The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2008 Appropriations

The Department of Housing and Urban
Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Updated January 16, 2008
Maggie McCarty, Libby Perl, and Bruce E. Foote
Domestic Social Policy Division
Eugene Boyd
Government and Finance Division
Meredith Peterson
Knowledge Services Group



The Department of Housing and Urban Development:
FY2008 Appropriations
Summary
On February 5, 2007, President Bush released his FY2008 budget request, ten
days before the Congress finished work on the FY2007 spending bills by approving
a revised year-long continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). The FY2007 CR funded most
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs at their FY2006
level, but with decreases for some programs, and increases for other programs. The
CR provided HUD with over $36.6 billion for FY2007.
The President’s FY2008 budget requested about a billion dollar decrease in
funding for HUD. It proposed to provide no new funding for several programs that
have been targeted for elimination in recent years, but that Congress has continued
to fund (HOPE VI, Rural Housing and Economic Development, Brownfields
Redevelopment, and Section 108 Loan Guarantees). The President’s FY2008 budget
also requested decreased funding for several programs, including housing programs
for the elderly and disabled, fair housing and lead paint programs, public housing
modernization, and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.
Each of these programs had been targeted for decreases in past budget requests, but
Congress had not approved the requested decreases. The President’s budget
requested funding increases for several programs, including public housing operating
costs and programs for the homeless, persons with AIDS, and first-time homebuyers.
The FY2008 funding debate was also shaped by the ongoing decline in receipts from
the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) available to offset the cost of the budget.
For FY2007, it was estimated that FHA would generate a net surplus of over $650
million; for FY2008, that amount was estimated to be about $250 million.
On July 18, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee reported its version of
the FY2008 HUD funding bill (H.R. 3074). On July 16, 2007, the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported its version (S. 1789). Both bills would have
increased funding above the President’s request for Section 8 vouchers, HOPE VI,
housing programs for the elderly and disabled, and CDBG. On July 24, 2007, the
House approved H.R. 3074, and on September 12, 2007, the Senate approved its
substitute version. On November 14, 2007, the House approved a conference
agreement that would have funded HUD at about $3 billion above the President’s
request (H.Rept. 110-446). In a Statement of Administration Policy, the President
indicated that he would veto the agreement, and the Senate never considered it.
Instead, on December 19, 2007, Congress approved the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (attached to H.R. 2764), which funds HUD at a lower level than
the House bill, Senate bill, and conference agreement, but at a level about $2 billion
above the President’s request. The President signed the bill into law on December
26, 2007 (P.L. 110-161), ending a series of continuing resolutions that had funded
most agencies at their prior-year level since the end of the 2007 fiscal year.
This report tracks the FY2008 congressional appropriations process and
provides a detailed discussion of the funding and issues related to the majority of
accounts in HUD’s budget. Following completion of the FY2008 appropriations
process, this report will not be updated.



Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act Approved..............1
Continuing Resolution......................................1
Conference Agreement Reached..............................1
Introduction to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)....2
FY2007 Appropriations.........................................2
The FY2008 Appropriations.........................................3
Accounts ....................................................7
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers).............7
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance.....................14
Housing Certificate Fund Rescission..........................17
Public Housing...........................................17
Native American Block Grants..............................20
Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)....................22
Rural Housing and Economic Development....................22
Community Development Fund/Block Grants..................23
CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantees.........................27
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative..................27
The HOME Investment Partnership Program...................28
Homeless Programs.......................................31
Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program.....32
Housing Programs for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities....34
Research and Technology..................................37
Fair Housing.............................................38
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction..........................39
Federal Housing Administration (FHA).......................40
Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)........42
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO).........43
List of Tables
Table 1. Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,
FY2003-FY2007 ..............................................2
Table 2. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,
FY2007-FY2008 ..............................................4
Table 3. Section 8 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Vouchers),
FY2007-FY2008 ..............................................7
Table 4. Advance Appropriations in the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
Account, FY2006-FY2008.......................................9
Table 5. Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, FY2007-FY2008.......15
Table 6. Public Housing, FY2007-FY2008............................18
Table 7. Native American Block Grants, FY2007-FY2008................21
Table 8. HOPWA, FY2007-FY2008.................................22
Table 9. Rural Housing and Economic Development, FY2007-FY2008......23



Table 10. Community Development Fund (CDF): Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG) and Related Set-Asides, FY2007-FY2008.......26
Table 11. CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantees, FY2007-FY2008..........27
Table 12. Brownfields Redevelopment, FY2007-FY2008.................28
Table 13. The HOME Investment Partnership Program, FY2007-FY2008....29
Table 14. HUD Homeless Programs, FY2007-FY2008...................31
Table 15. Self Help and Assisted Homeownership, FY2007-FY2008........33
Table 16. Sections 202 and 811, FY2007-FY2008.......................35
Table 17. Research and Technology, FY2007-FY2008...................37
Table 18. Fair Housing Programs, FY2007-FY2008.....................39
Table 19. Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control, FY2007-FY2008.............40
Table 20. Federal Housing Administration, FY2007-FY2008..............41
Table 21. Government National Mortgage Association, FY2007-FY2008....42



The Department of Housing and Urban
Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act Approved. On December 19,
2007, Congress enacted the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (attached to
H.R. 2764), to fund most of the federal government, including HUD, for the
remainder of the fiscal year. The overall HUD funding level provided in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act is less than originally approved by either the House,
Senate, or a House-Senate conference committee, but is about $2 billion higher than
the President’s request. It funds most HUD programs at the levels provided in the
conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446), although it reduces funding for some
programs, including the HOPE VI program, the HOME program, and the Community
Development Block Grant program. It also reduces funding for HUD’s Research and
Technology, Working Capital, and Management Expenses accounts. Additionally,
the bill contains a rescission of over $720 million in advance appropriations for the
Section 8 voucher program. The bill was signed into law by the President on
December 26, 2007 (P.L. 110-161).
Continuing Resolution. None of the FY2008 appropriations bills were
enacted before the start of the fiscal year. On September 27, 2007, Congress
approved a continuing resolution (CR) funding most programs at their FY2007
funding levels through November 16, 2007 (P.L. 110-92). A second CR, which
continued funding through December 14, 2007, was attached to the FY2008 Defense
appropriations conference agreement and approved by Congress on November 8,
2007 (P.L. 110-116). The second CR also included $3 billion in additional
emergency supplemental Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for
Louisiana’s Hurricane Katrina recovery program, called the Road Home. A third CR
(P.L. 110-137) provided funding through December 21, 2007, and a fourth CR
(H.J.Res. 72) was slated to expire at the earlier of December 31, 2007, or the date the
President signed the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (discussed above).
Conference Agreement Reached. On November 8, 2007, House and
Senate conferees agreed to an FY2008 Transportation-HUD funding bill (H.Rept.

110-446). The conference agreement would have provided $38.66 billion for HUD.


It was approved by the House on November 14, 2007; it was never considered by the
Senate. The President, in a Statement of Administration Policy, indicated that if the
bill had been sent to him, he would have vetoed it because its funding level exceeded
his request.



Introduction to the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
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, 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 funding (nearly 75% in FY2007). 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 funds are used to offset the
cost of the HUD budget.
Table 1. Department of Housing and
Urban Development Appropriations, FY2003-FY2007
(net budget authority in billions)
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
$31.01 $31.20 $31.92$50.68a$36.63
Source: Figures are from the House Appropriations Committee funding tables. Final appropriations
levels for any fiscal year include all supplemental appropriations or rescissions. They do not reflect
revised estimates of offsetting receipts.
a. Figure includes $17.1 billion ($11.9 billion in P.L. 109-148 and $5.2 billion in P.L. 109-234) in
emergency supplemental appropriations enacted in response to the 2005 Hurricanes. Regular
FY2006 HUD appropriations totaled just under $33.6 billion.
FY2007 Appropriations
Congress did not complete most FY2007 appropriations bills before the
beginning of the fiscal year or before the close of the 109th Congress, when the partyth
control of Congress changed. In order to keep the government running, the 109
Congress approved a series of stop gap funding measures, called continuing
resolutions, that maintained government funding at the lower of the FY2006 enacted,
House-passed, or Senate-passed level. On February 15, 2007, the 110th Congress



approved a revised continuing resolution covering the remainder of FY2007 (P.L.
110-5). It funded most programs at their FY2006 level, although it specified higher
or lower funding levels for some programs, including several HUD programs.
Specifically, the CR funded six HUD accounts above their FY2006 level:
!Tenant Based Rental Assistance: $15,920 million for FY2007;
!Project-Based Rental Assistance: $5,976 million for FY2007;
!Public Housing Operating Fund: $3,864 million for FY2007;
!Indian Housing Loan Guarantee: $6 million for FY2007;
!Homeless Assistance Grants: $1,442 million for FY2007; and
!Salaries and Expenses: the FY2006 levels, plus such sums as
necessary to meet 50% of the need for cost-of-living increases for
federal employees for FY2007.
The CR funded three HUD accounts below their FY2006 level:
!Self Help and Assisted Homeownership: $49 million for FY2007;
!Research and Technology: $50 million for FY2007; and
!Community Development Fund: $3,772 million for FY2007.
The 110th Congress approved an FY2007 supplemental funding bill that made
several changes to the FY2007 CR. The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care,
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Act (P.L. 110-28) provided additional
funding for HUD’s Inspector General in order to oversee Hurricane Katrina funding,
additional funding for the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, language
clarifying how the Department should distribute FY2007 Section 8 voucher funding,
language extending the availability of Katrina voucher funds, and language clarifying
how HUD should treat the renewal of certain project-based voucher contracts. (For
more details on the FY2007 budget for HUD, see CRS Report RL33344, The
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): FY2007 Budget, by Maggie
McCarty, Bruce E. Foote, Eugene Boyd, Libby Perl, and Meredith Peterson.)
The FY2008 Appropriations
Table 2 presents the President’s FY2008 HUD budget request compared to the
prior year’s appropriations, as well as House and Senate measures, and the final,
enacted funding law.



Table 2. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,
FY2007-FY2008
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2007 dFY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008mFY2008p
ProgramEnactedRequestHouseSenate Conf.Enacted
Appro pria t io ns
Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance (Sec. 8
vouchers; includesq
advance appropriations) 15.92016.00016.33016.59916.44316.391
Project-Based Rental
Assistance (Sec.8)5.9765.8136.4805.8136.3826.382
Public housing capital
fund 2.439 2.024 2.439 2.500 2.439 2.439
Public housing operating
fund 3.864 4.000 4.200 4.200 4.200 4.200
HOPE VI0.0990.000h0.1200.1000.1200.100
Native American housing
block grants0.6240.6270.6270.6300.6300.630
Indian housing loan
guarantee 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007
Native Hawaiian Block
Grant 0 .009 0.006 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
Native Hawaiian loan
guarantee 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Housing, persons with
AIDS (HOPWA)0.2860.3000.3000.3000.3000.300
Rural Housing Economic
Development 0 .017 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
Community Development
Fund (Including CDBG)3.7723.0374.1804.0604.0003.866
Sec.108 loan guarantee;
subsid y 0 .004 0.000 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.005
B r o wnfield s
redevelopment 0 .010 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
HOME Investmentak
P artnerships 1.757 1.967 1.764 1.970 1.767 1.704
Homeless Assistance
Grants 1.442 1.586 1.561 1.586 1.586 1.586
Self-help and Assisted
Ho meownership 0 .049 0.070 0.060 0.070 0.060 0.060
Housing for the elderly0.7350.5750.7350.7350.7350.735
Housing for the disabled0.2370.1250.2370.2370.2370.237
Housing Counselingaaaaaaa


Assista nc e 0.050

FY2007 dFY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008mFY2008p
ProgramEnactedRequestHouseSenate Conf.Enacted
Rental Housingiiiii
Assistance 0.0260.0280.0280.0280.0280.028
Research and technology0.0500.0650.0580.0610.0610.051
Fair housing activities0.0460.0450.0460.0520.0500.050
Lead Hazard Control0.1500.1160.1300.1570.1450.145
Salaries and expenses0.581e0.6540.6431.206l1.222n1.212n
Working capital fund0.1950.2200.1250.1730.1550.155
Manufactured Housingb
Fees Trust Fund0.0130.0160.0160.0160.0160.016
Office of Federal Housingbf
Enterprise Oversight0.0660.0660.0660.0660.0660.066
FHA Expensesb0.7220.7670.7450.169l0.169n0.169n
GNMA Expensesb0.0110.0110.0110.010loo
Inspector General0.089f0.0880.083k0.1120.1120.112
Appro pria t io ns
Subt o t a l 3 9 . 1 9 5 3 8 . 2 6 3 4 1 . 0 2 9 4 0 . 9 0 0 4 0 . 9 7 2 4 0 . 6 8 3
Re sc issio ns
Housing Certificate Fund
(Section 8) rescission-1.650-1.300-1.300-1.100-1.250-1.250
HOPE VI rescission0.000-0.099h0.0000.0000.0000.000
Neighborhood Initiativesj
(NI) rescission0.000-0.0500.0000.0000.0000.000
Economic Developmentsj
Initiative (EDI) rescission0.000-0.3070.0000.0000.0000.000
Rental Housingiiiii
Assistance rescission0.000-0.028-0.028-0.028-0.028-0.038
Section 8 Voucherq
rescission 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0 .723
Rescissions Subtotal-1.650-1.783-1.328-1.128-1.278-2.011
Offsetting Receipts/Program Savingsg
Manufactured Housing
Fees Trust Fund-0.013-0.016-0.016-0.016-0.016-0.016
Office of Federal Housingf
Enterprise Oversight-0.066-0.066-0.066-0.066-0.066-0.066
Federal Housing
Administration (FHA)-0.652-0.250-0.250-0.250-0.250-0.250
GNMA -0.181 -0 .185 -0 .163 -0 .163 -0 .163 -0 .163
Legislative ProposalscNA -0.366-0.540-0.540-0.540-0.540
Offsets Subtotal-0.912-0.883-1.035-1.035-1.035-1.035
To tal 36.633 35.597 38.666 38.737 38.659 37.637



Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
a. 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 the House and
Senate bills, as well as the conference agreement, and final enacted bill included funding for
housing counseling as a set-aside within the HOME account for FY2008. The House version
of H.R. 3074 would have provided $49 million (see table note p), the Senate version would have
provided $150 million, the conference agreement would have provided $50 million, and the
final, enacted bill provided $50 million.
b. The cost of these accounts is generally covered (partially, if not fully) by offsetting receipts that
are listed elsewhere in this table.
c. The President proposed a series of cost-saving/revenue-increasing FHA modernization proposals,
several of which were adopted by Congress. They are included in the discussion of the Federal
Housing Administration later in this report. The President’s budget also included a new $4
million legislative proposal for HUD oversight of the Government Sponsored Enterprises, which
was not adopted by Congress.
d. 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.
e. 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.
f. 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.
g. Estimates of offsetting receipts are subject to change.
h. The President requested that Congress rescind the amount provided in FY2007 for HOPE VI.
i. As proposed by the President, House bill, Senate bill, and conference agreement, the $28 million
for rental housing assistance would have been fully offset by a rescission of $28 million in
unobligated and recaptured balances from the rental housing assistance account. The FY2008
enacted funding bill provided $28 million for rental housing assistance but rescinded $38
million in unobligated balances, leaving a net offset of $10 million.
j. The Presidents budget requested a rescission of FY2007 EDI and NI funds within the CDF
account, but no EDI or NI funds were provided in FY2007.
k. A floor amendment would have transferred $6.76 million from the Inspector General account to
the HOME account to be used for housing counseling assistance.
l. The Senate-passed funding bill proposed to change the way that HUD’s salaries and expenses were
funded. Traditionally, HUD has transferred funds from FHA and GNMA to cover the agencys
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.
m. The House and Senate conference agreement for HUD was approved by the House but never
considered by the Senate. It was replaced with a HUD funding bill included as Division K in
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008.
n. Similar to the Senate bill, the conference agreement would have funded HUDs salaries and
expenses directly, at the President’s requested level, in new accounts. P.L. 110-161 funded the
account using the same structure as the conference agreement but provided $10 million less for
non-personnel expenses.
o. $8.25 million for GNMA expenses is included in the HUD salaries and expenses account.
p. The account-level funding table for Division K- Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2008, included in the joint explanatory statement as
printed in the Congressional Record on December 17, 2007 (beginning on page H16632), is not
consistent with the funding levels set by the legislative text as printed in the Congressional
Record on the same date. However, the account-level table included in the joint explanatory
statement posted on the House Rules Committee website, prior to floor consideration of the bill,



is consistent with the legislative text printed in the Congressional Record and is also consistent
with tables provided to CRS by the House Appropriations Committee. As a result, the table
posted on the House Rules Committee website was used in place of the table printed in the
Congressional Record.
q. The Consolidated Appropriations Act includes $4.158 billion in advance appropriations for tenant-
based rental assistance to become available in FY2009. $4.193 billion in advance appropriations
provided in FY2007 became available at the beginning of FY2008. Of the advance
appropriations provided in FY2007 for use in FY2008, P.L. 110-161 rescinds $723 million. For
additional information, see discussion under the “Tenant-Based Rental Assistance” heading later
in this report.
Accounts
The following section of the report provides a detailed discussion of the
majority of accounts included in Table 2. Note that the unit of funding may vary
between millions and thousands from table to table.
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers). The tenant-
based rental assistance account funds the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
program. (See CRS Report RL32284, An Overview of the Section 8 Housing
Program, by Maggie McCarty.) Section 8 vouchers are portable rent subsidies that
low-income families use to reduce their housing costs in the private market. HUD
currently funds more than 2 million Section 8 vouchers, which are administered at
the local level by quasi-governmental Public Housing Authorities (PHAs). This
account — the largest in HUD’s budget — funds the cost of those vouchers and the
cost of administering the program.
Table 3. Section 8 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Vouchers),
FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007a FY2008 FY2008
EnactedRequestHouseSenateConf. Enacted
Section 8 Tenant-Basedbcdef
Rental Assistance15,92016,00016,33016,59916,44316,391
(includes advance approps.)
Voucher Renewals14,436c14,44514,74514,93614,69514,695g
Rental Subsidy100c100751005050
R e se rv e
Administrative Fees1,282bc1,3511,3511,3511,3511,351
Family Self Sufficiency474848504949
Tenant Protection149bc150150150200200
New Incremental0030105135125
V o uc he r s
Working Capital Fund676676
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR (P.L.
110-5) and are therefore assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.



b. Not all subaccount amounts for the tenant-based rental assistance account were initially specified
in the year-long CR (P.L. 110-5). Only the total amount, the voucher renewal amount, and the
rental subsidy reserve amount were specified. The remainder of the subaccounts were
presumably funded at their FY2006 level. However, if funded at the FY2006 level, the sum of
the set-asides would not have equaled the total provided to the account ($15,905 million
compared to $15,920 million). The FY2007 supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 110-28)
amended the FY2007 year-long CR to provide $1,282 million for administrative fees (compared
to the FY2006 level of $1,238 million) and $149 million for tenant-protection vouchers
(compared to the FY2006 level of $178 million).
c. The FY2007 year-long CR specified an amount for this account.
d. This account includes an advance appropriation provided for use in the next fiscal year. In
FY2007, the advance provided for FY2008 ($4,193 million) was $7 million less than the
advance available from FY2006 ($4,200 million). This leaves $7 million more available in
FY2007 than would have been available if the advances had been equal (as they had been in
recent years). This $7 million was not allocated in the FY2007 appropriations law, leaving the
discretion to HUD as to how to use the funds. It is unclear how those funds were allocated. For
more information, see discussion under headingAdvance Appropriation below.
e. The set-asides within this account total to $16,436, $7 million less than the amount shown here.
The reason for the discrepancy involves the treatment of an advance appropriation. As noted
in Table Note d, in FY2007, $4,193 million was provided in advance appropriations for
FY2008. In FY2008, the conferees proposed providing $4,200 million for FY2009. The
difference between the two amounts ($7 million) would not have been available until FY2009
and was therefore not included in the total. For more information, see discussion under heading
Advance Appropriation below.
f. The set-asides within this account total to $16,426 million, $35 million more than the total for the
account shown here. The reason for the discrepancy involves the treatment of an advance
appropriation. The advance appropriation provided in FY2007 for use in FY2008 was $4,193
million, while the amount provided in FY2008 for use in FY2009 was $4,158 million. The
difference between the two amounts ($35 million) is available for use in FY2008, but is not
considered new budget authority authorized by the appropriations act, so it is not included in
the total for the account. For more information, see discussion under headingAdvance
Appropriation below.
g. The amount actually available for renewals is $723 million less than the amount shown here
($13,971) because the enacted appropriations law includes a rescission of $723 million in
advance appropriations provided in FY2007 for use in FY2008. Because of the way that
Congress designed the allocation formula, that reduction will be taken from renewal funds (see
discussion under the headingVoucher Renewals” below).
Advance Appropriation. Each year for the past several years, the tenant-
based rental assistance account has included an advance appropriation. Generally,
Congress provides the account with new budget authority equal to an amount of
funding available to be used in the current fiscal year, as well as an advance
appropriation to be used in the subsequent fiscal year. And, each year, the amount
of budget authority newly available for the account is equal to the amount of funding
provided for use in the current fiscal year, plus the advance appropriation provided
in the previous fiscal year. For most years, the advance available from the prior year
and the advance that is provided for the subsequent year has been the same: $4.2
billion. As a result, the new budget authority for the tenant-based rental assistance
account has equaled the budget authority newly available for the account each fiscal
year. For example, as shown in Table 4, the FY2006 appropriations act authorized
$11,374 million in new budget authority for use in FY2006 and $4,200 million in
new budget authority for use in FY2007, and $4,200 million provided in FY2005
became newly available in FY2006.



However, in FY2007, Congress provided only $4,193 million in advance
appropriations for use in FY2008, less than the $4.2 billion that became available in
FY2007 from the FY2006 appropriation. As a result, in FY2007, the amount of new
budget authority authorized in FY2007 was less than the budget authority newly
available for FY2007 by $7 million. As shown in the FY2007 column of Table 4,
$15,920 million in new budget authority was authorized by the FY2007 law, while
$15,927 million was budget authority newly available to be obligated in FY2007.
As shown in Table 3, the FY2007 appropriations act directed HUD how to
allocate only $15,920 million of the $15,927 million available for allocation. It is
unclear how HUD chose to allocate the remaining $7 million.
Again for FY2008, Congress provided less advance appropriations for use in the
subsequent year ($4,158 million provided in FY2008 for use in FY2009) than was
provided in the prior year ($4,193 million provided in FY2007 for use in FY2008).
As a result, the new budget authority authorized in FY2008 ($16,931 million) is less
than the budget authority newly available in FY2008 ($16,426 million). (See the
FY2008 column of Table 4.) Unlike the FY2007 appropriation law, the FY2008
appropriations law allocates the full amount of the budget authority newly available
in FY2008 (the amount provided in FY2008 plus the advance from FY2007).
However, the FY2008 appropriations act also contains a rescission of $723 million
from the advance provided in FY2007 for use in FY2008. (See the FY2008 Adjusted
column of Table 4.) This reduction will be taken from the amount available for
tenant-based renewals, as discussed below.
Table 4. Advance Appropriations in the Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance Account, FY2006-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 Adjusted
New Budget Authority in a Fiscal Year
Amount provided in current FY for use in
current FY11,37411,72712,23312,233
Amount provided in current FY for use in
next FY4,2004,1934,1584,158
Total New BA Provided in FY$15,574$15,920$16,391$16,391
Budget Authority Newly Available in a Fiscal Year
Amount provided in current FY for use in
current FY11,37411,72712,23312,233
Amount provided in prior FY for use ina
current FY4,200 4,2004,1933,470
Total BA Newly Available in FY$15,574$15,927$16,426$15,703
Source: Table prepared by CRS.
a. Reduced for $723 million rescission.



Voucher Renewals. The majority of tenant-based rental assistance funding
is dedicated to voucher renewals. Congress has authorized the creation of more than
2 million vouchers over the history of the program, and the funding for virtually all
of them expires every year. Since FY2004, Congress has made changes each year in
the way that HUD distributes voucher renewal funding to PHAs. (For more
information, see CRS Report RL33929, Recent Changes to Section 8 Housing
Voucher Renewal Funding, by Maggie McCarty.) Several voucher reform proposals
have also been considered that would alter the statutory formula for distributing
voucher funds, although none has been enacted. Even if they were enacted, language
included in appropriations bills could potentially override statutory formula changes.
(For more information, see CRS Report RL34002, Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher Program: Issues and Reform Proposals in the 110th Congress, by Maggie
McCarty.)
The FY2007 year-long CR did not adopt the same allocation formula that was
in place in FY2006. In FY2006, PHAs were funded on the basis of what they had
received in FY2005, with some adjustments (including for inflation and some first-
time voucher renewals), and prorated to fit within the amount appropriated. For
FY2007, Congress directed HUD to fund PHAs on the basis of their actual leasing
and costs from the previous 12 months, adjusted for inflation and for the cost of the
first-time renewal of tenant-protection vouchers and vouchers set aside for project-
based use, and prorated to fit within the amount appropriated. Moving to Work
(MTW) demonstration agencies were funded on the basis of their MTW agreements,
subject to proration. Several other categories of agencies also received a modified
funding allocation, including certain Katrina-affected PHAs, PHAs under
administrative or judicial receiverships, and PHAs that spent more than their funding
allocation. Of the amount provided for renewals, $100 million was set aside to adjust
the budgets of agencies that (1) had experienced an increase in voucher costs due to1
unforeseen circumstances or portability and (2) were adversely affected by the
formula change and risked losing vouchers. The formula contained in the year-long
CR was similar to the one in place in FY2004.
In his FY2008 budget, the President requested that PHAs receive renewal
funding using a formula similar to the one in place in FY2006. Specifically, the
President requested that PHAs be funded on the basis of what they received in
FY2007; adjusted for inflation, the costs of deposits to escrow accounts, and the first
time renewal of tenant protection vouchers; and prorated to fit within the amount
appropriated. MTW agencies would be funded pursuant to their agreements, subject
to proration. The President’s budget also requested that $100 million be set aside for
additional rental subsidy needs resulting from unforeseen circumstances, and to make
portability adjustments.
The House-passed version of H.R. 3074 would have provided $14.7 billion for
voucher renewals in FY2008. Similar to the President’s requested formula, the
House bill would have allocated renewal funds on the basis of what PHAs received


1 Portability is the term used to describe a family’s ability to move from the jurisdiction of
one PHA to another PHA while maintaining their voucher assistance. If a family moves to
a more expensive community, a PHA can face increased voucher costs.

in FY2007, plus inflation. The bill would have further adjusted PHAs’ allocations
to account for costs related to Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) escrow accounts, the
first time renewal of HOPE VI vouchers, and vouchers set aside for project-based
contracts, and would have prorated the allocations to fit within the amount
appropriated. MTW agencies were to be funded on the basis of their MTW
agreements. The bill would have required the Secretary to notify agencies of their
budgets within 45 days of enactment. The Secretary would have been permitted to
set aside up to $75 million to provide agencies with additional rental subsidy funding
in response to unforeseen exigencies (as determined by the Secretary) or the cost of
portability. The bill would have continued to prohibit PHAs from using more than
their authorized number of vouchers, a practice called overleasing.
The House committee report (H.Rept. 110-238) noted that the committee chose
not to use updated data for allocating FY2008 renewal funding because HUD delayed
allocating FY2007 funding under the new formula, and therefore the committee
wanted to give PHAs additional time to adjust to their FY2007 allocations before
changing the formula again.
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3074 would have provided $14.9 billion for
voucher renewals in FY2008. Similar to the FY2007 year-long CR, the funding
would have been allocated on the basis of PHAs’ most recent 12 months of leasing
and cost data, adjusted for inflation and the first time renewal of tenant protection or
HOPE VI vouchers or vouchers set aside for a project-based commitment. Under the
Senate bill, MTW agencies would have been funded subject to their agreements, and,
as under the year-long CR, the same three categories of agencies would have been
funded using a different allocation formula. First, certain Katrina-affected agencies
would have been funded on the basis of the higher of what they would have received
under the FY2008 formula or what they received in FY2007, although PHAs would
have been required to submit plans detailing how they could effectively use any
additional funds within 12 months. Second, agencies that would have lost funding
under the FY2008 formula and had been put in receivership within the prior 24
months would have been funded on the basis of the higher amount they received in
FY2007, as long as they submitted a spending plan. Third, agencies that spent more
in FY2007 than their FY2007 allocation plus their unspent voucher and
administrative fee balances from FY2006 would have been funded on the basis of
what they received in FY2007. All allocations were to be prorated to fit within the
amount appropriated, and the Secretary would have been required to notify PHAs of
their budgets within 90 days of enactment.
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3074 would also have permitted the
Secretary to set aside up to $100 million to adjust the allocations of PHAs with
significant increases in renewal costs due to unforeseen circumstances or increased
portability costs, or to adjust the allocations for PHAs that could face a loss of
voucher units due to the use of updated leasing and cost data. Like the House bill,
the Senate bill would have continued the prohibition on overleasing. The committee
report (S.Rept. 110-131) noted that the committee continued the FY2007 formula
because the committee believed that it would provide an efficient method to capture
actual costs incurred by PHAs administering the voucher program, including
variations in rental markets.



The conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446) would have provided a funding
level for voucher renewals lower than either the House or Senate bill. Similar to the
Senate bill, it would have distributed funds on the basis of leasing and cost data, but
rather than using the most recent data, the bill would have directed the Secretary to
use data from the most recent federal fiscal year. The formula would have made
adjustments for FSS costs, renewal of tenant protection or HOPE VI vouchers, and
vouchers set-aside for project-based commitments. PHA budgets would then have
been adjusted for inflation and prorated to fit within the amount appropriated. The
conference agreement included the same adjustments for Katrina-affected agencies,
agencies in receivership, and agencies that spent beyond their allocation that were
included in the FY2007 year-long CR and the Senate bill. It would have funded
MTW agencies on the basis of their agreements and would have continued the
prohibition on overleasing. The conference agreement would also have permitted the
Secretary to set aside up to $50 million to adjust agency allocations for significant
increases in costs due to portability, or for agencies who had increased their voucher
use (indicated by leasing rates at the end of the calendar year that exceeded the 12-
month average used in the formula).
Under P.L. 110-161, PHA’s initial allocations will be determined using the same
formula as in the conference agreement (prior to proration). However, each agency’s
allocation will then be reduced by the amount by which their unusable, restricted
reserve accounts2 exceed 7% of the total they received in FY2007. Once those
reduced allocations are made, HUD is to prorate the amount provided to each PHA
to fit within the amount provided for renewals ($14,695 million), reduced by $723
million, the amount that the law rescinds from the advance appropriation provided
in FY2007 for use in FY2008. Given the reduction in the advance appropriation, the
total amount of new budget authority available for tenant-based renewals in FY2008
is $13, 971 million. If the aggregate amount of PHAs’ unusable, restricted reserve
accounts total less than $723 million, the proration level in FY2008 will be higher.
Administrative Fees. Prior to FY2004, PHAs were paid a fixed fee per
voucher administered. Beginning in FY2004, at Congress’ direction, HUD changed
the way it distributed administrative fees, providing agencies with a pro-rata share
of the amount appropriated for administrative fees, on the basis of what they had
received in the previous year. The change was designed to contain the cost of
administrative fees, which were estimated to have grown to account for 10% of the
cost of a voucher.
The FY2007 year-long CR did not initially specify an amount for administrative
fees, so they were funded at their FY2006 level ($1,238 million). The FY2007
supplemental appropriations law (P.L. 110-28) amended the year-long CR to increase
funding for administrative fees to the amount requested by the President for FY2007
($1,281 million). For FY2008, the President requested $1,351 million for
administrative fees and asked that $5 million be set aside for incentive bonuses for
PHAs that voluntarily consolidated with each other. The President’s budget also
requested the authority to allocate administrative fee funding on the basis of the


2 Restricted reserves are reserves that exceed the amount of funding needed by the agency
to lease its full number of authorized vouchers.

number of families assisted by PHAs, as opposed to the pro-rata allocation that has
been in place in recent years.
Both House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 3074 would have funded
administrative fees at $1,351 million and would have permitted the Secretary to set
aside up to $5 million for incentive bonuses for PHAs that voluntarily consolidate,
as requested in the President’s budget. Both bills would have directed the Secretary
to allocate administrative fees to PHAs on the basis of the per-unit fee schedule that
was used each year prior to FY2004, prorated to fit within the amount appropriated
(or, in the House bill, supplemented by recaptured or unobligated balances). Both
bills would also have permitted the Secretary to set aside up to $35 million for PHAs
that needed additional fees.
The conference agreement would have funded administrative fees at the same
level as the House and Senate bills ($1,351 million) using the same formula and with
the same $35 million set-aside. Like the House bill, the conference agreement would
have allowed HUD to supplement administrative fees with other funds. Unlike the
House and Senate bills, the conference agreement did not contain the $5 million
consolidation bonus requested by the President. P.L. 110-161 adopts the conference
agreement funding level and allocation requirements, except that it does not contain
language allowing the Secretary to supplement administrative fee funding, nor does
it contain language directing the Secretary to prorate PHAs’ allocations to fit within
the amount appropriated.
Tenant Protection Vouchers. Tenant protection vouchers are provided to
families in a variety of circumstances, including families who are threatened with
displacement because the contract on their assisted unit is ending (project-based
Section 8, for example), families who are displaced from public housing (due to
demolition or disposition), families in the witness protection program, and families
in the child welfare system, including youth transitioning from foster care (through
the Family Unification Program).
The FY2007 year-long CR did not initially specify an amount for tenant
protection vouchers, so they were funded at their FY2006 level ($178 million). The
FY2007 supplemental appropriations law (P.L. 110-28) amended the year-long CR
to reduce the amount for tenant protection vouchers to $149 million. For FY2008,
the President requested $150 million for tenant protection vouchers and requested the
authority to supplement the appropriated funds with funds recaptured from
unobligated balances.
Both House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 3074 would have funded
tenant protection vouchers at the President’s request. The House bill would have
authorized the Secretary to use unobligated or recaptured balances from the Housing
Certificate Fund or the project-based rental assistance account if the funding provided
was not sufficient to cover the costs of tenant-protection vouchers. Both bills would
have directed the Secretary to provide tenant protection vouchers for all units that are
eligible, rather than just occupied units, as has been the Administration’s recent
practice.



P.L. 110-161, like the conference agreement, provides $200 million for tenant
protection vouchers and directs the Secretary to provide tenant protection vouchers
for all units that were occupied within the 24 months prior to their eligibility for a
voucher.
Incremental Vouchers. Incremental is the term used to describe new
vouchers available to serve additional families. No new incremental vouchers have
been funded since FY2002 (outside of replacement tenant protection vouchers). The
House-passed version of H.R. 3074 would have provided $30 million for new
incremental vouchers for non-elderly disabled families affected by the designation
of their housing units as elderly-only. If all $30 million were not needed for this
purpose, the funds were to be used to provide up to 1,000 supportive housing
vouchers for homeless veterans under a joint HUD-Veterans Administration initiative
(HUD-VASH) (discussed later in this report under Homeless Assistance Grants).
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3074 would have provided $105 million for
incremental vouchers. Of that amount, $30 million would have been for new Family
Unification Program (FUP) vouchers, which are used to help reunite families
involved in the child welfare system or help youth transitioning out of foster care.
The remaining $75 million would have been used to fund HUD-VASH vouchers.
The conference agreement reflected a combination of the House and Senate
proposals for incremental vouchers. It would have provided $135 million: $30
million for non-elderly disabled families affected by the designation of their housing
units as elderly only (if not needed for this purpose, they could be used for other non-
elderly disabled families); $75 million for HUD-VASH vouchers; and $30 million
for Family Unification Program vouchers.
P.L. 110-161 is similar to the conference agreement but provides less funding.
Specifically, the law provides $125 million for incremental vouchers: $30 million for
non-elderly disabled families affected by the designation of their housing units as
elderly only (if not needed for this purpose, they could be used for other non-elderly
disabled families); $75 million for HUD-VASH vouchers; and $20 million for
Family Unification Program vouchers.
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance. This account provides
funding to administer and renew existing project-based Section 8 rental assistance
contracts between HUD and private landlords. Under those contracts, HUD provides
subsidies to units owned by private landlords that allow eligible low-income families
to live in the units but pay only 30% of their incomes toward rent. No new contracts
have been entered into under this program since the early 1980s. When the program
was active, Congress funded the contracts for 20-40 year periods, so the monthly
payments for landlords came from old appropriations. However, once those contracts
expire, if they are renewed, they require new annual appropriations. This account
funds contract renewals and the program’s administrative costs.



Table 5. Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance,
FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007a FY2008 FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
Section 8 Project-b
Based Rental5,9765,8136,4805,8136,3826,382
Assist a n c e
P r oj ect-B ased 5,829 b 5,522 6,239c 5,522 6,139c 6,139 c
Re ne wa ls
Co ntract 146 286 239 d 286 239 d 239 d
Ad ministrato rs
Working 142444
Capital Fund
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and
are therefore assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
b. The FY2007 CR specified an amount for this account.
c. The bill specified that up to this amount is to be made available to fund renewals. This amount
may be reduced in order to increase funding for contract administrators (see Table Note d,
belo w) .
d. The bill specifies that the Secretary could designate no less than $239 million and no more than
$286 million for contract administrators.
Renewals. For FY2008, the President’s budget requested that Congress fund
project-based contract renewals at about $300 million less than the FY2007 level and
permit the Secretary to supplement the funding with recaptured funds from older
expiring contracts. Questions were raised about the adequacy of the President’s
request for renewals because of problems within the program during FY2007.
Towards the end of FY2007 (July 2007), HUD stopped issuing monthly
payments to property owners with project-based Section 8 contracts. At the time,
HUD stated that they lacked sufficient funding to make payments on their existing
contracts. They stated that the problem arose because HUD’s legal counsel had
determined that HUD could no longer obligate partial funding when they entered into
a 12-month contract renewal with a property owner, which had been their past
practice. OMB and HUD worked together to identify sufficient funding to resume
payments to landlords for the remainder of FY2007 (including retroactive payments),
and HUD modified its contracts to indicate that funding may not be set aside for the
full length of the contract. This practice of short-funding contracts was the subject
of a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee. At that hearing, a HUD
official testified that HUD should have sufficient funding in its request to get through



the end of FY2008 (if the President’s requested funding level is provided).3
However, increased appropriations may be necessary in FY2009.
The House-passed version of H.R. 3074 proposed to increase funding for
renewals by over $700 million. The committee report expressed concern about
HUD’s ability to estimate the actual renewal needs in the account, and it directed the
Secretary to report back to the committee with the findings of a review of future
contract renewal needs and to include such an analysis in the FY2009 congressional
budget justifications. The Senate-passed version proposed to fund renewals at the
President’s request, permitting the Secretary to supplement the appropriation with
recaptures, as necessary. It also would have required the Secretary to report back to
the committee on the status of project-based contracts.
P.L. 110-161, as also proposed by the conference agreement, funds project-
based renewals at about $600 million above the President’s requested (and Senate-
passed) level, but about $100 million below the House-passed level. The joint
explanatory statement directs HUD and OMB to determine whether short-funding
contracts are a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, and if so, to report back to the
Appropriations Committee and begin issuing 12-month contracts, subject to the
availability of appropriations. The law also directs the Secretary to submit a report
on the status of project-based contracts to the Committee, similar to the Senate bill
and conference agreement.
Contract Administrators. Contract administrators are subcontracted by
HUD to manage the contracts between landlords and the Department. HUD formerly
administered all of the contracts directly, but has set a goal to transfer all contract
administration to subcontractors.
The President’s FY2008 budget requested a 96% increase in appropriations for
contract administrators. HUD’s Congressional Budget Justifications indicate that
this funding increase was necessary in order to maintain the same level of service
provided in FY2005 and FY2006, when the appropriations were supplemented by
recaptured funds. The justifications noted that HUD obligated almost $265 million
for contract administrators in FY2006, even though only $146 million was provided
in appropriations. For FY2008, the justifications indicated that additional funding
would not be available from recaptured funds, so all of the account needs would have
to be met through new appropriations.
The House-passed version of H.R. 3074 would have authorized the Secretary
to provide no less than $239 million for contract administrators and no more than
$286 million (the President’s requested level). The Senate-passed version would
have funded contract administrators at the President’s requested level. Both bills
would have authorized the Secretary to use contract administrator funding for the


3 See transcript from “The Impact of Late Housing Assistance Payments on Tenants and
Owners in the Project-Based Rental Assistance Program,” hearing before the House
Financial Services Committee, Wednesday, October 17, 2007.

costs associated with rental assistance payments or interest reduction payments. P.L.
110-161, as proposed in the conference agreement, includes the House proposal for
contract administrator funding.
Housing Certificate Fund Rescission. The two Section 8 programs —
tenant-based rental assistance and project-based rental assistance — were previously
funded under a joint account called the Housing Certificate Fund (HCF). The HCF
was split by the FY2005 appropriations law, although the account still retains funding
from prior years’ appropriations for long-term Section 8 contracts. Each year, the
Administration makes available for rescission an amount it estimates will be
available from unobligated or recaptured Section 8 funds within the HCF. In recent
years, there has been some controversy surrounding whether or not there are
sufficient unobligated balances in the HCF to meet the rescission. If HUD cannot
meet the rescission from the HCF, it has the authority to take the funds from other
accounts. The FY2007 year-long CR rescinded $1.65 billion from the HCF. The
President’s FY2008 budget requested that Congress rescind $1.3 billion from the
HCF.
The House-passed version of H.R. 3074 included a $1.3 billion rescission from
the HCF, the same as the President’s request. The Senate-passed version included
a rescission of $1.1 billion from this account. The conference agreement would have
rescinded $1.25 billion. P.L. 110-161 rescinds $1.25 billion, as proposed in the
conference agreement. It permits HUD to use funds from other accounts to meet the
rescission, but requires the Secretary to notify the Appropriations Committees 30
days in advance if any funds were being taken from other accounts in order to meet
the rescission.
Public Housing. The public housing program provides publicly owned and
subsidized rental units for very low-income families. Although no new public
housing developments have been built for many years, Congress continues to provide
funds to the more than 3,100 public housing authorities (PHAs) that own and
maintain the existing stock of more than 1.2 million units. Through the Operating
Fund, HUD provides funds to PHAs to help fill the gap between tenants’
contributions toward rent and the cost of ongoing maintenance, utilities, and
administration. Through the Capital Fund, HUD provides funding to PHAs for large
capital projects and modernization needs. HOPE VI is a competitive grant program
that provides funds to help demolish and/or redevelop severely distressed public
housing developments, with a focus on building mixed-income communities.



Table 6. Public Housing, FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007a FY2008 FY2008
EnactedRequestHouseSenateConf.Enacted
Public Housingb
Operating Fund3,8644,0004,2004,2004,2004,200
Operating
Subsid ies 3 ,864 3,994 4,200 4,194 4,194 4,194
Transition to
a sse t-b a se d
ma na ge me nt /
new forula060666
Public Housing
Capital Fund2,4392,0242,4392,5002,4392,439
Formula GrantsNS1,966d2,339d2,347d2,327d2,327d
T echnical
assistance/reme
daon 111511151212
Ad ministr a tive/
J udicial
receivership 9 109999
E me r ge nc y
needs 1 7 0 17 20 19 19
Ser vice
coordinato rs
and supportive
services
(ROS) 38 038404040
Financial and
physical
aements 01515151515
Neighborhood
tworks 700000
Working
Capital Fund111710161717
HOPE VI99-0c120100120100
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and
are therefore assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law. Amounts
not specified in the FY2006 law (even if specified in the conference report) are denoted by an
“NS.
b. The FY2007 year-long CR specified an amount for this account.
c. The President has requested that Congress rescind the amount provided in FY2007 for HOPE VI.
d. This amount is not specified in legislation, but is calculated by subtracting the set-asides from the
account total. Because several set-asides are specified asup to” the amount specified, the
amount available for formula grants may increase.



Operating Fund. 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 year-long CR provided $3.86 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%. (For more information, see CRS Report RS22557, Public Housing:
Fact Sheet on the New Operating Fund Formula, by Maggie McCarty.)
Both House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 3074 would have provided
$200 million more than the President’s request for the Operating Fund. The Senate
bill would also have given HUD the authority requested in the President’s budget to
set aside $6 million to provide technical assistance funds to aid PHAs in their
transition to asset-based management.4 The House committee report (H.Rept. 110-
238) noted that the committee did not provide the asset-management set-aside
because it did not believe that HUD should receive technical assistance funds if HUD
is not providing such technical assistance funds to PHAs. The report also would
have directed the HUD Inspector General to investigate the implementation of asset-
based management and report back to the committee by March 15, 2008.
P.L. 110-161, as proposed in the conference agreement, funds the Operating
Fund at the House and Senate level ($4.2 billion) and includes the asset management
set-aside requested by the President. Administrative provisions included in the law,
similar to provisions in the Senate bill, would exempt certain small PHAs from asset
management requirements and limit HUD from implementing certain asset-
management requirements related to costs.
Capital Fund. For FY2008, the President proposed a $400 million reduction
in funding for the Capital Fund. About $35 million of that reduction comes from
changes in the amount requested for set-asides within the account. The budget
proposed to eliminate funding for Resident Opportunities for Supportive Services
(ROSS) grants, Neighborhood Networks technology grants, and emergency funding.
It also proposed an increase for technical assistance and physical and financial
assessments. The majority of the Capital Fund reduction would have come from the
formula grants that HUD provides to PHAs to use to modernize their public housing.
The Department’s congressional budget justifications indicated that one of HUD’s
priorities is to support alternative financing of public housing (for example, using
federal public housing funding to leverage private investment). The justifications
also noted that the Department is undertaking a modernization needs study and will
develop a protocol to measure the performance of PHAs in meeting modernization
needs, including incentives for PHAs that excel in modernizing the stock with limited
Capital Fund resources.


4 Beginning in FY2007, PHAs are required to begin converting to asset-based management,
a type of decentralized administration of their public housing programs. Implementation of
this requirement has been controversial.

Both House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 3074 would have increased
funding above the President’s requested level for the Capital Fund. The House bill
would have funded the account at the FY2007 level (over $400 million above the
President’s request), and the Senate bill would have provided almost $500 million
above the President’s request. The Senate committee report included a provision that
would have required HUD to conduct a new Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) on
the public housing stock and report back to the committee by June 30, 2008, with its
results.
P.L. 110-161, as proposed in the conference agreement, funds the Capital Fund
at the House-passed level. As in the Senate report, the joint explanatory statement
directs HUD to enter into contracts to perform a CNA and report back to the
Appropriations committees by July 31, 2009. The joint explanatory statement also
directs the Secretary to report quarterly to the Appropriations Committees on the
status of PHAs in receivership, beginning with the transmission of the FY2009
Congressional Budget Justifications.
HOPE VI. Each year since FY2004, the President has requested that Congress
provide no new funds for the HOPE VI program, although each year the Congress
has continued to fund the program. The Department has argued that the program has
largely met its goal of eliminating the worst public housing and that it has a backlog
of unspent funds that needs to be addressed. Since FY2005, the President has also
requested that Congress rescind the funds it provided for the program in previous
years, before they are awarded to grantees, although Congress has not approved such
a rescission. The FY2008 budget again requested that Congress rescind the funds it
provided to the program in FY2007 and provide no new funding for FY2008. (For
more information, see CRS Report RL32236, HOPE VI Public Housing
Revitalization Program: Background, Funding, and Issues, by Maggie McCarty.)
Both House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 3074 would have provided
funding for the HOPE VI program, and neither bill would have rescinded FY2007
funding, as requested in the President’s budget. The House bill would have funded
the program at $120 million, and the Senate bill would have funded the program at
$100 million. The conference agreement would have adopted the House-passed
funding level ($120 million). P.L. 110-161 funds the program at $100 million for
FY2008 and sets-aside $2.4 million for technical assistance. The joint explanatory
statement notes that the account contains unspent technical assistance funds, and it
directs the Secretary to focus unobligated and unexpended technical assistance funds
on pre-2001 grantees with large, unexpended balances. The administrative
provisions of the law also include a one-year extension of the program, which was
slated to sunset at the end of FY2007 (but had been continued in each CR).
Native American Block Grants. The Native American Housing Assistance
and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) reorganized the system of federal
housing assistance to Native Americans by eliminating several separate programs of
assistance and replacing them with a single block grant program. In addition to
simplifying the process of providing housing assistance, the purpose of NAHASDA
was to provide federal assistance for Indian tribes in a manner that recognizes the
right of Indian self-determination and tribal self-governance. NAHASDA provides
block grants to Indian tribes or their tribally designated housing entities (TDHE) for



affordable housing activities. Affordable housing activities include any programs
currently authorized in law, as well as model activities as approved by HUD.
Table 7. Native American Block Grants, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007a FY2008 FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
Native American
housing block623,700626,965626,965630,000630,000630,000
grants
Formula Grants616,275620,735NSNSNSNS
Loan Guarantee
(Title VI Credit1,8311,8311,8311,9801,9801,980
Sub sid y)
Ad mi ni str a tive 149 149 149 NS NS NS
Expenses
T echnical 4,455 4,250 3,465 4,250 4,250 4,250
Assistance
Natio na l
American 990 0 NS 2 ,000 NS NS
Indian Housing
Co unc i l
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
Note: Some set-asides are not specified (NS) in the appropriations bills or accompanying reports.
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and are therefore assumed to
be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
For FY2008, the Administration requested and the House recommended $627
million in appropriations for the Native American Block Grant (NABG) program.
The Administration did not propose a set-aside for the National American Indian
Housing Council (NAIHC). In past years NAIHC has received funds to perform
training and technical assistance for Indian tribes and TDHEs. The Administration
argued in its FY2008 budget documents that sufficient funding has already been
provided to NAIHC for these purposes. The House bill did not specify a set-aside
for NAIHC. The Senate recommended $630 million for the NABG program and $2
million for NAIHC. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161)
provides $2 million for a national organization representing Native American
housing interests but does not specifically mention NAIHC.
The Administration’s budget proposed a bond financing program for NABG
recipients. The recipients would sell tax-exempt bonds to private investors and the
bonds would be backed by current and future NABG funds. The bond proceeds
would be used to finance eligible housing activities. The bond provision was not
included in the House or Senate bills or the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations
Act (P.L. 110-161).



Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). HOPWA provides housing
assistance and related supportive services for low-income persons with HIV/AIDS
and their families. Funding is distributed both by formula allocation and competitive
grants to states, localities, and nonprofit organizations. (For background, see CRS
Report RL34318, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), by Libby
Perl.)
Table 8. HOPWA, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007a FY2008 FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
Housing for
Persons with AIDS286,110300,100300,100300,100300,100300,100
(HOPWA)
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and are therefore assumed to
be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
In the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), Congress
appropriated more than $300 million for HOPWA, an increase of $14 million over
the FY2007 appropriation, and the most ever appropriated for the program. The
amount appropriated was the same amount recommended in the President’s budget,
as well as the same funding level proposed in the House- and Senate-passed versions
of the HUD Appropriations Act (H.R. 3074) and the conference agreement between
the House and the Senate (H.Rept. 110-446). HUD estimates that the $300 million
appropriations will support housing for approximately 67,000 households.
The Administration’s budget for FY2008 proposed to change the method of
allocating HOPWA formula grants. The current formula uses the cumulative number
of AIDS cases in a jurisdiction (including those individuals who have died) in
determining how funds are distributed. The method proposed by the President would
have used the number of persons living with AIDS, and would also have taken into
account the cost of housing in each jurisdiction. The House Appropriations
Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 110-238), acknowledged that the HOPWA formula
is twenty years old but did not recommend undertaking a formula change in the
appropriations bill, nor did Congress address a formula change in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act.
Rural Housing and Economic Development. This program provides
competitive grants to states and localities to fund housing and economic development
activities in rural areas.



Table 9. Rural Housing and Economic Development,
FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007aFY2008 FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
Rural Housing and16,830016,83017,00017,00017,000
Economic Development
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and are therefore assumed to
be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
As in previous years, the Administration proposed no funding for the program
for FY2008 and argued that activities of this account are best performed under the
CDBG or HOME programs. Neither the House nor Senate agreed that the Rural
Housing and Economic Development activities are best performed under CDBG or
HOME. The House bill recommended funding at the FY2007 level, while the
Senate bill recommended a $170,000 increase above the FY2007 level. The FY2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) funds the program at $17 million,
as recommended by the Senate.
Community Development Fund/Block Grants. The Community
Development Fund (CDF) account supports activities undertaken through the
Community Development Block Grant program. In addition, the CDF has funded
other community development-related programs in past years, including the
Economic Development Initiatives and Neighborhood Initiative demonstrations.
The CDBG program is the largest source of federal assistance in support of the
housing, community, and economic development activities of state and local
governments. The President’s FY2008 budget recommendation of $2.975 billion for
the formula portion of CDBG was $736 million (20%) less than the $3.711 billion
appropriated for distribution to communities and states in FY2007.5 In addition, the
President’s budget request stated that the Administration would seek to reform the
CDBG program during the 110th Congress, but at the end of the first session, no
formal legislative proposal had been introduced in the House or the Senate. During
the 109th Congress, the Administration unveiled a proposal that would have
restructured the CDBG distribution formula. The legislative proposal, the
Community Development Block Grant Reform Act of 2006, which was not formallyth
introduced during the 109 Congress, included the following changes.


5 The largest share of CDBG money (70%) is distributed to “entitlement communities,” units
of local government that meet specified threshold criteria. The other 30% is allocated
among the states.

!Replacement of the dual CDBG formula with a single weighted
formula that targeted assistance on the basis of the following factors:
a community’s or state’s share of households living in poverty
(excluding college students), number of female-headed households
with minor children, number of overcrowded housing units, number
of housing units 50 years or older occupied by low-income families,
and per capita income.
!HUD would no longer have allocated funds to entitlement
communities and states using a 70%/30% formula allocation split.
Instead, states and entitlement community allocations would have
been drawn from a single pool of funds.
!Entitlement communities would have been required to meet a
minimum grant threshold in order to receive a direct annual
allocation. Communities that failed to meet the minimum grant
amount could have joined with their urban county, creating a new
combined entitlement community, or could have had their data
included in the state totals.
!A two-year transition would have been established for communities
that no longer met the minimum grant threshold amount.
!HUD would have been directed to establish a set of performance
measures and accountability standards.
!A $200 million bonus grant program dubbed the Economic
Development and Revitalization Challenge Grant would have been
established to reward entitlement communities with programs
resulting in improved living conditions in distressed neighborhoods.
In addition to reduced funding for CDBG formula grants, the Administration’s
FY2008 budget proposed 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 House-passed version of H.R. 3074, and its accompanying report (H.Rept.
110-238), recommended an appropriation of $3.936 billion for CDBG formula grant
activities. This was $225 million above the appropriation for FY2007, $961 million
more than the Administration request, and $231 million more than the amount in the
Senate-passed version of the bill. The report accompanying the House bill rejected
the Administration’s consolidation proposal and included language that would have
prohibited HUD from using appropriated funds for its proposed Economic
Development and Revitalization Challenge Grant. The Senate bill and its
accompanying report (S.Rept. 110-131) also rejected the Administration’s
consolidation proposal. The bill would have provided $6 million less for CDBG
formula grants than the $3.711 billion appropriated in FY2007. The Senate report
did not reference the Challenge Grant. The conference agreement included $4 billion
in Community Development Fund assistance, including $3.790 billion for CDBG
activities. Of this amount, $3.723 billion would be appropriated for CDBG formula
grants, $62 million for Indian tribes, $3 million for technical assistance, and $1.6
million would be transferred to the Working Capital Fund. The conference
agreement’s proposed CDBG formula allocation ($3.723 billion) was $12 million



more than appropriated for FY2007, $18 million more than recommended by the
Senate, and $748 million more than requested by the Administration, but $213
million less than that recommended by the House.6
Section 232 of the General Provisions of the conference agreement would have
extended CDBG entitlement status to two Illinois communities. The population of
both communities falls short of the 50,000 person threshold required to be defined
as a metropolitan city entitled to a direct, formula-based allocation of funds.
Specifically, Alton and Granite City, Illinois’ 2006 populations were 20,000 persons
less than the population threshold needed to meet the statutory definition of
metropolitan city (found at 42 U.S.C. 5302). The net effect of the provision, if
enacted, would be that the two cities would gain direct control over a portion of funds
previously awarded to Madison County, Illinois, the county in which they are located.
This in turn would reduce the total amount controlled by the county government, but
not the total amount of CDBG funds allocated within the county boundaries. The
provision’s other potential impact is that it would create a precedent that other small
metropolitan cities may point to in their efforts to secure direct CDBG funding.
Provisions of H.R. 3074 were incorporated into the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2008, H.R. 2764, that was signed by the President on December 26, 2007, as
P.L. 110-161. The statute includes the provision that grants entitlement status to the
cities of Alton and Granite City, Illinois. The act appropriates $3.866 billion for CDF
activities, which is 2.5% more than the $3.772 billion appropriated for FY2007. The
$3.866 billion in total CDF funding is $829 million more than requested by the
Administration but $134 million less than the amount approved during conference
committee consideration of H.R. 3074.
Of the $3.866 billion appropriated for CDF activities, $3.593 billion will be
allocated to CDBG formula grant recipients. This is $118 million less than
appropriated in FY2007, a 3.2% decline in appropriations for this component of the
CDF. It is also $618 million more than requested by the Administration, but $343
million less than recommended by the House, $112 million less than recommended
by the Senate, and $130 million less than recommended by the conference committee
on H.R. 3074.
Economic Development Initiatives (EDIs) and Neighborhood Initiatives
(NIs). During the past few budget cycles, Congress used both the EDI and NI
accounts to fund hundreds of congressionally earmarked projects. For FY2006,
Congress approved $307 million in EDI funds for 1,126 earmarked projects and $49
million in NI funds for 50 projects identified in the conference report (H.Rept.

109-307) that accompanied the FY2006 TTHUD Appropriations Act, P.L. 109-115.


The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5)
included language specifying that none of the funds appropriated under the CDF
account were to be used to fund EDI or NI activities for FY2007. The
Administration’s FY2008 budget proposal requested no new funding for EDI or NI
activities and proposed rescinding any unobligated balances remaining from EDI and


6 An additional $3 billion in emergency supplemental CDBG funds has been made available
for Louisiana’s Road Home Program with the passage of P.L. 110-116.

NI funds appropriated in FY2007. For FY2008, the House bill recommended a total
of $180 million for EDI ($160 million) and NI ($20 million) earmarks. This amount
was $108 million less than the $288 million for EDI ($248 million) and NI ($40
million) included in the Senate bill. In response to the controversy surrounding the
awarding of congressional earmarks, the report accompanying the House bill noted
that starting in FY2009, the committee intends to require recipients of NI and EDI
grants to provide 25% in matching funds. The conference agreement would have
appropriated $183.5 million for EDI assistance, which is $23.5 million more than the
funding approved by the House and $64.5 million less than approved by the Senate.
The $26.5 million included in the conference agreement for NI earmarks was $13.5
million less than that recommended by the Senate and $6.5 million more than
recommended by the House.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008 appropriates $206 million for
EDI ($180 million) and NI ($26 million) projects. This is $26 million more than
recommended by the House, $82 million less than recommended by the Senate, and
$5 million less than included in the conference report accompanying H.R. 3074. In
order to fund EDI and NI activities, CDF total funding increased by 2.5% over the
amount appropriated for FY2007, which was offset by a 3.2% reduction in funding
for the CDBG formula grant program.
Table 10. Community Development Fund (CDF):
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
and Related Set-Asides, FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007a FY2008 FY2008
Program Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
CDF 3,772b3,0374,1804,0604,0003,866
CDBG (Formula-cbd
based grants)3,7112,9753,9363,7053,7233,593
Set-asides (seeb
below for details):6162244355277273
Indian Tribes605762626262
Sec. 107 technical
a ssista nc e 03 033 3
Working Capital
Fund transfer222222
Neighborhood
I nitiative
d e mo nstr atio n 0 0 20 40 27 26
Economic
Development
I nitiatives 0 0 160 248 184 180
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
Note: Subtotals may not add due to rounding.



a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and
are therefore assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
b. The FY2007 year-long CR specified an amount for this account.
c. Includes funding for insular areas.
d. Does not include $3 billion in CDBG assistance for Louisiana’s Road Home Program authorized
as appropriated by an FY2008 continuing resolution (P.L. 110-116).
CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantees. The Section 108 loan guarantee
program allows states and entitlement communities to leverage their annual CDBG
allocation in order to help finance brownfield redevelopment, large scale economic
development, and housing projects. CDBG entitlement communities and states are
allowed to borrow an amount equal to as much as five times their annual CDBG
allocation for qualifying activities. As security against default, states and entitlement
communities must pledge their current and future CDBG allocation. The President’s
FY2008 budget proposal did not include funding for the program. The House-
approved bill would have appropriated $4 million for the account: $3 million in loan
subsidies and $1 million for administrative costs. The Senate-approved bill would
have doubled the commitment for the program to $6 million, which would have
supported $275 million in loan commitments. The conference agreement would have
appropriated $4.5 million in loan subsidies in support of $205 million in loan
commitments. The Consolidated Act for 2008 appropriates $4.5 million in support
of $205 million in loan commitments.
Table 11. CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantees, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007a FY2008 FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
Sec. 108 Loan3,71304,0006,0004,5004,500
Guarantees
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and are therefore assumed to
be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative. The Brownfields
Economic Development Initiative program is a competitive grant program that
provides funds to assist cities with the redevelopment of abandoned, idled, and
underused industrial and commercial facilities where expansion and redevelopment
are burdened by real or potential environmental contamination. The President’s
budget recommended termination of the program. The House and Senate bills
recommended funding for HUD’s brownfields program at its FY2007 level of $10
million. The report accompanying the House bill rejected the Administration’s
contention that the program is duplicative of programs administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency and directed HUD to address the slow expenditure
of funds; the Senate report did not include any such statements. The conference
agreement would have also appropriated $10 million for brownfield activities. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 appropriates $10 million for Brownfield



Redevelopment, which is consistent with the recommendations of the Senate and
conference committee.
Table 12. Brownfields Redevelopment, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007aFY2008 FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
B r o w nf ields 9,900 0 9 ,900 10,000 10,000 10,000
Redev e lo pment
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and are therefore assumed to
be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
The HOME Investment Partnership Program. Created in 1990, the
HOME Investment Partnership Program provides formula-based block grant funding
to states, units of local government, Indian tribes, and insular areas to fund affordable
housing initiatives. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, and new
construction of affordable housing, as well as rental assistance for eligible families.
The HOME program account has also been used to fund related programs. The
American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI), created in 2003 (P.L. 108-186),
funds HOME grantees to provide downpayment, closing cost, and rehabilitation
assistance to first-time home buyers. Housing counseling assistance is authorized
under Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-

448). HUD provides competitive grants to local housing counseling agencies,


intermediaries, and state Housing Finance Agencies to provide several categories of
housing counseling, including comprehensive counseling, counseling services that
address predatory lending, counseling in conjunction with HUD’s Homeownership
Voucher Program, counseling services that specifically target colonias (rural
communities on the U.S.-Mexico border), and Home Equity Conversion Mortgage
counseling.



Table 13. The HOME Investment Partnership Program,
FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007a FY2008 FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
HOME (total)1,7571,9671,764c1,9701,7671,704
Formula grantsbNS1,9031,7041,6811,6861,628
American Dreamd
Do wnp a yment 25 50 0 25 15 10
I nitiative
HOME/CHDO
technical NS 10 10 10 13 13
a ssista nc e
Ho using e c
c o unse l i ng 42 49 150 50 50
a ssista nc e
Working capital141433
fund transfer
Foreclosur e 0 0 0 100 f 00g
Mitigatio n
Housinge50 eeeee
Co unseling
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and are therefore assumed to
be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law. Amounts not specified in the
FY2006 law (even if specified in conference report) are denoted by anNS.
b. Includes funding for insular areas.
c. A floor amendment transferred $6.76 million from the Inspector General account to the HOME
account to be used for housing counseling assistance.
d. This set-aside was added by an amendment during floor debate.
e. The FY2008 budget proposed funding Housing Counseling at $50 million in a separate account.
In past years, and as provided in the House and Senate bills as well as the conference agreement,
funding for housing counseling has been provided as a set-aside within the HOME program.
f. This set-aside was added by an amendment during floor debate.
g. The appropriation for Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (Division K, Title III of P.L. 110-
161) included $180 million for foreclosure mitigation counseling.
Formula Grants. The bulk of the funding increase requested for FY2008 was
for formula grants. The Department noted that HOME has consistently received high
ratings from the Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) analysis. Neither the House nor Senate bills met the President’s
requested level for formula grants. The House bill did not provide the funding
increase requested by the President and would have funded the program at just above
the FY2007 level. The total funding level provided by the Senate was higher than
the President’s request, but the bill directed the increased funding to set-asides rather
than formula grants. The conference agreement would have funded formula grants
between the House and Senate levels. P.L. 110-161 funds formula grants at $1,628



million, which is below the House, Senate and conference agreement levels and
about 15% below the President’s requested level.
American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI). For FY2008, the
President requested a doubling of ADDI funding. At an average assistance level of
$7,500 per family (according to HUD’s Congressional Budget Justifications), $50
million would be sufficient to serve over 6,600 households. ADDI was scheduled
to sunset at the end of FY2007, if it was not otherwise renewed.
The House-passed version of H.R. 3074 would not have funded ADDI in
FY2008. The committee report noted that downpayment assistance is an eligible use
of HOME formula grant funds. The Senate committee-passed version of the bill did
not originally contain funding for ADDI — as in the House, the committee report
noted that ADDI was an eligible use of HOME formula grant funds. During Senate
floor debate, however, an amendment was approved setting aside $25 million for
ADDI. The conference agreement would have provided $15 million for the
promotion of homeownership through ADDI. P.L. 110-161 funds ADDI at $10
million, but it does not include an extension of the sunset.
Foreclosure Prevention. An amendment approved during floor debate on
the Senate version of H.R. 3074 would have set aside up to $100 million for the
Secretary to provide, or make contracts with private or non-profit organizations (with
a 25% match requirement) to provide, “mitigation assistance to eliminate the default
and foreclosure of mortgages of owner-occupied single-family homes that are at risk
of such foreclosure.” This funding was not included in the conference agreement, or
the final appropriations law (P.L. 110-161). However, the final law did provide an
additional appropriation of $180 million to the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation (NRC) to provide grants to state housing finance agencies and
counseling agencies approved by HUD or NRC for foreclosure mitigation counseling
services.
Housing Counseling Assistance. Since FY2003, the President has
requested that Congress provide funding for housing counseling assistance in a
separate account, rather than as a set-aside within the HOME program. Each year,
Congress has rejected that proposal and funded the program as a set-aside within
HOME. The FY2007 year-long CR funded housing counseling assistance at the
FY2006 level, which was a $42 million set-aside in the HOME program.
In the FY2008 budget, the President requested that Congress fund the program
at $50 million in a separate account. The House bill, as approved in committee,
would have funded housing counseling at the FY2007 level as a set-aside within the
HOME program. A floor amendment increased the House funding level for housing
counseling assistance by transferring $6.76 million from HUD’s Inspector General
account to the HOME account. The Senate bill proposed to increase housing
counseling funding within the HOME program by 350% over the FY2007 level. The
Senate committee report directed that the $100 million it provided above the
President’s request be used to serve individuals and families who are currently in
foreclosure or are facing the immediate prospect of losing their homes through
foreclosure. The Secretary would have been required to advertise the availability of
these funds within 60 days of enactment, under the Senate bill.



P.L. 110-161, as proposed in the conference agreement, includes $50 million for
housing counseling as a set-aside within the HOME program.
Homeless Programs. Homeless Assistance Grants is the blanket title given
to the four homeless programs authorized by the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (P.L. 100-77) and administered by HUD. Three of the four programs
are competitive grants: the Supportive Housing Program (SHP), the Shelter Plus
Care program (S+C), and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Assistance for
Single Room Occupancy program (SRO). Funding for the fourth HUD program, the
Emergency Shelter Grants program (ESG), is distributed via a formula allocation to
states and local communities.
Table 14. HUD Homeless Programs, FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007 aFY2008FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
Homeless 1,442 b 1,586 1,561 1,586 1,586 1,586
Assistance Grants
Formula andcccc
Co mp etitive NS 1,551
Grants
T echnical 12 8 8 8 c 8
Assista nc e / Da ta
Working Capital122222
Fund
Prisoner Re-entry0250000
I nitiative
Rapid Re-
Ho using 00 0252525
Demo nstr atio n
Program
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and
are therefore assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law. Amounts
not specified in the FY2006 law (even if specified in conference report) are denoted by anNS.
b. The FY2007 year-long CR specified a funding amount for this account.
c. Amounts not specified.
In the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), Congress
appropriated $1.586 billion for the Homeless Assistance Grants, an increase of $144
million above the FY2007 funding level. Prior to enactment of P.L. 110-161, the
Senate had proposed the same funding level in its version of the HUD Appropriations
Act (H.R. 3074). The House had proposed slightly less in its version of H.R. 3074
— $1.561 billion; however, the conference version of H.R. 3074 (H.Rept. 110-446)
recommended the funding level that was ultimately appropriated ($1.586 billion).



The Consolidated Appropriations Act also contains $25 million for a new
demonstration program that was initially proposed in the Senate-passed version of
H.R. 3074 and adopted in the conference agreement. The new program is a rapid re-
housing program, in which families living in shelters are assisted in finding and
maintaining housing through rental assistance and supportive services.
In addition to funds for the Homeless Assistance Grants, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act provides $75 million for Section 8 vouchers for homeless
veterans. However, funding for these vouchers will be provided through the Section
8 tenant-based rental assistance account and not through the Homeless Assistance
Grants. Approximately 2,000 Section 8 vouchers (called HUD-VASH vouchers) for
homeless veterans were initially provided in the early 1990s through a collaboration
between HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). However, no new
vouchers have been funded since that time. Both the House- and Senate-passed
versions of H.R. 3074 also recommended funding for Section 8 vouchers for
homeless veterans. The House bill would have provided funding for 1,000
additional vouchers for homeless veterans, if such funding were not needed to serve
displaced disabled families. The Senate bill proposed to appropriate $75 million for
an unspecified number of vouchers for homeless veterans. The conference agreement
between the House and the Senate (H.Rept. 110-446) adopted the Senate funding
level of $75 million, the same amount that was ultimately appropriated in P.L. 110-

161.


The Administration’s FY2008 budget recommended the same amount for the
Homeless Assistance Grants that was enacted in P.L. 110-161 — $1.586 billion. Of
this amount, the President proposed that $25 million be set aside for a Prisoner Re-
Entry Initiative (with funds transferred to the Department of Labor). Neither the
House- nor Senate-passed versions of the HUD spending bill (H.R. 3074) nor the
Consolidated Appropriations Act contained funds for the Prisoner Re-Entry
Initiative. For the sixth year in a row, the Administration’s budget also proposed to
consolidate the three competitive Homeless Assistance Grants — SHP, S+C, and
SRO — into one competitive grant. The proposed consolidated grant would have
included up to $50 million for a Samaritan Housing Initiative, which would provide
permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals. This proposal
is similar to an incentive currently provided in the Homeless Assistance Grants
application process. The House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 3074, the
conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act
all failed to include the set-aside proposed by the President, nor did they propose to
consolidate the competitive grants. However, separate bills in both chambers
propose to consolidate the programs. These bills are S. 1518, the Community
Partnership to End Homelessness Act, and H.R. 840, the Homeless Emergency
Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act. (For more information about these
bills, see CRS Report RL33764, The HUD Homeless Assistance Grants: Distribution
of Funds, by Libby Perl.)
Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program.
Under the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), HUD makes
grants to national and regional organizations and consortia that have experience in
providing or facilitating self-help homeownership opportunities. Prospective home



buyers and volunteers provide “sweat equity” by contributing labor toward the
construction of their homes.
Table 15. Self Help and Assisted Homeownership,
FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007a FY2008 FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
Self Help and Assistedb
O ppo rt unit y 49,390 69,700 59,700 70,000 60,000 60,000
Homeow nership
Self Helpb
H o me o wne r s hi p 19,800 39,700 27,710 26,500 26,500 26,500
(SHOP )
Capacity Buildingb
Comm. Dev. andd29,59030,00031,00033,50033,50033,500
Affordable Housing
Housing Assistance0c0NS3,0000f
Co unc i l
National Housing0c0NS000
Development Corp.
Technical Assistance0c0990000
National Americancg
Indian Housing00NS2,0000
Co unc i l
Housing Partnership00NS2,00000
Netwo r k
Special Olympics0c0NS000
National Council of 0c0NS3,0000h
La Raza
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
Note: Some set-asides are not specified (NS) in the appropriations bills or accompanying reports.
Note: Subtotals may not add due to rounding.
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and
are therefore assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
b. The FY2007 year-long CR specified an amount for this account.
c. The amount specified for the Self Help and Assisted Homeownership account in the year-long CR
is not sufficient to fund these accounts; one may assume, in this situation, that they will receive
no funding in FY2007.
d. Includes assistance to National Community Development Initiative, Local Initiative Support
Corporation, the Enterprise Foundation, and Habitat for Humanity.
e. Includes language directing that up to $5 million of the total amount appropriated be used to
support capacity building activities in rural areas.
f. Funding provided in Neighborhood Initiative account with a funding level of $3 million.
g. Funding provided in Neighborhood Initiative account with a funding level of $1 million.
h. Funding provided in Neighborhood Initiative account with a funding level of $1 million.



For FY2008, the Administration proposed $40 million for the SHOP program
and $30 million for the Capacity Building for Community Development and
Affordable Housing, a program that uses the services of four national intermediaries
(National Community Development Initiative, Local Initiative Support Corporation,
the Enterprise Foundation, and Habitat for Humanity) to develop the capacity of local
nonprofit community development corporations to undertake economic and
community development and affordable housing projects. The House bill
recommended $10 million less than the amount requested by the Administration and
recommended by the Senate for the entire Self Help and Assisted Homeownership
account, but $10 million more than the amount appropriated for FY2007. Within the
account, both the House and Senate bills recommended approximately $12 million
and $13 million less than requested by the Administration for SHOP. Although both
bills recommended a slight increase in funding for capacity building activities, the
Senate bill specified funding for several programs and entities not funded during
FY2007. The entities that would have received no funding under the President’s
budget include the Housing Assistance Council, Housing Partnership Network,
National Council of La Raza, and the National American Indian Housing Council.
The House bill and the conference agreement did not specify funding levels for these
entities. The conference agreement would have appropriated the same amount
recommended by the Senate for the SHOP program ($26.5 million) and capacity
building grants ($33.5 million). The conference agreement did not specify the
distribution of capacity building funds among the four intermediaries but does require
that, of the amount appropriated for capacity building activities, up to $5 million
should be used for activities in rural areas.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 made no changes in the
recommendations included in the conference report accompanying H.R. 3074. It
appropriates $33.5 million for SHOP activities and $26.5 million for capacity
building, including $5 million to support capacity building activities in rural areas.
Housing Programs for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities.
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
addition, the Section 811 program provides vouchers for tenants with disabilities to
use in the private housing market. The housing for the elderly appropriation includes
funds for the Service Coordinator program and the Assisted Living Conversion
program. (For more information on Section 202, see CRS Report RL33508, Section
202 and other HUD Rental Housing Programs for the Low-Income Elderly, by Libby
Perl.)



Table 16. Sections 202 and 811, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007a FY2008 FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
Housing for the734,580575,000734,580735,000735,000735,000
Elderly (202)
New Capital GrantsNS390,450bbbb
and PRAC
PRAC Renewals andNS62,400bbbb
Amendments
Ser vice 51,084 71,000 59,400 60,000 60,000 60,000
Coordinato rs
Grants for
Conversion to24,55224,75024,75024,75024,75024,750
Assisted Living
Pre-Develop. Grants19,800020,00020,00020,00020,000
Working Capital3961,4001,9801,4001,4001,400
Fund
Le ve r a gi ng
Financing 25,0000000
Demo nstr atio n
Housing for the236,610125,000236,610237,000237,000237,000
Disabled (811)
New Capital GrantsNS14,500145,875bbb
and PRAC
PRAC Renewal andNS20,15515,000bbb
Amendments
New Mainstream4,9500bbbb
V o uc he r s
Mainstream 77,517 74,745 74,745 74,745 b 74,745
Voucher Renewal
Working Capital396600990600600600
Fund
Le ve r a gi ng
Financing 15,0000000
Demo nstr atio n
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and are therefore assumed to
be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law. Amounts not specified in the
FY2006 law (even if specified in conference report) are denoted by anNS.
b. Amounts not specified.



In the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), Congress
appropriated $735 million for programs that provide housing and services for elderly
households (those with a head of household or spouse age 62 and older). This is
slightly more than the funding level in FY2007, which was approximately $734.6
million. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3074, as well as the conference
agreement (H.Rept. 110-446), also proposed to fund these programs at $735 million;
the House-passed version of H.R. 3074 would have provided the same amount that
was appropriated in FY2007. The President’s FY2008 budget proposal would have
reduced funding for elderly housing programs by almost $160 million (nearly 29%)
from the FY2007 level, to $575 million. This reduction would have affected new
capital grants and project rental assistance in the Section 202 program; HUD
estimated that this level of funds for FY2008 would support 3,100 new units of
Section 202 housing, down from the estimated 4,994 units for FY2007.
Of the $735 million appropriated for Section 202 and related programs in P.L.
110-161, $60 million is appropriated for the Service Coordinator program, the same
amount contained in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 3074 as well as the
conference agreement, and $9 million more than the $51 million that was
appropriated in FY2007. The House had proposed $59 million for service
coordinators in its version of H.R. 3074, whereas the President’s budget proposed to
increase funding to $71 million. Congress appropriated nearly $25 million for the
Assisted Living Conversion program in P.L. 110-161; the amount is approximately
the same as the FY2007 appropriation. Each of the funding proposals leading up to
the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act — the House-passed version of
H.R. 3074, the Senate-passed version of H.R. 3074, the conference agreement, and
the President’s budget — would have appropriated the same amount for the Assisted
Living Conversion program.
The Administration’s budget had proposed to allocate $25 million to a
Leveraging Financing Demonstration program for Section 202 housing. Through the
program, HUD would work with private sector professionals to increase the use of
mixed financing arrangements, such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, to
develop Section 202 housing. HUD’s goal is that the program would leverage one
dollar of outside financing for every dollar of Section 202 funding. Neither the
House nor Senate versions of H.R. 3074 recommended funding for the demonstration
program. In their reports (H.Rept. 110-238 and S.Rept. 110-131), both
Appropriations Committees noted that HUD may already use Section 202 funds in
conjunction with other programs to create mixed financing developments. The
conference report did not discuss the proposed demonstration program, and the
Consolidated Appropriations Act did not contain funds for the program.
The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $237 million for the
Section 811 Housing for Persons with Disabilities program, slightly more than the
$236.6 million that was appropriated in FY2007. The House- and Senate-passed
versions of H.R. 3074, as well as the conference agreement, H.Rept. 110-446, all
proposed to fund the Section 811 program at the level eventually appropriated in P.L.
110-161. The President’s budget for FY2008, like that for FY2007, had proposed to
cut funding for the Section 811 Housing for Persons with Disabilities program nearly
in half, from just under $237 million to $125 million. None of the five funding
recommendations — the President’s budget, House- and Senate-passed versions of



H.R. 3074, the conference agreement, and P.L. 110-161 — specified funds for new
Section 811 housing vouchers. However, P.L. 110-161 provides $30 million for
vouchers for non-elderly disabled families through the Section 8 tenant-based rental
assistance account.
Like its proposal for the Section 202 program, the Administration’s budget for
Section 811 would have provided funds ($15 million) for a Leveraging Financing
Demonstration program. Under the proposal, HUD would work with professionals
in the private sector to develop mixed financing arrangements for Section 811
projects, using the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, as well as other funding
sources. Congress did not provide funds for this demonstration program.
Research and Technology. The Office of Policy Development and
Research (PD&R) at HUD is responsible for maintaining current information on
housing needs, market conditions, and existing programs, as well as conducting
research on priority housing and community development issues. The Research and
Technology account funds PD&R’s core research activities. The account was
expanded in FY2006 to fund Section 107 University Partnerships, which were
previously funded as set-asides within the CDF account. Section 107 grants are
awarded to institutions of higher education to assist in building partnerships with the
communities in which they are located and to foster and achieve neighborhood
development and revitalization. The President requested just over $65 million for the
Research and Technology account for FY2008.
Table 17. Research and Technology, FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007a FY2008 FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
Research and Technology50b6558f61e61f51
Core Research andNS4030333323
T e c hno l o gy
Partnerships for Advancingbc
Technology in Housing05555
(P AT H)
Section 107 Grants20252223e2323
Historically Black98d999
Colleges & Universities
Hispanic-Servin g 66d 66 6
I n stitu tio n s
Co mmu n ity d
Development Work00000
Study
Alaskan Native andd
Native Hawaiian-33333
Serving Institutions
Tribal Colleges and32d5e55
Un iversities
Community Outreach06d000
P a rtn e rsh ip
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of 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 the
conference report accompanying H.R. 3074 (H.Rept. 110-446).
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Unless noted otherwise, amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and
are therefore assumed to be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law. Amounts
not specified in the FY2006 law (even if specified in conference report) are denoted by anNS.
b. The FY2007 year-long CR specified an amount for this account.
c. The President did not request a set-aside amount of funding for PATH, but noted that it remains
an eligible activity under Core Research and Technology.
d. Amount not specified in the bill or accompanying report.
e. A floor amendment during Senate debate transferred $2.4 million from the Working Capital Fund
to the Research and Technology account to increase funding for Tribal Colleges and
Univer sities.
f. The House bill included $1 million for transit oriented development study. The conference
agreement included $500,000 for a study of best practices in transit oriented development.
The House bill recommended approximately $7 million less than the amount
requested by the Administration in total funding for the Research and Technology
account. The Senate bill recommended approximately $3 million less for activities.
Both bills would have continued to fund institutions of higher education. The House
bill recommended an appropriation of $22.4 million for such activities, and the
Senate bill recommended $23 million. Unlike the Senate bill, neither the House bill
nor its accompanying report specified the amounts to be allocated among the various
university-based programs.
Consistent with the recommendations of the Senate, the conference agreement
included a total appropriation of $61 million for Research and Technology, including
$5 million for PATH activities and $23 million for university-based programs. The
conference agreement also included an appropriation of $500,000 to support an
interagency working group composed of representatives from HUD and the Federal
Transit Administration. The agreement also would have charged the group with
developing a manual identifying best practices to assist local governments in
developing mixed-income, transit-oriented developments. Congress did not pass the
conference version of H.R. 3074 but instead incorporated these provisions in a
consolidated appropriations measure, which was signed by the President on
December 26, 2007.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, P.L. 110-161, appropriates $51.4
million for research and technology activities. This includes $23 million for
university-based programs and $5 million for PATH activities. In addition,
$500,000 of the amount appropriated is to be used to support a joint project by HUD
and the Federal Transit Administration that identifies best practices in developing
mixed-income, transit-oriented development projects. The remaining funds ($22.5
million) may be expended for other research and technology activities.
Fair Housing. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity enforces
the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights laws that make it illegal to discriminate
in the sale, rental, or financing of housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, disability, or family status. This is accomplished through the Fair
Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and the Fair Housing Initiatives Program
(FHIP). FHAP provides grants to state and local agencies to enforce laws that are



substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Housing Act. It provides grants on a non-
competitive basis. FHIP provides funds for public and private fair housing groups,
as well as state and local agencies, for activities that educate the public and housing
industry about the fair housing laws.
Table 18. Fair Housing Programs, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007a FY2008 FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
Fair Housing 45,54045,00045,540b52,00050,00050,000
Fair Housing25,75024,82024,82027,00025,62025,620
Assistance
Fair Housing18,80020,18020,18025,00024,00024,000
I nitiatives
Translations380380
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and are therefore assumed to
be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
b. Amounts do not total; neither the bill nor the committee report indicates how the remaining
$540,000 would be allocated.
The Administration requested $45 million for the Fair Housing programs during
FY2008. This included $24.8 million for the Fair Housing Assistance program and
$20.2 million for the Fair Housing Initiatives program. The House recommended an
increase of $450,000 above the budget request; the Senate recommended a total
funding increase of $7 million above the budget request. The conference agreement
would have provided $50 million for the Fair Housing programs, including $25.6
million for Fair Housing Assistance, $24 million for the Fair Housing Initiatives, and
$380,000 for material and programs to assist persons with limited English
proficiency. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, P.L. 110-161, makes no
changes to the amounts in the conference agreement.
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction. The Office of Lead Hazard Control
at HUD administers both the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program and
the Healthy Homes Initiative (HHI), designed to reduce the hazards of lead-based
paint in homes.



Table 19. Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007 aFY2008FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
Office of Lead150,000116,000130,000151,000145,000145,000
Hazard Control
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
a. Amounts shown for FY2007 were not specified in the year-long CR and are therefore assumed to
be the same as provided in the FY2006 appropriations law.
The President’s budget requested a total of $116 million for the programs under
the Office of Lead Hazard Control. This would be a reduction of $34 million from
the FY2007 appropriation. The House recommended a funding level of $130 million,
while the Senate recommended funding of $151 million. The conference agreement
would have funded the program at $145 million for FY2008. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008, P.L. 110-161, is the same as the conference agreement.
Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The FHA administers a variety
of mortgage insurance programs that insure lenders against loss from loan defaults
by borrowers. Through FHA insurance, lenders make loans that otherwise may not
be available, and enable borrowers to obtain loans for home purchase and home
improvement, as well as for the purchase, repair, or construction of apartments,
hospitals, and nursing homes. The programs are administered through two program
accounts: the Mutual Mortgage Insurance/Cooperative Management Housing
Insurance fund account (MMI/CMHI) and the General Insurance/Special Risk
Insurance fund account (GI/SRI). The MMI/CMHI fund provides insurance for home
mortgages. The GI/SRI fund provides insurance for more risky home mortgages, for
multifamily rental housing, and for an assortment of special-purpose loans such as
hospitals and nursing homes. (For more information, see CRS Report RS20530,
FHA Loan Insurance Program: An Overview, by Bruce Foote and Meredith
Peterson.)



Table 20. Federal Housing Administration, FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007 aFY2008FY2008
Enacted R e que s t Hous e S e nat e C onf . Enacted
Net Total FHA70,403516,647494,759(80,889)(80,889)(80,889)
A ppr opr i at i o ns
Net
A ppr opr i at i o ns , 237,424 428,850 428,850 77,400 77,400 77,400
MMI
Total Expenses413,424428,850428,85077,400b77,400b77,400b
Offsetting receipts(176,000)00000
Net
A ppr opr i at i o ns , (167,021) 87,797 65,909 (158,289) (158,289) (158,289)
GI/ S RI
Total Expenses308,979315,797315,90991,711b91,711b91,711b
Offsetting receipts(476,000)(250,000)(250,000)(250,000)(250,000)(250,000)
Move programs ton/a2,000000
MMI
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
a. Amounts for FHA were not specified in the FY2007 year-long CR. These figures are taken from
tables provided by the House Appropriations Committee.
b. The Senate bill and the conference agreement change the way that salaries and expenses are
funded. In the past, HUD has transferred administrative funds appropriated to FHA and GNMA
to other HUD management and administrative salaries accounts. According to the Senate
committee report (S.Rept. 110-131), 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. As a result, the Senate bill, the conference
agreement, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act provide less administrative funding directly
to FHA.
Although in past years the MMI fund earned “negative subsidies” by having
receipts that exceeded its expenses, that no longer appears to be the case. The
President’s budget and the House bill estimated that FHA will require net positive
appropriations for FY2008. Because the final appropriations act adopted a proposal
included in the Senate bill and conference agreement making changes to the way
administrative funding is provided to the FHA account, it estimates that the FHA
account would generate a small negative appropriation.
The President’s FY2008 budget proposed to move several accounts from the
GI/SRI fund to the MMI fund and included three legislative proposals that were
estimated to generate budget savings. The aggregate limit on the number of Home
Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs) would be removed, and the loan limit for
HECMs would be set at 100% of the conforming loan limits rather than vary by area.
The National Housing Act would be amended to permit HUD to increase the loan
limits on the various multifamily housing programs by up to 170% on an area-by-area
basis and by up to 215% on a project-by-project basis. The Ginnie Mae (GNMA) fee
for guaranteeing mortgage-backed securities would be increased by six basis points.



These three proposals were estimated to generate $362 million in budget savings;
they are not shown in Table 20, but are shown as legislative savings in Table 2
under “Offsetting Receipts/Program Savings.”
P.L. 110-161, like the House bill, Senate bill, and House-Senate conference
agreement, includes the President’s proposal to lift the multifamily loan limit,
temporarily lifts the cap on HECMs, and rejects the President’s proposals to increase
GNMA’s fees and move accounts between the GI/SRI fund and the MMI fund.
Congress has estimated that these provisions will generate $520 million in savings.
Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). Ginnie
Mae is the entity within HUD that guarantees the timely payment of principal and
interest on securities backed by mortgages insured or guaranteed by FHA, the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), or the Rural Housing Service.
For FY2008, the President’s budget requested $11 million for the administrative
expenses of carrying out the mortgage-backed securities program as well as a
legislative change that would convert a portion of the GNMA administrative fees that
are currently classified as mandatory funding to discretionary funding. The budget
also proposed that issuers of Ginnie Mae securities be charged an upfront fee to
offset the administrative expense of the program. The House and Senate bills did not
include the proposed fee, nor did the conference agreement or P.L. 110-161.
Table 21. Government National Mortgage Association,
FY2007-FY2008
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2007 aFY2008FY2008
Ena c t e d Request H o use Sena t e C o nf . Ena c t e d
Net (170,000) (174,000) (152,300) (153,470) (163,000) (163,000)
Appropriatio n
Total Expenses10,70011,00010,7009,530cdd
Offsetting (181,000) (185,000)b (163,000) (163,000) (163,000) (163,000)
Receipts
Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the Presidents 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, H.Rept. 110-
446, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
a. Amounts for GNMA were not specified in the FY2007 year-long CR. These figures come from
tables provided by the House Appropriations Committee.
b. Assumes $22 million in receipts from a legislative proposal to move several single-family programs
from the GI/SRI fund to the MMI fund (see Table 20).
c. The Senate bill and the conference change the way that salaries and expenses are funded. In the
past, HUD has transferred administrative funds appropriated to FHA and GNMA to other HUD
management and administrative salaries accounts. According to the Senate committee report
(S.Rept. 110-131), 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. As a result, the Senate bill and the conference agreement provide
less administrative funding directly to GNMA.
d. The conference agreement and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 would fund GNMA
expenses in the salaries and expenses account at $8.25 million.



Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO). OFHEO
is the office within HUD that is responsible for regulating the safety and soundness
of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s operations. The appropriations for OFHEO are
completely offset by fees collected from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The
President’s FY2008 budget included a request of $4 million for a legislative proposal
related to HUD’s oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was not included in
the House bill, Senate bill, the House-Senate conference agreement, or P.L. 110-161.