of $2.4 million from the Working Capital Fund to the
Research and Techonolgy account to provide additional funding for
tribal colleges and universities.
On November 8, 2007, House and Senate conferees agreed to a FY2008 THUD
funding bill. The total for HUD in the conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446) is
lower than the House and Senate-passed levels, but higher than the President’s
request. The agreement was reported on November 13, 2007, and was approved by
the House on November 14, 2007. According to a Statement of Administration
Policy released by the Office of Management and Budget, the President intends to
veto the bill, since its funding level is above his request.
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers). The
President’s budget requested $16 billion for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, a slight
increase over the $15.9 billion enacted for FY2007. H.R. 3074, as passed by the
House, would provide $16.3 billion. The Senate-passed version of the bill would
increase funding for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance to $16.6 billion. The conference
agreement would fund the account between the House- and Senate-passed levels, at
$16.4 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. The House-passed
version of H.R. 3074 adopts a formula similar to the one requested by the President.

---

CRS-20
The committee report (H.Rept. 110-38) notes that the committee chose not to use
updated data for allocating FY2008 funding because, since HUD delayed allocating
FY2007 funding under the new formula, the committee wanted to give PHAs
additional time to adjust to their FY2007 allocations before changing the formula
again. The Senate-passed bill 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. The conference agreement would use a formula similar to the one
included in the Senate version of the bill. (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. The House version of H.R. 3074 would
provide $30 million for incremental vouchers for certain non-elderly disabled
families and homeless veterans. The Senate bill 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. The conference
agreement would provide $135 million for incremental vouchers for homeless
veterans, families with children in the child welfare system or youth transitioning out
of foster care, and non-elderly disabled families.
Public Housing. The President’s FY2008 budget requested 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 requested $4 billion ($3.99 billion for
formula grants), which is estimated to result in a proration level of just over 80%.
Both the House and Senate bills, along with the conference agreement, 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.)
For FY2008, the President requested $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 the House- and Senate-passed bills would increase funding above the
President’s requested level for the public housing Capital Fund. The House bill
would fund the account at the FY2007 level ($400 million above the President’s
request), and the Senate bill would provide almost $500 million above the President’s
request. The Conference agreement would fund the account at the House-passed
level.
The President 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. The House and Senate bills, as well as the conference
agreement, would provide funding for the HOPE VI program and none would rescind

---

CRS-21
FY2007 funding, as requested in the President’s budget. The House bill would fund
the program at $120 million, and the Senate bill would fund the program at $100
million. The conference agreement adopts the House-passed level.
Community Development Programs. The President’s FY2008 budget
recommendation for the formula portion11 of the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program was approximately $3 billion, 20% less than the $3.7 billion
appropriated for distribution to entitlement communities and states in FY2007. As
approved by the House, H.R. 3074, would provide $3.9 billion for CDBG formula
grants. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3074 would fund CDBG formula grants
at $3.7 billion. The conference agreement would provide $3.8 billion. In addition
to the CDBG program, the Community Development Fund account has also been
used to fund other community development programs, including congressionally
directed projects through the Economic Development Initiatives (EDI) and
Neighborhood Initiatives (NI) programs. The President’s budget proposed
eliminating funding for EDIs and NIs, characterizing these programs as duplicative
of the activities funded by the CDBG formula grant program. Both House and
Senate bills would provide funding for EDI and NI earmarks. The House-passed
version of H.R. 3074 recommends $160 million for EDIs and $20 million for NIs;
the Senate-passed version would provide $248 million for EDIs and $40 million for
NIs. The conference agreement would provide $184 million for EDIs and $27
million for NIs.
The Administration’s budget also proposed eliminating funding for several
community development programs funded outside of the community development
fund account, including Brownfields Redevelopment, Section 108 loan guarantees,
and Rural Housing and Economic Development Grants. The President’s request for
no new funding for these accounts was rejected in both the House and Senate bills
as well as the conference agreement. 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. The conference agreement would provide $4.5 million for
Section 108 loan guarantees, $10 million for Brownfields Redevelopment, and $17
million for Rural Housing and Economic Development
Homeless Programs. The President’s budget for FY2008 proposed to
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 have been transferred to the Department of Labor to fund a
Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative under the President’s request. As in past years, the
Administration also proposed to consolidate the three competitive Homeless
Assistance Grants — the Supportive Housing Program (SHP), the Shelter Plus Care
11 The CDBG program also generally receives some funding for Indian tribes and other
purposes. For more information, 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.

---

CRS-22
(S+C) program, and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for Single Room
Occupancy Dwellings (SRO) program — into one competitive grant.
As passed by the House, 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-passed bill also fails to
fund the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative; however, it would 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. The conference agreement adopts the Senate-passed
funding level and includes funding for the demonstration program. Neither the
House nor the Senate bill, nor the conference agreement, 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
have reduced funding by almost $160 million (nearly 29%) from the FY2007 level,
to $575 million. The House-passed version of H.R. 3074 would have provided just
under $735 million for elderly housing programs, while the Senate-passed version
would have provided $735 million. The conference agreement provides $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, proposed 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 have provided $125 million for the Section 811 Housing for the
Disabled program. The decrease would have resulted 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-passed would provide funding
at the at the FY2007 level (just under $237 million); the Senate-passed bill and
conference agreement would both fund the account at $237 million.
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 FHA’s
declining market share.
The President’s FY2008 budget proposed 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 included three

---

CRS-23
legislative proposals that it estimated would generate $362 million in budget savings.
The first proposal was removing the aggregate limit on the number of Home Equity
Conversion Mortgages (HECMs) and setting the loan limit for HECMs at 100% of
the conforming loan limits, rather than varying by area. Second, amending the
National Housing Act 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 third proposal was increasing the fee charged
by the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) for guaranteeing
mortgage-backed securities by six basis points. The House and Senate bills include
only the first two proposals, but with larger estimates of savings ($540 million, as
shown under the heading Legislative Proposals in Table 5). Most of these proposals
are also included in the FHA reform bill (H.R. 1852) as reported in the House. The
President’s budget also proposed to move several accounts from the General
Insurance/Special Risk Insurance fund to the Mutual Mortgage Insurance fund,
although neither the House nor Senate bill include this proposal. The conference
agreement follows the House- and Senate-passed bills.

---