Order Code RL34542
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies (THUD):
FY2009 Appropriations
June 19, 2008
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): FY2009 Appropriations
Summary
The FY2009 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill (THUD) provides funding for the Department of
Transportation (DOT), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
and five independent agencies related to those two departments.
The Bush Administration requested net budgetary authority of $102.5 billion
(after scorekeeping adjustments) for FY2009, a cut of $36 million (less than 1%)
from the comparable FY2008 level. DOT would receive a net total of $63.5 billion,
a cut of $1 billion from the comparable FY2008 level. HUD would receive $39.1
billion, an increase of 4% ($1.4 billion) over the comparable FY2008 level.
Despite the decline in the amount requested for DOT programs and activities,
the request provides an increase in funding in several areas, including transit and
safety programs. The President’s budget requested a total of some $3 billion in cuts
in several areas. Similar cuts in the same areas have been requested in previous years
by the Administration, and have been rejected by Congress. These cuts include
reductions in funding for Amtrak, for the Airport Improvement grant program of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), for federal highway funding, and for the
Essential Air Service program.
The requested increase in net budget authority for HUD is largely attributable
to a decline in the amount available to offset new funding in the HUD budget. The
President’s budget request would actually result in an overall decline in non-
emergency appropriations for HUD’s programs and activities of just over 1% from
the FY2008 level.
Despite this decline in the amount requested for HUD programs and activities,
the President’s FY2009 budget requested increased funding in several areas,
including project-based Section 8 rental assistance, the HOME Investment
Partnerships block grant program, and Homeless Assistance Grants. The President’s
FY2009 budget requested reductions in funding for several programs, including the
Section 202 Housing for the Elderly program and the Section 811 Housing for
Persons with Disabilities program. The budget proposed eliminating funding for
several programs that were funded in FY2008, including the HOPE VI public
housing revitalization program, the Brownfields Redevelopment program, Section
108 loan guarantees, and the Rural Housing and Economic Development block grant
program. The President also requested no new funding for each of these programs
in his FY2004-FY2008 budget requests, although Congress continued to fund them
in each of those years.
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, Surface Transportation Security
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
Libby Perl
DSP
7-7806
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The President’s Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Changing Appropriations Subcommittee Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Transportation Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . . . . . . . . 9
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Maritime Administration (MARAD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Key Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: Renewal Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Project-Based Rental Assistance: Renewal Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
HOPE VI: No New Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Community Development and the Community Development
Block Grant: Funding Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Increased Funding for HOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Housing for the Elderly and Disabled: Funding Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Declining Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2009 Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 4. Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 5. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

---

Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies (THUD):
FY2009 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On February 5, 2008, the Administration submitted its budget request for fiscal
year (FY) 2009 to Congress. The budget request for both DOT and HUD represented
a reduction in funding compared to the non-emergency funding enacted for those
agencies in FY2008.
On June 5, 2008, the Congress approved its budget resolution for FY2009
(S.Con.Res. 70). The explanatory statement accompanying the conference agreement
noted that the budget fully funded highway, transit, and highway safety programs at
their authorized levels, rejecting the cuts requested by the President, as well as
providing more than the requested funding for Amtrak and for grants to airports. The
statement also rejected the deep cuts requested in community development programs,
including HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program.
On June 13, 2008, the House Committee on Appropriations distributed the
discretionary funding allocation to the appropriations subcommittees. The THUD
subcommittee received an allocation of $55.0 billion.1 This compares to the
estimated $50.6 billion requested by the President and $48.8 billion provided in
FY2008.
On June 20, 2008, the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Transportation HUD (THUD) marked-up an unnumbered draft FY2009 THUD
appropriations bill. According to the subcommittee’s press release, the bill would
increase funding for a number of housing and transportation programs over the
President’s request, including the Community Development Block Grant program,
housing for the elderly and disabled, public housing (including HOPE VI), Amtrak,
the Federal Transit Administration, and grants to airports. Full committee markup
is anticipated following the July 4th recess.
1 Discretionary funding represents about half of the annual THUD bill’s funding; the
remainder is contract authority deriving from the transportation trust funds.

---

CRS-2
Overview
Congress faces a difficult challenge in the FY2009 appropriations process. The
nation is facing a variety of economic challenges — including a general slowdown
in the economy, record high oil prices, and a decline in housing values. The budget
deficit for FY2008 is $319 billion as of June 1, with four months still to go in the
fiscal year. The President has threatened to veto any appropriations bills that exceed
the requested level of funding.
The President’s Budget Request
The President’s net FY2009 request for the programs covered by this
appropriations bill is $102.5 billion (after scorekeeping adjustments). This is $36
million (less than 1%) below the comparable total enacted for FY2008.
The DOT request was $63.5 billion, $1.2 billion (2%) below the amount
provided for FY2008. It provided a 7% increase for transit funding ($644 million),
though that is less than the authorized funding level.
The President’s FY2009 Budget requests $39.1 billion, a less than 4% increase
in total, regular (non-emergency) budget authority for HUD. Following recent trends,
the requested increase in budget authority is largely driven by declines in the amount
available for rescission (88% decline from FY2008) and projected to be available in
offsetting receipts (23% decline from FY2008). The FY2009 request for regular
(non-emergency) appropriations — which is the amount available for HUD’s
programs and activities — represents a slight decline (1.4%) from FY2008.
The Administration’s FY2009 budget request included funding reductions that
had also been proposed by the Administration in previous budget requests, without
success. Among the programs proposed for reductions or elimination were
! DOT highway funding (-$1.8 billion), airport grants (-$764 million),
Amtrak (-$525 million), and subsidies for air service to small
communities (-$60 million) programs;
! HUD’s Community Development Fund (-$866 million), Housing for
the Elderly (-$195 million), and Housing for the Disabled (-$77
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 (-$132 million total).
Table 1 notes the status of the FY2009 THUD appropriations bill.

---

CRS-3
Table 1. Status of FY2009 Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Conference
Subcommittee
House
Senate Senate
Conf.
Report
Public
Bill
Markup
House
Report Passage Report Passage Report
Approval
Law
House
Senate
House Senate
Draft
6/20/08
Table 2 lists the total funding provided for each of the titles in the bill for
FY2008 and the amount requested for that title for FY2009.
Table 2. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2008-FY2009
(millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
Title
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conf
Enacted
Title I: Department of
$64,708
$63,494
Transportation
Title II: Housing and
37,637
39,075
Urban Development
Title III: Related
415
270
Agencies
Total
$102,560 $102,524
Source: Budget table provided by the House Appropriations Committee and published in connection
with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. “Total” represents total budgetary resources after
scorekeeping adjustments. FY2008 total does not include $3.2 billion in emergency funding. 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-4
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 FY2004-FY2008, and the
amounts requested for FY2009, 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. Emergency supplemental appropriations are not included in the
figures.

---

CRS-5
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies, FY2004-FY2009
(billions of current dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
Department
FY2004a FY2005b FY2006c FY2007 FY2008d Requeste
Enacted
Title I: Transportation
$58.4
$59.6
$59.5
$63.2
$64.7
$63.5
Title II: Housing and
31.2
31.9
34.0
36.2
37.6
39.1
Urban Development
Source: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Comparative
Statement of Budget Authority tables from fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
a. FY2004 figures reflect a 0.59% across-the-board rescission.
b. FY2005 figures reflect a 0.83% across-the-board rescission.
c. 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.
d. FY2008 figures reflect a 2.0% rescission applied to most programs that included designated
earmarks, but do not reflect emergency funding. DOT received $195 million in emergency
funding; HUD received $3.0 billion.
e. FY2009 figure for Title I: Transportation reflects proposed rescission of $3.9 billion.
Transportation Appropriations
Table 4. Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2008-FY2009
(in millions of dollars; totals may not add)
FY2008
FY2009
Department or Agency (Selected Accounts)
Enacted
Request
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
157
130
Essential Air Servicea
110
50
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Operations (trust fund & general fund)
8,740
NA
Facilities & Equipment (F&E) (trust fund)
2,514
NA
Grant-in-aid for Airports (AIP) (trust fund) (limit. on oblig.)
3,515
2,750
Research, Engineering & Development (trust fund)
147
171
Subtotal, FAA
14,524
14,643
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(Limitation on Obligations)
41,216
39,399
(Exempt Obligations)
739
739
Additional funds (trust fund)
—
—
Additional funds (general fund)
30
—
Rescissions of contract authority
(4,107)
(3,885)

---

CRS-6
FY2008
FY2009
Department or Agency (Selected Accounts)
Enacted
Request
Subtotal, FHWAb
38,068
36,253
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
530
541
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
838
851
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
1,561
1,091
Amtrak
1,325
800
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
General Funds
1,590
1,775
Capital Investment Grants (New Starts)
1,569
1,621
Trust Funds
7,768
8,361
Subtotal, FTA
9,358
10,135
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
17
32
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
307
313
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
Pipeline safety program
80
93
Emergency preparedness grants
28
28
Subtotal, PHMSA
154
168
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)
12
12
Office of Inspector General
66
70
Surface Transportation Board
25
22
Total, Department of Transportation
$64,708
$63,494
Source: Figures are from a budget table published by the House Appropriations Committee in a
committee print combining the text and explanatory statement for the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161). 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 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 (if any) appropriated for
the program.
b. FHWA was appropriated $42.2 billion for FY2008. The $38.1 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.
The economic and political context within which the FY2009 transportation
appropriations process is taking place is tumultuous. The significant rise in the price
of fuel for cars, trucks, and commercial jets is having a major impact on components
of the transportation industry. The commercial passenger aviation industry is
projecting a loss of several billion dollars, and is cutting the number of flights offered
and even eliminating some routes. Meanwhile, the reauthorization of the FAA’s
programs and activities as well as the authorization of the taxes and fees that support

---

CRS-7
the airport and airway trust fund lapsed at the end of FY2007 and have been
continued under a series of short-term authorization extensions.
At the same time, there is widespread concern about the condition of the
nation’s infrastructure, a significant component of which is transportation
infrastructure. The collapse of an Interstate Highway bridge in Minnesota in August
2007 created concern over the conditions of the nation’s bridges. Portions of the
Interstate Highway system are reaching the end of their projected 50-year lifespan.
These factors, combined with concern over growing levels of traffic congestion, have
led to calls for increased spending on transportation infrastructure. Much of the
nation’s transportation infrastructure is funded through federal transportation
programs. At the same time, the primary source of federal highway funding, the
Highway Trust Account of the Highway Trust Fund, is projected to run out of money
before the end of FY2009. This was foreseen in SAFETEA-LU, which called for a
multi-billion dollar rescission of contract authority at the end of September 2009.
But rising gas prices have led consumers to reduce their vehicle miles traveled,2
which is reducing the revenues coming in to the Highway Trust Account and
suggesting that the deficit at the end of FY2009 may be greater than forecast.
FY2009 is the final year of the current surface transportation authorization.
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues
The President’s FY2009 budget requested a total of $64.5 billion for the
Department of Transportation (DOT).3 That was $1.2 billion (-2%) below the level
provided for FY2008. The major funding changes requested from the FY2008
enacted levels were
! an increase of $644 million (7%) for transit;
! a decrease of $1.8 billion (-4%) in highway funding;
! a decrease of $525 million (-40%) in Amtrak funding (similar to
requested decreases in FY2007 and FY2008 that were rejected by
Congress);
! a decrease of $765 million (-22%) in the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Airport Improvement Program (similar to
requested decreases in FY2007 and FY2008 that were rejected by
Congress); and
! a decrease of $60 million (-54%) in funding for the Essential Air
Service Program (similar to requested decreases in FY2007 and
FY2008 that were rejected by Congress).
The Administration request also proposed restructuring the FAA budget, reflecting
the Administration’s reauthorization proposal for the FAA.
2 According to the FHWA, yearly cumulative vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through April
2008 has decreased 2.1% (more than 20 billion VMT) compared to 2007 and the total figure
of VMT in April 2008 marks the sixth consecutive month that driving has declined
compared to the prior year.
3 This total represents $68.1 billion in new appropriations and $3.9 billion in rescissions.

---

CRS-8
The Administration’s request, including as it does over $3 billion in cuts that
have been repeatedly requested and repeatedly rejected by Congress, creates a
difficulty for appropriators. If the appropriators restore the funding for those
programs, even to just the level provided in FY2008, the resulting bill will likely
exceed the President’s request. Meanwhile, the President has threatened to veto
FY2009 appropriations bills that provide more than the requested level of spending.
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
requests $14.6 billion in new funding for FY2009. This is $152 million (-1%) less
than the amount of new funding provided in FY2008.4
It is difficult to compare the requested level for operations, the largest FAA
account, and facilities & equipment, because the budget request categorizes the FAA
funding differently than the FY2008 appropriation, reflecting the Administration’s
FAA reauthorization proposal. The Administration request does reflect a cut in the
Airport Improvement Program.
Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The President’s budget proposed
a cut of $764 million to AIP funding, from $3.51 billion in FY2008 to $2.75 billion
for FY2008. A similar cut was proposed by the Administration for FY2007 and for
FY2008; neither cut was supported by Congress. 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.
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 FY2008. A similar decrease was proposed by the Administration for
FY2007 and FY2008; both were rejected by Congress.
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 proposed reducing funding to
this program.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The President’s budget
requested $40.1 billion in new funding for federal highway programs for FY2009, a
4 The net new funding for FY2008 appears to be $118 million less than the FY2009 request,
due to a rescission of contract authority in the FY2008 appropriation. However, that
rescission did not actually reduce the amount of new funding provided in FY2008.

---

CRS-9
cut of $1.8 billion (-4%) over the comparable level of $42.0 billion provided in
FY2008.5 This is also $800 million below the $41.2 billion authorized funding level
for FY2009 that is “guaranteed” by SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59).
The $1.8 billion difference is made up of two components. First, SAFETEA-
LU provides a mechanism, known as RABA (‘Revenue Aligned Budget Authority’),
for adjusting the authorized level up or down to reflect the level of income received
by the Highway Trust Account. In FY2008, the authorized level was increased by
$631 million as a result of the RABA adjustment. The Administration estimates that
RABA calls for a $1.0 billion reduction in the authorized level for FY2009, reflecting
declining receipts to the Account. Second, based on the FHWA Administrator’s
overview, it appears that $800 million of the difference was FHWA’s share of a $1
billion reduction to adjust for the extra $1 billion in Highway Bridge Program
obligations provided by appropriators in FY2008.6 The overview argues that without
the reduction, the total obligation level provided over the full life of SAFETEA-LU
would have exceeded the $286.4 billion grand total of guaranteed funding provided
for in the act and agreed to by the Administration.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The
Administration requested the authorized level of funding for FMCSA, $541 million.
This is $11 million (2%) over the amount provided for FY2008.7 $307 million of the
request is for grants to states to enforce commercial truck and bus safety regulations.
The FY2008 THUD appropriations act included a provision (Section 136) that
prohibited any funds in the act from being used to “establish” a cross-border trucking
demonstration 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 DOT had implemented such a program on September 7, 2007,
shortly before the beginning of the 2008 fiscal year. DOT continued to operate the
program after passage of the FY2008 act, contending that FY2008 funding used for
the program would not be used to establish the program, but to continue its operation.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The
Administration requested $851 million for NHTSA, the amount authorized for
FY2009. This is an increase of $13 million (2%) over the amount provided for
FY2008.8 $600 million of this amount is for grants to states for highway safety
programs to reduce deaths and injuries from motor vehicle crashes.
5 The FY2008 enacted figure and FY2009 request were reduced, for accounting purposes,
by rescissions of contract authority, resulting in net budgetary totals of $38.1 billion for
FY2008 and $36.3 billion for the FY2009 request. An additional $195 million in emergency
funding was provided in FY2008.
6 The remaining $200 million of the reduction is to be taken from the proposed Federal
Transit Administration funding for FY2009.
7 The net total for FY2008 was reduced, for budgetary purposes, to $479 million, as a result
of $50 million in rescissions of contract authority.
8 The $838 million in new funding for FY2008 was reduced, for budgetary purposes, to $815
million by rescissions of contract authority.

---

CRS-10
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The Administration requested
$1.091 billion for FRA for FY2009. This is a cut of $471 million (-30%) from the
$1.561 billion provided for FY2008.
The largest portion of FRA’s budget is for support of Amtrak, and virtually all
of the proposed reduction was in funding for Amtrak — the Administration requested
$800 million for Amtrak, a cut of 40% ($-525 million). The next largest portion of
FRA’s budget is for safety programs intended to reduce railroad accidents. The
Administration requested $157 million, $7 million (4%) more than provided for in
FY2008. The other component of the FRA budget is research and development of
rail safety improvements. The Administration requested $34 million for this, $2
million (6%) less than the $36 million provided for in FY2008.
In FY2008 Congress also provided $20 million for a rail line relocation and
improvement program established in SAFETEA-LU that had not previously been
funded. The Administration did not request any money for this program in FY2008
or in FY2009.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Administration requested
$10.1 billion for FTA for FY2009. This is an increase of $644 million (7%) over the
amount provided for FY2008,9 but is $202 million below the authorized FY2009
funding level.
Virtually all of FTA’s funding goes to state and local transportation authorities
to support bus, commuter rail, subway, and light rail transit services.
Maritime Administration (MARAD). The Administration requested $313
million for MARAD for FY2009, $7 million (2%) above the $307 million enacted
for FY2008. MARAD supports the maritime transportation sector. The largest
components of its budget are the Maritime Security Program and Operations and
Training.
The Administration requested $174 million for the Maritime Security Program,
an $18 million (12%) increase over FY2008. This program 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 $118 million was requested for Operations and
Training, $4 million (-3%) less than provided for FY2008. This program funds the
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, State Maritime Schools, and MARAD’s operations.
9 The net FY2008 total was reduced, for budgetary purposes, to $9.4 billion by a $133
million rescission of contract authority.

---

CRS-11
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations
Most of the funding for the activities of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) comes from discretionary appropriations provided each year in
the annual appropriations acts enacted by Congress. HUD’s programs are primarily
designed to address housing problems faced by households with very low incomes
or other special housing needs. These include several programs of rental assistance
for the poor, elderly, and/or disabled. Three rental assistance programs — Public
Housing, Section 8 Vouchers, and Section 8 project-based rental assistance —
account for the majority of the Department’s non-emergency funding (more than 75%
in FY2008). Two flexible block grant programs, HOME and Community
Development Block Grants, help communities finance a variety of housing and
community development activities designed to serve low-income families. Other,
more specialized, block grants help communities meet the needs of homeless
persons, including those with AIDS. In recent years, HUD has also focused more
attention on efforts to increase the homeownership rates for lower-income and
minority households, with programs providing funding for downpayment assistance
and housing counseling. HUD’s Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insures
mortgages made by lenders to lower-income home buyers, many with below-average
credit records, and to developers of multifamily rental buildings containing relatively
affordable units. FHA collects fees from insured borrowers, which are used to
sustain the insurance fund and offset its administrative costs. Surplus FHA fees have
been used to offset the cost of the HUD budget.
HUD’s budget is comprised of several types of funding. Regular, annual
appropriations fund the activities of the Department. Offsetting collections and
receipts (such as those from FHA) and rescissions of unobligated balances from prior
years’ funding offset the cost to Congress of the appropriations. In some years,
Congress also provides emergency appropriations (such as in response to disasters)
through HUD. The total of appropriations, offsetting receipts and collections,
rescissions, and emergency appropriations determine HUD’s net budget authority.
This section of the report provides an overview of FY2009 funding for HUD.
It is largely summarized from a more detailed report, CRS Report RL34504, The
Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2009 Appropriations. Readers
seeking an expanded discussion of HUD funding issues, including an overview of
recent trends, should see CRS Report RL34504.
FY2009
Table 5 presents the President’s FY2009 budget request for HUD compared to
the prior year’s enacted budget authority. Four totals are given in Table 2: “budget
authority provided” and “available budget authority,” both including and excluding
emergency appropriations. Total budget authority provided includes current year
appropriations, plus advance appropriations provided in the current fiscal year for use
in the next fiscal year; total available budget authority includes current year
appropriations, plus advance appropriations provided in the prior fiscal year for use
in the current fiscal year. Congress is scored by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) for the amount of available budget authority in an appropriations bill;

---

CRS-12
however, the Appropriations Committees’ documents often discuss budget authority
provided.
The President’s FY2009 Budget requests $39,075 million, a less than 4%
increase in total, regular (non-emergency) budget authority for HUD. Following
recent trends, the requested increase in budget authority is largely driven by declines
in the amount available for rescission (88% decline from FY2008) and projected to
be available in offsetting receipts (23% decline from FY2008). The FY2009 request
for regular (non-emergency) appropriations — which is the amount available for
HUD’s programs and activities — represents a slight decline (1.4%) from FY2008.
Table 5. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,
FY2008-FY2009
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
Enacted
Request
Appropriations
Management and Administration
1.212
1.290
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (Sec. 8 vouchers)
(includes advance appropriation for subsequent year)
16.391
15.881
Project Based Rental Assistance (Sec.8)
(includes advance appropriation for subsequent year)
6.382
7.400
Public housing capital fund
2.439
2.024
Public housing operating fund
4.200
4.300
HOPE VI
0.100
0.000
Native American housing block grants
0.630
0.627
Indian housing loan guarantee
0.007
0.009
Native Hawaiian Block Grant
0.009
0.006
Native Hawaiian loan guarantee
0.001
0.000
Housing, persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
0.300
0.300
Rural Housing Economic Development
0.017
0.000
Community Development Fund (including CDBG)
3.866
3.000
Sec.108 loan guarantee; subsidy
0.005
0.000
Brownfields redevelopment
0.010
0.000
HOME Investment Partnerships
1.704a
1.967a
Self-help Homeownership
0.060
0.040
Homeless Assistance Grants
1.586
1.636
Housing for the elderly
0.735
0.540
Housing for persons with disabilities
0.237
0.160
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fundb
0.016
0.021
Housing Counseling Assistance
a
0.065a
Rental Housing Assistanceb
0.028
0.028
Research and technology
0.051
0.055
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Expensesb
0.169
0.187

---

CRS-13
FY2008
FY2009
Account
Enacted
Request
Fair housing activities
0.050
0.051
Office, lead hazard control
0.145
0.116
Working capital fund
0.155
0.224
Inspector General
0.112
0.115
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversightb
0.066
0.067
Appropriations Subtotal
40.683
40.108
Rescissions
Housing Certificate Fund (Sec. 8) rescission
-1.250
0.000
Neighborhood Initiatives rescission
0.000
-0.026
Economic Developments Initiative rescission
0.000
-0.180
Rental housing assistance rescission
-0.038
-0.028
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Sec. 8 voucher)
rescission
-0.723
0.000
Rescissions Subtotal
-2.011
-0.233
Offsetting Collections and Receipts
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund
-0.016
-0.016
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
-0.066
-0.067
FHA
-0.250
-0.140
Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)
-0.163
-0.170
Legislative Proposals
-0.540
-0.407
Offsets Subtotal
-1.035
-0.800
Emergency Funding
CDBG Appropriations for the Gulf Coast
3.000
0.000
Emergency Funding Subtotal
3.000
0.000
Totals
Total Budget Authority Provided,
excluding Emergency Appropriations
37.637
39.075
Total Available Budget Authority,
excluding Emergency Appropriations
37.672
38.833
Total Budget Authority Provided,
including Emergency Appropriations
40.637
39.075
Total Available Budget Authority,
including Emergency Appropriations
40.672
38.833
Source: Prepared by CRS based on tables provided by the Appropriations Committee, the President’s
FY2009 Budget documents and HUD Congressional Budget Justifications.
Note: Total budget authority provided includes advance appropriations provided in the current fiscal
year for use in the subsequent fiscal year; available budget authority includes the advance
appropriations that were provided in the prior fiscal year for use in the current fiscal year.
a. In FY2008, funding for housing counseling assistance was provided as a set-aside within the
HOME account; for FY2009, the President’s budget requested that funding for housing
counseling assistance be provided in a separate account.
b. Funding for this account is generally offset through collections, receipts, or rescissions.

---

CRS-14
Key Issues
The following section of the report provides a summary of key issues in HUD’s
FY2009 budget. For a more detailed examination, readers should see CRS Report
RL34504, The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2009
Appropriations.
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: Renewal Funding
The tenant-based rental assistance account funds the Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher program. The Section 8 voucher program funds rental assistance for low-
income families that they can use to reduce their housing costs in the private market.
The program is funded by HUD, but administered at the local level by quasi-
governmental local public housing authorities (PHAs). This account funds the
annual renewal of the roughly 2 million vouchers authorized by Congress, as well as
their associated administrative costs, and, in some years, new vouchers. (For more
information on the Section 8 voucher program, see CRS Report RL32284, An
Overview of the Section 8 Housing Programs and CRS Report RL34002, Section 8
Housing Choice Voucher Program: Issues and Reform Proposals in the 110th
Congress, by Maggie McCarty, Libby Perl, Bruce E. Foote, Eugene Boyd, and Oscar
R. Gonzales.)
The tenant-based rental assistance account is the largest in HUD’s budget. In
recent years, it has also been the source of the most contention in HUD’s budget.
Primarily, attention has been focused on whether the amount of funding provided for
voucher renewals is sufficient to fund all of the vouchers authorized by Congress
and/or in use by families, and how that renewal funding is to be allocated to PHAs.
(While there is a statutory formula for allocating voucher funds to PHAs, it has been
overridden in recent years by formulas adopted by Congress in the appropriations
acts.)
The amount available for voucher renewals each year is made up of two parts:
current year appropriations, and advance appropriations provided in the prior year
that become available in the current year. For FY2009, the President requested
$11,881 million in current year funding for voucher renewals as well as $4,000
million in advance appropriations for use in FY2010. This request represents a
decrease from the $12,233 million in current year funding provided in FY2008 and
a decrease from the $4,158 million in advance appropriations provided in FY2008
for use in FY2009.
Combined, the President’s request would result in $16,039 million in available
budget authority for FY2009 (current year funding plus prior year advance) and
$15,881 million in budget authority provided for FY2009 (current year funding plus
advance for subsequent year). This represents an increase from the $15,703 million
available in FY2008, but a decrease from the $16,391 million provided in FY2008.
HUD’s FY2009 budget documents estimate that the amount of funding requested
would be sufficient to renew all of the vouchers in use. (For a more detailed
discussion, see CRS Report RL34504, The Department of Housing and Urban
Development: FY2009 Appropriations.)

---

CRS-15
The President’s FY2009 budget also requested that Congress change the way
that it provides renewal funding to PHAs. Specifically, it requested that PHAs be
provided funding based on the amount of funding they received in the previous year.
This would be a change from the FY2008 funding formula, which funded PHAs
based on their costs and voucher usage (referred to as utilization) over the prior year.
This debate — over whether to fund PHAs based on the budget they received in the
prior year or based on their expenses — has gone back and forth since FY2003. For
a detailed discussion of this issue, see CRS Report RL33929, Recent Changes to the
Section 8 Voucher Renewal Funding Formula.
Finally, the President’s budget requested $39 million to fund new incremental
vouchers for elderly and disabled families who were displaced by the 2005 hurricanes
and whose FEMA-funded rental assistance will be ending in March 2009. The
budget also requested $75 million for new incremental vouchers for homeless
veterans. The combined total for new vouchers ($114 million) would be less than the
amount provided in FY2008 ($125 million).
Project-Based Rental Assistance: Renewal Funding
The project-based rental assistance account provides funding to renew, amend,
and cover administrative expenses for the more than one million rental assistance
contracts between private property owners and HUD. These contracts allow low-
income tenants that live in the assisted properties to pay reduced rents. The program
under which these contracts are authorized is commonly referred to as project-based
Section 8.
In July 2007, HUD stopped making payments to property owners with project-
based contracts. Due to a change in interpretation regarding how HUD was to
provide renewal funding, HUD determined it did not have sufficient funding to meet
its contractual obligations. A negotiation with the Office of Management and
Budget, and revisions to the contract language between HUD and property owners,
allowed HUD to resume payments (including retroactive payments). However, this
“shortfall” raised concerns among some Members of Congress — several committees
held hearings on the topic — and industry groups representing property owners.
For FY2009, the President’s budget requested $7,000 million for project-based
contract renewals, an increase from the $6,382 million provided in FY2008. Further,
the budget requested $400 million in advance appropriations to be provided in
FY2009 for use in FY2010. If approved, it would be the first time an advance
appropriation was to be used in this account. HUD’s budget documents indicate that
the Department believes that its request ($7,400 million) would be sufficient to meet
the Department’s contractual obligations; industry groups contend that in order to
“fully fund” its contractual obligations, HUD would need another roughly $2,000
million in FY2009. For an expanded discussion of this issue, see CRS Report
RL34504, The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2009
Appropriations.

---

CRS-16
HOPE VI: No New Funding
Each year since FY2003, the President has requested no new funding for the
HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. In response, each year, Congress
has continued to fund the program. Up until FY2003, the program was generally
funded at just under $600 million, although in recent years its funding level has
generally been around $100 million. HUD’s Congressional Budget Justifications
criticize the program for a slow expenditure of grant funds and also note that PHAs
are able to use their capital fund grants to leverage resources in much the same way
HOPE VI grants are used to leverage additional resources, making HOPE VI less
necessary. Proponents of HOPE VI cite the program’s transformative effects on
severely distressed communities. (For additional information, see CRS Report
RL32236, HOPE VI Public Housing Revitalization Program: Background, Funding,
and Issues.)
Community Development and the Community Development
Block Grant: Funding Reductions
The Community Development Fund (CDF) account funds the Community
Development Block Grant program, a formula grant to states and localities that funds
community development activities. In addition, the CDF has funded other
community development-related programs in past years, including the Economic
Development Initiatives and Neighborhood Initiative demonstrations.

The President’s FY2009 budget recommendation of $2,927 million for the
formula portion of CDBG is $659 million (18.4%) less than the $3,586 million
appropriated for distribution to communities and states in FY2008. In addition, the
President’s FY2009 budget request stated that the Administration would seek to
reform the CDBG program during the 110th Congress by again offering Congress a
proposal that was first unveiled during the 109th Congress, namely, the Community
Development Block Grant Reform Act.
In addition to requesting reduced funding for CDBG formula grants, the
Administration’s FY2009 budget proposes eliminating funding for several other
community development related programs, including Rural Housing and Economic
Development Grants, Community Development Block Grant Section 108 loan
guarantees, and Brownfields Economic Development Initiatives. The budget
characterized these programs as duplicative of the activities funded by the CDBG
formula grant program. The President’s budget also requested no new funding for
the Economic Development Initiatives and Neighborhood Initiatives demonstrations
programs — which Congress has used to fund congressionally-directed projects in
recent years — and asked that Congress rescind the funding provided to these
projects in FY2008.
Increased Funding for HOME
The HOME Investment Partnerships Program provides formula-based block
grant funding to states, units of local government, Indian tribes, and insular areas to
fund affordable housing initiatives. The President’s FY2009 budget requested a $275
million increase in funding for HOME formula grants. HUD’s Congressional Budget

---

CRS-17
Justifications identify the HOME program as key to the President’s goal of increasing
homeownership opportunities, especially for minorities. They also cite the program’s
relatively strong rating from the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB)
Program Assessment and Rating Tool evaluation. According to HUD’s
Congressional Budget Justifications, OMB found that the program “has a clear
purpose, strong management, and can demonstrate results.”
Housing for the Elderly and Disabled: Funding Reductions
Formerly known together as Housing for Special Populations, the Section 202
Housing for the Elderly program and the Section 811 Housing for Persons with
Disabilities program provide capital grants and ongoing project rental assistance
contracts (PRAC) to developers of new subsidized housing for these populations. In
FY2009, the Administration’s budget recommends reducing the overall funding level
for the programs that provide housing and services for elderly households (defined
by HUD as those with a head of household or spouse age 62 or older). The
President’s request would cut funding for these programs by nearly $200 million,
from $735 million in FY2008, to $540 million in FY2009. The President’s budget
also proposes to reduce funding for the Section 811 Housing for Persons with
Disabilities program in FY2009 to $160 million, down from $237 million in FY2008.
Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Declining Receipts
The FHA administers a variety of mortgage insurance programs that insure
lenders against loss from loan defaults by borrowers. Through FHA insurance,
lenders make loans that otherwise may not be available, and enable borrowers to
obtain loans for home purchase and home improvement, as well as for the purchase,
repair, or construction of apartments, hospitals, and nursing homes. The programs
are administered through two program accounts: the Mutual Mortgage
Insurance/Cooperative Management Housing Insurance fund account (MMI/CMHI)
and the General Insurance/Special Risk Insurance fund account (GI/SRI). The
MMI/CMHI fund provides insurance for home mortgages. The GI/SRI fund provides
insurance for more risky home mortgages, for multifamily rental housing, and for an
assortment of special-purpose loans such as hospitals and nursing homes. (For more
information, see CRS Report RS20530, FHA Loan Insurance Program: An
Overview.)
In past years, receipts to the MMI fund have exceeded expenses, so the MMI
fund did not need appropriations for a credit subsidy, and had excess receipts that
were used to offset the cost of the HUD budget. The FY2009 Budget estimates that,
if no programmatic changes are made, the MMI fund would need either a credit
subsidy or increases in insurance premiums to continue operation. The Budget
proposes to permit FHA to set insurance premiums based on the risk that the
borrowers pose to the insurance fund, and it proposes to set the rate at a level that
would avoid the need for subsidy appropriations. Barring the authority to establish
risk-based premiums, the Budget proposes that FHA would use its existing authority
to increase the insurance premiums charged to borrowers. The Budget assumes that
the increased premiums coupled with legislative and programmatic changes would
avoid the need for credit subsidy appropriations. (For an expanded discussion, see
CRS Report RL34504, The Department of Housing and Urban Development:
FY2009 Appropriations.)

---