Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD): FY2008 Appropriations

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies (THUD):
FY2008 Appropriations
Updated February 14, 2008
David Randall Peterman and John Frittelli
Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division



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



Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies (THUD): FY2008 Appropriations
Summary
The FY2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill (THUD) provides funding for the Department of
Transportation (DOT), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
and five independent agencies related to these two departments.
The Bush Administration requested $100.3 billion (after scorekeeping
adjustments) for FY2008, an increase of $300 million (less than 1%) over FY2007.
DOT would receive $64.5 billion, $1.3 billion more than provided in FY2007. HUD
would receive $35.6 billion, $1.0 billion less than provided in FY2007.
A conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446) on H.R. 3074, the FY2008 THUD
appropriations bill, followed both the House- and Senate-passed versions of the bill
in recommending more funding for both DOT and HUD than requested by the
Administration. The conference agreement was published on November 13, 2007,
and brought to the House floor and approved on November 14. The President
threatened to veto the conference agreement because it exceeded the amount
requested. The Senate did not take up the agreement.
On December 19, 2007, a revised THUD appropriations act was passed as
Division K of H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008 (P.L. 110-
161). Division K, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, provided $103.6 billion (after rescissions and
other adjustments) in total budgetary resources for the agencies included in the
THUD appropriations bill, $4.0 billion more than the FY2007 level, $3.3 billion over
the Administration request, and $2.2 billion less than the amount agreed in H.Rept.

110-446. DOT received $65.5 billion, an increase of $2.3 billion over FY2007.


HUD received $37.6 billion, $1.4 billion over the FY2007 level.
For DOT, the agreement recommended increases in the requested level for
highways, transit, Amtrak, and aviation. The agreement also included a provision
included in both the House- and Senate-passed bills that would bar FY2008 funding
from being used to establish a cross-border trucking demonstration program, which
allows Mexican trucking companies to operate beyond the commercial zones on the
United States-Mexico border. DOT has announced that it would not establish any
new cross-border trucking demonstration programs, but would continue to operate
the program it established on September 6, 2007 (after passage of the House and
Senate THUD bills but before passage of the final appropriations act). For HUD, the
agreement recommends increases in the requested level for Section 8 tenant-based
rental assistance, Housing for the Elderly, Housing for the Disabled, and the
Community Development Block Grant program, and recommends funding for HUD
programs that were slated for elimination in the President’s budget. The act includes
a 2% rescission applied to funding designated for projects under certain programs
whose funding is extensively earmarked.
This report will not be updated.



CRS Telephone
Area of ExpertiseNameDiv.#
Department of Transportation
Aviation Safety, Federal AviationBart EliasRSI7-7771
Ad mi ni str a tio n
Airport Improvement Program, Transportation
Infrastructure Policy, Transportation TrustJohn W. FischerRSI7-7766
Fund s
Federal Railroad Administration; MaritimeJohn FrittelliRSI7-7033
Administration; Surface Transportation Board
Airport Improvement Program, FederalRobert S. KirkRSI7-7769
Highway Administration
Surface transportation policy; transit policyWilliam J. MallettRSI7-2216
Amtrak, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Federal TransitDavid Randall
Administration, National Highway TrafficPetermanRSI7-3267
Safety Administration, Surface Transportation
Safe ty
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Low-income housing programs and issues and
general HUD: Section 8, Public Housing,Maggie McCartyDSP7-2163
HOPE VI, HOME
Community Development programs and
issues: Community Development Block GrantsEugene BoydG&F7-8689
(CDBG), EZ/EC, Brownfields redevelopment
Housing programs and issues for special
populations: Elderly (202), Disabled (811),Libby PerlDSP7-7806
Homeless, AIDS housing
Homeownership and other housing issues: Bruce E. FooteDSP7-7805
FHA, Rural, Indian housing, Fair Housing
Related Agencies
Architectural and Transportation BarriersNancy Lee JonesALD7-6976
Compliance Board
Federal Maritime CommissionJohn FrittelliRSI7-7033
National Transportation Safety BoardBart EliasRSI7-7771
Neighborhood Reinvestment CorporationEugene BoydG&F7-8689
United States Interagency Council onMaggie McCartyDSP7-2163
Ho me le ssne ss
ALD = American Law Division
DSP = Domestic Social Policy Division
G&F = Government and Finance Division
RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division



Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Overview ........................................................2
The President’s Budget Request..............................2
House and Senate Action....................................3
The Conference Agreement..................................3
The Consolidated Appropriations Act..........................4
Changing Appropriations Subcommittee Structures...................6
Transportation Appropriations........................................8
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues............9
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).......................13
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).....................14
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)...........14
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)........15
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).......................15
Federal Transit Administration (FTA).........................16
Maritime Administration (MARAD)..........................17
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations........................18
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and
Key Policy Issues.........................................21
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers)............23
Public Housing...........................................24
Community Development Programs..........................24
Homeless Programs.......................................25
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled..............26
Federal Housing Administration (FHA).......................26
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2008 Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations ................................................5
Table 2. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2007-FY2008...................5
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies,
FY2003-FY2008 ..............................................7
Table 4. Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2007-FY2008 ..............................................8
Table 5. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,
FY2007-FY2008 .............................................18



Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies (THUD):
FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On December 26, 2007, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764), into law (P.L. 110-161). This act incorporated 11 of the 12
FY2008 appropriations bills; the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, was included as Division K of the
act. The THUD appropriations act provided $103.6 billion (after rescissions and
other adjustments) in total budgetary resources, $4.0 billion more than the FY2007
level. DOT received $65.5 billion, an increase of $2.3 billion over FY2007. HUD
received $37.6 billion, $1.4 billion over the FY2007 level.
In an exchange of amendments between the Senate and the House, Congress
converted the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill,
2008, into the Consolidated Appropriations bill, 2008, and completed action on the
new bill during December 17-19, 2007. Prior to that, on November 14, 2007, the
conference committee on the FY2008 THUD appropriations bill (H.R. 3074) had
reported a conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446) on November 13, 2007, and the
House had approved the agreement on November 14, 2007. The conference
agreement recommended $105.8 billion (after rescissions and other adjustments),
$6.2 billion more than the FY2007 enacted funding level, and $5.5 billion over the
Administration’s budget request. The President threatened to veto the bill for
exceeding the requested funding level. The Senate did not take up the agreement.
During the period between the beginning of FY2008 (October 1, 2007) and the
signing of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Congress provided funding
through a series continuing resolutions, generally at FY2007 funding levels.
On September 12, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 3074, which provides $105.9
billion (after rescissions and other adjustments) for transportation and housing and
urban development appropriations for FY2008. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations had reported a draft of the legislation (in the form of S. 1789) on July
16, 2007. The committee recommended a total of $104.7 billion (after rescissions
and other adjustments); $1.2 billion was added to the bill during deliberations on the
Senate floor for highway bridge repair and replacement, in response to concerns
about the integrity of bridges raised by the collapse of an interstate highway bridge
in Minnesota on August 1, 2007. This is $5.9 billion (6%) more than the comparable
amount for FY2007, and $5.6 billion (6%) more than requested for FY2008.



On July 24, 2007, the House passed H.R. 3074, which provides $104.4 billion
(after rescissions and other adjustments) in THUD appropriations for FY2008. This
is $4.4 billion (4%) more than the comparable amount provided for FY2007, and
$4.1 billion (4%) more than requested for FY2008.
Overview
The President’s Budget Request. The President’s net FY2008 request for
the programs covered by this appropriations bill was $100.3 billion (after
scorekeeping adjustments). This was $300 million (less than 1%) over the net total
provided for FY2007.
The DOT request was $64.5 billion, $1.3 billion (2%) more than the amount
provided for FY2007. This increase was largely for highway (net $1.7 billion
increase) and transit (net $447 million increase) programs. These increases reflected
the increase in the FY2008 authorized funding level over the FY2007 level for these
two programs, which receive almost all of their funding from transportation trust
funds. However, the request did not provide the full authorized funding level: it was
$631 million below the authorized level for highway programs and $309 million
below the authorized level for transit programs.
The HUD request was $35.6 billion, $1.0 billion (3%) less than the amount
provided for FY2007. This reduction reflected the Administration’s continued effort
to reduce or eliminate funding for a number of HUD programs that it regards as
ineffective or inefficient. Secretary Jackson’s introductory letter to the FY2008 HUD
budget summary document noted, “In a budget season marked by the President’s goal
to continue to support what works and cut the Federal budget deficit, the FY2008
HUD budget request demonstrates an effort to prioritize funding towards programs
with measurable, documented results.”1
The Administration’s FY2008 budget request included spending reductions that
had also been proposed by the Administration in previous budget requests, without
success. These proposed reductions from FY2007 funding included roughly $1
billion from reductions in several HUD programs and elimination of several other
programs, and roughly $1 billion from cuts to several DOT programs. Among the
programs proposed for reductions or elimination were
!DOT’s Airport Grants (-$764 million), Amtrak (-$494 million), and
subsidies for air service to small communities (-$59 million)
programs;
!HUD’s Community Development Funds (-$735 million), Housing
for the Elderly (-$160 million), and Housing for the Disabled (-$112
million) programs; and


1 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Summary, p. 1.

!HUD’s HOPE VI, Rural Housing and Economic Development,
Brownfields Redevelopment, and Section 108 Loan Guarantees
programs, for which no funding was requested (-$130 million total).
House and Senate Action. Both the House and the Senate have passed
versions of H.R. 3074, the FY2008 appropriations bill, for THUD. Both chambers
rejected the Administration’s proposed reductions, and provided increases for both
DOT and HUD over both the FY2007 levels and the FY2008 requested levels.
The House-passed version of H.R. 3074 would provide a total of $104.4 billion,
$4.1 billion (4%) more than requested and $4.4 billion (4%) more than the FY2007
funding. Within that total the bill provides $65.5 billion for DOT ($1.1 billion more
than requested and $2.4 billion more than FY2007), $38.7 billion for HUD ($3.1
billion more than requested and $2.0 billion more than FY2007), and $235 million
for the related agencies ($1 million more than requested and $12 million more than
FY2007).
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3074 would provide a total of $105.9 billion,
$5.6 billion (6%) more than requested and $6.3 billion (6%) more than the FY2007
level. Within that total, the bill provides $66.9 billion for DOT ($2.4 billion more
than requested and $3.8 billion more than the FY2007 level), $38.7 billion for HUD
($3.1 billion more than requested and $2.1 billion over the FY2007 level), and $235
million for the other independent agencies ($1 million more than requested and $12
million over the FY2007 level). The Senate bill’s major funding difference with the
House bill is in providing more funding for DOT; most of that additional funding is
for repairs to bridges in response to the collapse of an interstate highway bridge in
Minnesota after passage of the House version of the bill.
The Conference Agreement. The conference agreement on H.R. 3074
recommended a total of $105.8 billion. This is $5.5 billion (6%) more than requested
and $6.2 billion (6%) more than the FY2007 enacted level. The agreement
recommends $66.7 billion for DOT, $2.2 billion more than requested and $3.5 billion
more than provided in FY2007. The conferees recommended $38.7 billion for HUD,
$3.1 billion more than the budget request and $2.4 billion more than the amount
provided in FY2007.
The conference agreement was reported on November 13, 2007. It was brought
to the House floor on November 14, 2007, and approved by a vote of 270-147 later
that day. The primary topics of discussion during consideration of the agreement had
to do with the time available to review the bill and additions made by conferees.
Some members complained that not only had the rule that members should be given
three days to review a bill before voting on it been waived, but also that the informal
practice that members be given at least 24 hours to review a bill was being ignored.
There were also criticisms of the number of earmarks in the bill, and of the addition
by conferees of some earmarks that had not been in either the House- or Senate-
passed versions of the bill (a practice known as “air-dropping” earmarks).
Complaints were also voiced about a provision (Section 193) added by
conferees that would prohibit any funds in the agreement from being used to provide
budget justifications to any congressional committee, other than the appropriations



committees, prior to May 31, 2008. In 2006, the Office of Management and Budget
began directing agencies to make their budget justifications available to the public,
and to post the justifications on the Internet, within two weeks of the transmittal of
those materials to Congress in early February. A similar provision was inserted in
the conference agreement on the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2006 (TTHUD) (P.L. 109-115, Section 182), and was added
to the Senate-passed version of the FY2007 TTHUD appropriations bill (H.R. 5576);
that bill was never passed by the Senate, and the prohibition was not included in the
continuing resolution that provided funding for those agencies for FY2007 (P.L. 110-

5).


The President issued a Statement of Administration Policy on the conference
agreement, threatening to veto the bill for exceeding the level of funding requested
by the Administration. The margin of passage of the bill in the House was less than
the two-thirds majority that would be required to override a veto.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act. In December 2007, with 11
unfinished appropriations bills, including the THUD bill, several of which faced veto
threats from the President for exceeding the level of funding requested in the
Administration budget proposal, Congress decided to combine the unfinished
appropriations bills into one consolidated appropriations act. The legislative vehicle
used was H.R. 2764, originally the Department of State, Foreign Operations and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008. The THUD appropriations act became
Division K of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. After negotiations with the
Administration over the total level of spending in the bill, Congress agreed to reduce
the overall level of spending in the bill, leaving it up to each appropriations
subcommittee to achieve the agreed-upon reduction. The THUD committee did so
through rescission of contract authority in certain programs and a 2% rescission
applied to the earmarked projects in the bill (see sections 129 and 186 in Title I, and
under the heading “Community Development Fund” in Title II).
Table 1 notes the status of the FY2008 THUD appropriations bill.



Table 1. Status of FY2008 Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Subco mmit t e e ConferenceRepo rt
B ill Markup HouseRepo rt HousePassage Sena t eRepo rt Sena t ePassage Co nf.Repo rt Approval PublicLa w
H o use Sena t e H o use Sena t e
H.R.6/11/077/10/07H.Rept.110-2387/24/07S.Rept.110-1319/12/07110-44611/14/07
3074 7/18/07 268-153 7/16/07 88-7 11/13/07 270-147
H.R.12/17/0712/18/0712/17/07a12/26/07P.L. 110-
2764 253-154 76-17 161
a. An explanatory statement was published in the Congressional Record on December 17, 2007,
accompanying the House amendment that transformed H.R. 2764 into the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008. Section 4 of the House amendment specified that the accompanying
explanatory statement would have the same effect as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a
committee of conference (Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, Book II, H15741). The
explanatory statement for the THUD appropriations act is Division K of the explanatory statement,
located in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, Book III, H16458-H16640. The text of
the act and the explanatory statement for Division K is also available in a committee print published
by the House Committee on Appropriations in January 2008.
Table 2 lists the total funding provided for each of the titles in the bill for
FY2007 and the amount requested for that title for FY2008.
Table 2. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2007-FY2008
(millions of dollars)
FY2008 FY2008
Tit l e FY2007Ena c t e d FY2008Request FY2008House FY2008Sena t e Co nf(H.R. Ena c t e d(H.R.
3074) 2764)
Title I: Department of$63,181$64,479$65,542$66,913$66,712$65,527
T r ansp o r tatio n
Title II: Housing and Urban36,63335,59738,66638,73738,65937,637
Development
Title III: Related Agencies223234235235435415
To tal $100,038 $100,310 $104,444 $105,885 $105,806 $103,579
Source: Budget table provided by the House Appropriations Committee and published in connection
with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. A budget table for the THUD appropriations act was
published at the end of Division K of the explanatory statement in the Congressional Record of
December 17, 2007, pps. H16632-H16640. However, there are some inconsistencies between the
figures in that table and with the funding levels set by the legislative text as printed in the
Congressional Record on the same date. However, the account-level budget table included in Division
K of the joint explanatory statement published in the committee print on H.R. 2764 by the House
Committee on Appropriations in January 2008 is correct (see note in Division K, page 2589, of the
committee print). Thus, for THUD figures the table in the committee print should be used in place
of the table printed in the Congressional Record. This table is on pp. 2590-2612 of the committee
print, available at [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/appropriations/08conappro.html].
Total” represents total budgetary resources after scorekeeping adjustments. Totals may not add up
due to rounding and scorekeeping adjustments.



Changing Appropriations Subcommittee Structures
Since 2003, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have
reorganized their subcommittee structure three times. In 2003, a new subcommittee
(Homeland Security) was added; in order to maintain the existing number of
subcommittees at 13, the Transportation appropriations subcommittees were
combined with the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations
subcommittees, becoming the Subcommittees on Transportation, Treasury, and
Independent Agencies.
In early 2005, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations again
reorganized their subcommittee structures. The House Committee on Appropriations
reduced its number of subcommittees from 13 to 10. This change included combining
the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies subcommittee with the
District of Columbia subcommittee; to the resulting subcommittee, in addition,
jurisdiction over appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Judiciary, as well as several additional independent agencies,
was added. The subcommittee was then known as the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District
of Columbia, and Independent Agencies (or TTHUD).
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of subcommittees
to 12. The Senate also added jurisdiction over appropriations for the Departments
of Housing and Urban Development and the Judiciary to the Transportation,
Treasury, and Independent Agencies subcommittee. The Senate retained a separate
District of Columbia Appropriations subcommittee. As a result, the areas of
coverage of the House and Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction over this
appropriations bill were almost, but not quite, identical; the major difference being
that in the Senate the appropriations for the District of Columbia originate in a
separate bill.
At the beginning of the 110th Congress in 2007, the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations again reorganized their subcommittee structures. The
House and Senate committees divided the responsibilities of the TTHUD
subcommittees between two subcommittees: Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies (THUD); and Financial Services and General
Government, whose jurisdiction included the Treasury Department, the Judiciary, the
Executive Office of the President, the District of Columbia, and many of the
independent agencies formerly under the jurisdiction of the TTHUD subcommittees.
These changes make year-to-year comparisons of Transportation and Housing
and Urban Development appropriation bills complex, as their appropriations appear
in different bills in combination with various other agencies. Other factors, such as
supplemental appropriations for response to disasters (such as the damage caused by
the Gulf Coast hurricanes in the fall of 2005) and changes in the makeup of the
Department of Transportation (portions of which were transferred to the Department
of Homeland Security in 2004), also complicate comparisons of year-to-year funding.
Table 3 shows funding trends over the five-year period FY2003-FY2007, and the
amounts requested for FY2008, for the Departments of Transportation and Housing
and Urban Development. The purpose of Table 3 is to indicate trends in the funding



for these agencies, so emergency supplemental appropriations are not included in the
figures. The agencies generally experienced funding increases during the period
FY2003-FY2007.
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies, FY2003-FY2008
(billions of current dollars)
FY2008 FY2008f
Depa rtment FY2003 b FY2004 c FY2005 d FY2006 e FY2007 Request Ena c t e d
Title I: Transportationa$55.7$58.4$59.6$59.5$63.2$64.5$65.5
Title II: Housing and31.031.231.934.036.235.637.6
Urban Development
Source: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Comparative
Statement of Budget Authority tables from fiscal years 2003 through 2008. Figures for FY2006 do
not reflect emergency appropriations.
a. Figures for Department of Transportation appropriations for FY2003 have been adjusted for
comparison with FY2004 and later figures by subtracting the United States Coast Guard, the
Transportation Security Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, and by adding the Maritime
Ad mi ni st r a t i o n.
b. FY2003 figures reflect a 0.65% across-the-board rescission.
c. FY2004 figures reflect a 0.59% across-the-board rescission.
d. FY2005 figures reflect a 0.83% across-the-board rescission.
e. FY2006 figures reflect a 1.0% across-the-board rescission, but do not reflect emergency
supplemental appropriations provided for DOT and HUD. DOT and HUD received emergency
funding for response to the effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes; DOTs total FY2006 funding,
including emergency funding, was $62.3 billion; HUD’s total FY2006 funding, including
emergency funding, was $45.5 billion.
f. FY2008 figures do not reflect a 2.0% rescission applied to most programs with designated
earmarks.



Transportation Appropriations
Table 4. Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2007-FY2008
(in millions of dollars; totals may not add)
Department or Agency (Selected Accounts)FY2007EnactedFY2008RequestFY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008Enacted
Office of the Secretary of Transportation$171$96$150$160$157
Essential Air Servicea10950 110110110
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Operations (trust fund & general fund)8,3748,726 8,7178,7628,740
Facilities & Equipment (F&E) (trust fund)2,516 2,462 2,5152,5172,514
Grant-in-aid for Airports (AIP) (trust fund)3,5152,7503,6003,5153,515
(limit. on oblig.)
Research, Engineering & Development (trust130140140149147
fund)
Subtotal, FAA14,48214,07714,62214,59314,604
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(Limitation on Obligations)39,08639,58540,21641,21641,216
(Exempt Obligations)739739739739739
Additional funds (trust fund)
Additional funds (general fund)234030
Rescissions of contract authority(4,343)(2,000)(3,385)(3,121)(4,107)
Subtotal, FHWAb36,25537,91537,56539,07038,068
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)517528528531530
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)c821833813813815
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)1,4781,0811,6671,6571,561
Amtrak 1,294 800 1,450 1,370 1,325
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
General Funds1,7471,5501,8381,6921,590
Capital Investment Grants (New Starts)1,5661,4001,7001,5661,569
Trust Funds7,2637,8727,8737,8737,768
Subtotal, FTA8,9759,4229,7109,5659,358
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation1617171717
Maritime Administration (MARAD)d214295292326307
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
Pipeline safety program7575798280
Emergency preparedness grants1428282828
Subtotal, PHMSA134148154156154
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) 812121212
Office of Inspector General6466666666
Surface Transportation Board2522252425
Total, Department of Transportation$63,181$64,479$65,542$66,913$65,527
Source: Figures are from a budget table published by the House Appropriations Committee in a
committee print combining the text and explanatory statement for the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161). Because of differing treatment of offsets, the figures for
FY2008 Request” will not always match the Administrations budget figures from other sources. The
figures within this table may differ slightly from those in the text due to supplemental appropriations,



rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns may not add due to rescissions, rounding, and
exclusion of smaller program line-items.
a. The total comes from a $50 million annual authorization for the Essential Air Service program to
be funded out of overflight fee collections and an additional amount appropriated for the
program.
b. FHWA was appropriated $39.8 billion for FY2007. The $36.3 billion figure represents the
budgetary total after subtraction of a $3.5 billion rescission of previously provided contract
authority and the transfer of $121 million to NHTSA. The House and Senate committees
recommended $41.0 billion for FHWA for FY2008; rescissions of contract authority resulted
in those proposals being scored as $37.6 billion and $37.9 billion, respectively.
c. The House and Senate committees recommended $836 million and $835 million, respectively, in
new funding for NHTSA; those totals were reduced by rescissions of unobligated contract
autho r ity.
d. MARAD was appropriated $291 million for FY2007. The $214 million figure represents the
budgetary total after subtraction of a $74 million rescission of previously appropriated funds for
the National Defense Tank Vessel Program.
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues
The President’s FY2008 budget proposed a total of $64.5 billion for the2
Department of Transportation (DOT). This was $1.3 billion (2%) more than the
$63.2 billion enacted for FY2007. The major funding changes requested from the
FY2007 enacted levels were
!an increase of $500 million (1%) in the obligation limitation for
highways and $447 million (5%) for transit, reflecting the authorized
levels in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59);
!an increase of $12 million (10%) for the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Administration, reflecting a requested increase in grants
to states for emergency preparedness;
!an increase of $4 million (55%) for the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration;
!a decrease of $765 million (-22%) in the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Airport Improvement Program, similar to a
requested decrease for FY2007 that was rejected by Congress;
!a decrease of $494 million (-38%) in the request for Amtrak, similar
to a requested decrease for FY2007 that was rejected by Congress;
and
!a decrease of $59 million (-54%) in funding for the Essential Air
Service Program.
The Administration request also proposed restructuring the FAA budget, reflecting
the Administration’s reauthorization proposal for the FAA.
Both chambers have passed bills providing a higher level of DOT funding than
requested by the Administration: $65.5 billion ($1.1 billion more) by the House and
$66.9 billion ($2.4 billion more) by the Senate. The major difference between the
House and Senate totals is that the Senate version provides an additional $1 billion


2 This total includes $66.9 billion in new appropriations and $2.4 billion in rescissions.

for the FHWA’s Bridge Repair and Replacement Program and an additional
appropriation of up to $195 million for emergency funding to Minnesota, both in
response to the collapse of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis on August 1, 2007.
Neither chamber supported the Administration’s requested decreases in the various
transportation accounts. Nor did either chamber’s bill reflect the proposed
restructuring of the FAA budget, as Congress is still considering the reauthorization
of the FAA. Among the largest increases over the requested levels were those for the
FHWA Bridge Program ($1 billion by the Senate), the FAA Aviation Improvement
Program ($850 million by the House, $765 million by the Senate), and for Amtrak
($600 million by the House, $570 million by the Senate), and the inclusion by both
of a $631 million increase in funding for the federal-aid highway program
(authorized by the Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) mechanism included
in SAFETEA-LU).
Conferees reported a conference agreement on the bill on November 13, 2007.
The conference committee recommended $66.7 billion for DOT. This is $3.5 billion
more than the amount enacted for FY2007 and $2.2 billion more than the
Administration request for FY2008. The agreed-upon increases include an additional
$1 billion for highway bridge repair and replacement and an additional $631 million
reflecting the RABA adjustment to the authorized funding level for the federal
highway program; an additional $750 million for the FAA airport grant program,
restoring the cut proposed by the budget request; and an additional $475 million for
Amtrak (the budget requested a $394 million cut from the FY2007 level). This
agreement was approved by the House on November 14, 2007, but was not taken up
in the Senate.
Congress passed an FY2008 THUD appropriations act as Division K of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161). The THUD
appropriations act provided $65.5 billion for DOT, $2.3 billion more than enacted in
FY2007 and $1.0 billion more than the Administration request, but less than the
amount agreed to by the conference committee. Compared to the Administration
request, the act included the additional $1 billion for highway bridge repair and
replacement, the additional $631 million RABA adjustment, the additional $750
million for the FAA airport grant program, and an additional $425 million for
Amtrak.
The Administration’s budget for DOT identified three priorities of the FY2008
request: reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a new
highway congestion initiative, and alteration of Amtrak’s spending priorities.3
FAA Reauthorization. The FAA’s authorization was scheduled to expire at
the end of FY2007, but has been extended. The Administration’s proposal for
aviation reauthorization includes reform of the financial structure of the air traffic
control system, a reform reflected in the budget request for FAA. The
Administration proposal would also change the revenue sources for FAA funding.
Reauthorization of the FAA is still under consideration by Congress. (For more


3 United States Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, pp. 108-

110.



information about FAA reauthorization, see CRS Report RL33920, Federal Aviation
Administration Reauthorization: An Overview of Selected Provisions in Proposed
Legislation, coordinated by Bart Elias.)
Highway Congestion Initiative. The highway congestion initiative would
redirect $175 million (largely from unused funds previously designated by Congress
for specific projects) for pilot programs in cities to test comprehensive congestion
reduction strategies, including such strategies as congestion pricing, flexible work
schedules to reduce the concentration of commuter traffic during peak rush hour
periods, and more use of real-time traffic information to encourage drivers to adjust
the timing and route of their trips in light of current traffic conditions.
The House rejected the request for $175 million for the congestion initiative,
noting that DOT has considerable discretion with regard to awarding grants from the
FY2007 funding for highway and transit discretionary programs, and that a
congestion initiative should be more comprehensive in scope than the Administrative
proposal, involving other modes besides highways.
The Senate approved $136 million for the congestion initiative, but provided the
funds from the additional funding produced by the RABA mechanism, rather than by
taking money from projects previously designated by Congress.
The final THUD appropriations act directs the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to provide a review of DOT’s implementation of its congestion
initiative in FY2007 to the Appropriations Committee by March 31, 2008. The act
also limits the amount of FTA’s bus program funds that DOT may use for the4
congestion initiative in FY2008 to not more than 10% of the unallocated funds.
Reducing Amtrak’s Federal Subsidy. For FY2008, the House provided
$1.4 billion for Amtrak — $475 million for operating assistance and $925 million in
capital assistance and debt service — plus another $50 million for a matching grant
program to encourage state investment in passenger rail. The Senate provided $1.37
billion for Amtrak — $485 million for operating assistance and $885 million for
capital assistance and debt service — plus another $100 million for a matching grant
program to encourage state investment in passenger rail. Both amounts represent an
increase over the $1.3 billion provided for FY2007. The Senate also approved a floor
amendment eliminating a provision in the FY2006 THUD appropriations act (P.L.
109-115, 119 Stat. 2414, continued in FY2007 by P.L. 110-5, 121 Stat. 9) that
prohibited Amtrak from offering discounts of more than 50% off the normal peak
fare on a route. Both of the House and Senate appropriations committees expressed
concerns about Amtrak’s failure to reach collective bargaining agreements with the
majority of its workforce since the expiration of the previous agreements several
years ago, and about the role of freight railroads in Amtrak’s poor on-time
performance.


4 According to FTA, a total of $96.6 million was unallocated. “FTA Supplemental Fiscal
Year 2008 Apportionments and Allocations and Program Information,” Federal Register,
vol. 73, no. 28 (Monday, February 11, 2008), p. 7790.

The conference agreement recommended $1.375 billion for Amtrak — $475
million for operating assistance and $900 million for capital assistance and debt
service. This is $80 million (6%) more than the amount provided for FY2007. The
conference agreement also recommended $75 million for a matching grant program
to encourage states to invest in passenger rail service. The grants would provide a
50% federal share of the capital costs of improving existing intercity passenger rail
service and providing new intercity passenger rail service.
The final THUD act provided $1.325 billion for Amtrak — $475 million for
operating assistance and $850 million for capital assistance and debt service. This
is $31 million more than the amount provided in FY2007. The act also provided $30
million for a matching grant program to encourage states to invest in intercity
passenger rail service. The grant program would provide a 50% federal share of the
capital costs of improving existing intercity passenger rail service and providing new
intercity passenger rail service.
The Administration requested $900 million for Amtrak for FY2008. This was
$394 million (31%) less than the amount provided in FY2007, and of the $900
million requested, $100 million would not go to Amtrak directly, but to a matching
grant program to encourage states to invest in intercity passenger rail-related capital
improvements. Only $300 million was requested for operating assistance; Amtrak
received $490 million in operating assistance in FY2006 and FY2007.
Amtrak’s Board of Directors, whose current members have been appointed by
the Bush Administration, submits a separate grant request to Congress each year. For
FY2008, the Board requested $1.5 billion to maintain operations and $100 million
for a matching grant program to encourage states to make intercity passenger rail-
related capital improvements.
For the past several years, the Administration has sought to force changes in
Amtrak’s operations, and in intercity passenger rail policy in general, by requesting
less funding for Amtrak than is needed to maintain Amtrak’s status quo level of
operations, arguing that “only a constrained budget will force Amtrak to change the
way it conducts business.”5 In its FY2008 budget, the Administration states that it
expects “the Board’s newly-installed management to make significant changes
required to enable the company to succeed without Federal operating subsidies.”6 In
previous years, Congress has provided more funding for Amtrak than requested by
the Administration, though less than requested by Amtrak’s Board, while imposing
conditions on Amtrak in the annual appropriations bill.
Amtrak is a quasi-governmental corporation that provides intercity passenger
rail service throughout the country and operates and maintains rail infrastructure in
the Northeast. It operates at a deficit, and requires federal support each year to
continue its operations. Amtrak’s authorization expired at the end of FY2002.
Reauthorization efforts since then have been stalled by fundamental disagreements


5 United States Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222.
6 United States Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, p. 110.

between Congress and the Administration over the future shape of federal intercity
passenger rail policy.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA budget provides both
capital and operating funding for the nation’s air traffic control system, and also
provides federal grants to airports for airport planning, development, and expansion
of the capacity of the nation’s air traffic infrastructure. The President’s budget
requested $14.1 billion for FY2008, $1.0 billion less than was provided for FY2007.7
Most of that reduction would come from the Airport Improvement Program. Both
of the House and Senate approved $14.6 billion for FAA for FY2008, as did the
conference agreement and the final THUD appropriations act.
Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The President’s budget proposed
a cut of $764 million to AIP funding, from $3.5 billion in FY2007 to $2.8 billion for
FY2008. A similar cut was proposed by the Administration for FY2007, but was not
supported by Congress.
Both the House and Senate rejected the proposed cut. The House approved $3.6
billion for FY2008, a $95 million increase over FY2007. The Senate approved $3.5
billion, the same amount provided in FY2007. The conference agreement also
recommended $3.5 billion; the final THUD appropriations act provided that amount.
AIP funds are used to provide grants for airport planning and development, and
for projects to increase airport capacity (such as construction of new runways) and
other facility improvements. Some Members of Congress have expressed concern
at proposed cuts in the AIP program in the face of forecasts of growth in aviation
traffic.
Essential Air Service. The President’s budget requested $50 million for the
Essential Air Service program, a $59 million (54%) reduction from the $109 million
provided for FY2007. A similar decrease was proposed by the Administration for
FY2007, but was rejected by Congress. Both the House and Senate again rejected
the proposed cut, providing $110 million for FY2008. The conference agreement
also recommended $110 million; the final THUD appropriations act provided that
amount.
This program seeks to preserve air service to small airports in rural communities
by subsidizing the cost of that service. Supporters of the Essential Air Service
program contend that preserving airline service to rural communities was part of the
deal Congress made in exchange for deregulating airline service in 1978, which was
expected to reduce air service to rural areas. Some Members of Congress have
expressed concern that the proposed cut in funding for the Essential Air Service
program could lead to a reduction in the transportation connections of rural
communities. Previous budget requests from the current Administration, as well as
budget requests from previous Administrations, have also proposed reducing funding
to this program.


7 Total enacted new FY2007 FAA funding was $15.1 billion. The net total was reduced to
$14.5 billion by a rescission of contract authority.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The President’s budget
requested $40.3 billion in new funding for federal highway programs for FY2008, an
increase of $600 million (2%) over the comparable level of $39.7 billion provided
in FY2007.8 These increases reflect the originally authorized level of funding
provided for surface transportation programs by SAFETEA (P.L. 109-59).
The authorized level of FY2008 highway funding was increased by $631 million
over its original level as a result of higher-than-expected revenues to the Highway
Trust Fund, an adjustment provided for in SAFETEA through a mechanism known
as RABA. The Administration request did not include this additional funding. The
DOT Secretary noted that the Highway Trust Account is projected to go into deficit
in FY2009 unless some preventive action is taken, and stated that not requesting the
additional $631 million authorized for FY2008 by the RABA adjustment was one of
the steps the Administration was taking to forestall the projected FY2009 deficit.9
The House approved $41.0 billion in new funding for federal highway programs
for FY2008, an increase of $1.1 billion (3%) over the comparable FY2007 amount.
This represented the full authorized level for FY2008, as increased by the $631
million RABA adjustment. The Senate approved $42.2 billion in new funding,
adding $1 billion to the FHWA bridge program and up to $195 million in emergency
funding for repair of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The
conference agreement also recommended $42.2 billion in new funding.
The final THUD appropriations act provided $42.0 billion10 in new funding and
up to $195 million in emergency funding for the I-35 bridge in Minnesota. This is
$2.3 billion over the FY2007 enacted figure and $1.7 billion more than the
Administration requested. The increase is due to increases in the authorized level of
highway funding (including an increase due to a RABA adjustment that was not
requested by the Administration) and $1 billion provided for inspection and repair
of highway bridges following the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minnesota.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The
Administration requested the authorized level of funding for FMCSA, $528 million.
This is $11 million (2%) over the amount provided for FY2007; $300 million of the
request is for grants to states to enforce commercial truck and bus safety regulations.
The House approved $528 million, the authorized level and the amount
requested by the Administration, the Senate approved $531 million, and the
conference agreement recommended $530 million. The final THUD appropriations
act provided $530 million.


8 The FY2007 enacted figure and FY2008 request were reduced, for accounting purposes,
by rescissions of contract authority, resulting in net budgetary totals of $36.3 billion for
FY2007 and $37.9 billion for the FY2008 request.
9 Testimony of Mary Peters, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, before the U. S.
House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, March 14, 2007.
10 The FY2008 enacted figure was reduced, for accounting purposes, by a rescission of
contract authority, resulting in a net budgetary total of $38.1 billion.

Both of the House and Senate bills, the conference agreement, and the final
THUD appropriations act include a provision (Section 136) that prohibits any funds
in the act from being used to “establish” a cross-border trucking demonstration
program allowing Mexican trucking companies to operate beyond the commercial
zone (a zone extending 20 miles into the United States from the U.S.-Mexico
border). The DOT had implemented such a program on September 7, 2007. DOT
continued to operate the program after passage of the FY2008 act, contending that
FY2008 funding used for the program would not be used to establish the program,
but to continue its operation.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The
Administration requested $833 million for NHTSA, the amount authorized for
FY2008. This is an increase of $12 million (1%) over the amount provided for
FY2007; $599 million of this amount is for grants to states for highway safety
programs to reduce deaths and injuries from motor vehicle crashes.
The House approved $836 million in new funding, $3 million more than
authorized and requested. The Senate approved $835 million in new funding, $2
million more than the level authorized and requested. The conference agreement
recommended $838 million in new funding ($815 million after a $23 million
rescission of contract authority). The final THUD appropriations act provided $838
million ($815 million after a rescission of contract authority).
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The Administration requested
$1.081 billion for FRA for FY2008. This is a decrease of $400 million (28%) from
the $1.478 billion provided for FY2007. The largest portion of FRA’s budget is for
support of Amtrak, and virtually all of the proposed reduction was in funding for
Amtrak, as discussed above. The next largest portion of FRA’s budget is for safety
programs intended to reduce railroad accidents. The Administration requested $148
million, $2 million (1%) less than provided for FY2007. The other component of the
FRA budget is research and development of rail safety improvements. The
Administration requested $32 million for this, $2 million (6%) less than the $35
million provided for FY2007.
The House approved $1.667 billion for FRA, an increase of $188 million over
FY2007 and $586 million over the Administration request. Aside from $35 million
for a rail line relocation grant program that was authorized in SAFETEA, but not
previously funded, and an extra $1 million for research and development, all of the
increase over the Administration request is for Amtrak.
The Senate approved $1.657 billion for FRA, an increase of $179 million over
the FY2007 funding and $577 million over the Administration request. All but $7
million of the increase over the Administration request is related to Amtrak.
The conference agreement recommends $1.656 billion. This represents the
same level of funding as FY2007 for FRA’s safety and operations account, an
increase of $1.5 million over the FY2007 funding for FRA’s research and
development program, an increase of $81 million over the FY2007 funding for
Amtrak, and funds for two programs that were not funded in FY2007 — $75 million



for a capital grant program for states to support passenger rail service and $20 million
for a rail line relocation and improvement program.
The final THUD appropriations act provided $1.561 billion. This is $83 million
over the FY2007 enacted level. Most of the increase was for passenger rail activities.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Administration requested
$9.422 billion for FTA for FY2008. This was an increase of $447 million (5%) over11
the amount provided for FY2007, but was $309 million below the authorized
FY2008 funding. The increase was in funds provided to states and localities through
formula programs. The requested reduction from the authorized funding level was
in the popular New Starts program, which helps fund the construction of new transit
projects and extensions to existing transit systems. The Administration requested
$1.4 billion for New Starts, a decrease of $166 million (1%) from the FY2007 figure
and $309 million (2%) less than the authorized level of $1.7 billion. The
Administration defended the reduction in New Starts funding by saying that difficult12
budget choices had to be made, and asserted that it had requested enough funding
to cover all the New Starts projects that were ready for funding in FY2008, as well
as having set aside funding for projects that might become ready for funding during
FY2008. The request also included $100 million for the newly created Small Starts
portion of the New Starts program, which provides funding for projects whose total
cost is less than $250 million. The Small Starts portion is authorized for $200
million for FY2008, but that program’s regulations had not been finalized as of the
publication of the Administration budget request, so the Administration did not
expect that the program would be able to make $200 million in grants in FY2008.
The House approved $9.710 billion for FTA, the authorized level for FY2008.
This is $701 million more than the FY2007 level and $288 million more than the
Administration request. The House provided the $1.7 billion authorized funding
level for the Capital Improvement (i.e., New Starts) program, including the $200
million authorized for the new Small Starts portion of that program. The House
Appropriations Committee’s report on the bill recommended several recipients for
a portion of the Small Starts funding.
The Senate approved $9.565 billion for FTA, an increase of $590 million over
the FY2007 level and $143 million over the Administration request, but $134 million
less than the authorized level for FY2008. The primary difference from the House
funding, and the authorized level, was the $1.566 billion provided for the New Starts
program. This is the same amount provided for FY2007, and $166 million more than
requested for FY2008, but $134 million less than the FY2008 authorized level. The
Senate committee also recommended several recipients for a portion of the funding
provided for the Small Starts component of the New Starts program. The Senate also
approved a floor amendment prohibiting FTA from finalizing its proposed New Start
evaluation rule.


11 Not counting $35 million in emergency funding provided in an FY2007 supplemental
funding act (P.L. 110-28).
12 Funding for the New Starts Program comes from the General Fund, while almost all other
FTA programs are funded from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund.

The conference agreement recommended $9.649 billion for FTA. The primary
difference between this level and the levels approved by the House and Senate was
the funding for the New Starts program: the House approved $1.700 billion, the
Senate $1.566 billion, and the conference agreement recommended $1.650 billion.
The final THUD appropriations act provided $9.358 billion for FTA. This is
$348 million over the FY2007 enacted level, while $358 million below the FY2008
authorized funding level (and $320 million below the amount recommended by the
conference committee). Most of the difference from the authorized level was due to
a reduction of $104 million in the amount provided for formula and bus grants, a
further rescission of $105 million of bus funding, and an appropriation of
approximately $131 million less than the authorized level provided for the Capital
Grants program.
Maritime Administration (MARAD). The Administration requested $295
million for MARAD for FY2008, $4 million (2%) above the $291 million enacted13
for FY2007. MARAD supports the maritime transportation sector. The largest
components of its budget are the Maritime Security Program and Operations and
Training.
The Administration requested $154 million (identical to the amount provided
for FY2007) for the Maritime Security Program. This provides payments of roughly
$2.6 million per ship to retain a fleet of 60 active, militarily useful, privately owned
vessels to be available to the federal government in the event they are needed for
security purposes. A total of $115 million was requested for Operations and Training,
$4 million (3%) more than the $111 million provided for FY2007. This program
funds the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, State Maritime Schools, and MARAD’s
operations.
The House approved $295 million in new funding for MARAD, $4 million
more than the comparable amount for FY2007 and equal to the amount requested for
FY2008. The Senate approved $330 million in new funding for MARAD, $39
million more than the comparable FY2007 figure and $35 million more than
requested. The increase is largely due to $20 million provided for assistance to small
shipyards and $10 million provided for loan guarantees under the Maritime
Guaranteed Loan Program; no funding was provided for either of those purposes in
FY2007, nor was any requested for FY2008.
The conference agreement recommended $313 million in new funding for
MARAD for FY2008. The final THUD appropriations act provided this amount.
This is $23 million more than the comparable amount provided for FY2007 and $18
million more than the comparable amount requested for FY2008. These increases
are largely due to additional funding provided for MARAD’s operations and training
account, $10 million provided for assistance to small shipyards, and $5 million
provided for loan guarantees under the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program. No


13 MARAD’s FY2007 enacted appropriation was scored at $214 million, the $291 million
total being reduced by $76 million in rescissions of previously appropriated funding,
primarily from the National Defense Tank Vessel Program.

funding was provided for the latter two purposes in FY2007, nor was any requested
for FY2008.
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations
Table 5. 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



FY2007 dFY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008mFY2008p
ProgramEnactedRequestHouseSenate Conf.Enacted
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
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



FY2007 dFY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008mFY2008p
ProgramEnactedRequestHouseSenate Conf.Enacted
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 k), 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. The Presidents 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-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 HUD’s 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. An amount of $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
millio n.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Budget and Key Policy Issues
On February 5, 2007, President Bush released his FY2008 budget request, 10
days before the Congress finished work on the FY2007 spending bills by enacting a
revised year-long continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). The FY2007 CR funded most
HUD programs at their FY2006 level, but with decreases for some programs and
increases for other programs. The CR provided HUD with more than $36.6 billionth
for FY2007. The 110 Congress also enacted a FY2007 supplemental funding bill,
the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Act (P.L. 110-28), which contained several provisions that made changes within the
FY2007 funding levels for HUD programs. (For more details, see CRS Report
RL33344, The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2007 Budget, by
Maggie McCarty, Libby Perl, Bruce E. Foote, Eugene Boyd, and Meredith Peterson.)
The President’s FY2008 budget requested about a billion-dollar decrease in
funding for HUD. Although the budget called for increased funding for programs for
the homeless, persons with AIDS, and first-time homebuyers, several programs were
targeted for elimination (HOPE VI, Rural Housing and Economic Development,
Brownfields Redevelopment, and Section 108 Loan Guarantees) or funding cuts
(Section 202 Housing for the Elderly, Section 811 Housing for the Disabled, the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, Lead Hazard Reduction,
Fair Housing programs, and the Public Housing Capital Fund). The FY2008 funding
debate was also influenced by the ongoing decline in receipts from the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) available to offset the cost of the budget. For
FY2007, it was estimated that FHA would generate a net surplus of more than $650
million that could offset the cost of the HUD budget; for FY2008, the amount was
estimated to be about $250 million, although legislative proposals were offered to
increase the amount. (For a more detailed discussion, see CRS Report RL34022, The
Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2008 Appropriations, by
Maggie McCarty, Libby Perl, Bruce E. Foote, Eugene Boyd, and Meredith Peterson.)
On July 11, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee approved its version of
the FY2008 Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and



Related Agencies Appropriations Act (THUD) funding bill (H.R. 3074). The
following day, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version (S. 1789).
Both bills would have increased funding above the President’s request for a number
of HUD programs, including Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance, Housing for
the Elderly and Housing for the Disabled, and CDBG. Both bills also would have
provided funding for all programs that were slated for elimination in the President’s
budget. On July 24, 2007, the House approved H.R. 3074. Several floor
amendments were adopted that would have made administrative changes to HUD
programs, but only one amendment changed funding levels, by transferring $6.76
million to housing counseling assistance from HUD’s Inspector General account. On
September 11, 2007, the Senate began consideration of its version of H.R. 3074 after
substituting the content with the language of S. 1789. On September 12, 2007, the
Senate approved the legislation after adopting several housing-related amendments,
including:
!a set-aside of $100 million in the HOME account to fund foreclosure
prevention activities;
!a transfer of $380,000 from HUD’s salaries and expenses account to
the fair housing account in order to fund the creation and promotion
of translated materials to help in serving persons with limited
English proficiency;
!a set-aside of $25 million in the HOME account to fund the
American Dream Downpayment Initiative; and
!a transfer of $2.4 million from the Working Capital Fund to the
Research and Technology account to provide additional funding for
tribal colleges and universities.
On November 8, 2007, House and Senate conferees agreed to a FY2008 THUD
funding bill. The total for HUD in the conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446) was
lower than the House and Senate-passed levels, but higher than the President’s
request. The agreement was reported on November 13, 2007, and was approved by
the House on November 14, 2007. According to a Statement of Administration
Policy released by the Office of Management and Budget, the President intended to
veto the bill, since its funding level was above his request. The full Senate never
considered the conference agreement.
On December 19, 2007, Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2008 (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 the House,
Senate, or 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 $723 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).



Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers). The
President’s budget requested $16 billion for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, a slight
increase over the $15.9 billion enacted for FY2007. H.R. 3074, as passed by the
House, would have provided $16.3 billion. The Senate-passed version of the bill
would have increased funding for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance to $16.6 billion.
The conference agreement would have funded the account between the House- and
Senate-passed levels, at $16.4 billion. P.L. 110-161 funded Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance just below the conference agreement level, but also included a rescission
of $723 million, leaving the total amount available for the account at $15.6 billion.
The majority of tenant-based rental assistance funding is dedicated to voucher
renewals. Since FY2004, Congress has made changes each year in how HUD is to
distribute voucher renewal funding to public housing authorities (PHAs). For
example, the FY2007 CR did not adopt the same allocation formula that was in place
in FY2006. In FY2006, PHAs were funded based on what they had received in
FY2005, with some adjustments. For FY2007, Congress directed HUD to fund
PHAs based on their actual leasing and costs from the previous 12 months, with
some adjustments.
In his FY2008 budget, the President requested that PHAs receive renewal
funding using a formula similar to the one in place in FY2006. The House-passed
version of H.R. 3074 adopted a formula similar to the one requested by the President.
The committee report (H.Rept. 110-38) noted that the committee chose not to use
updated data for allocating FY2008 funding because the committee wanted to give
PHAs additional time to adjust to their FY2007 allocations before changing the
formula again, since HUD had delayed allocating FY2007 funding under the new
formula. The Senate-passed bill would have allocated funding based on PHAs’ most
recent 12 months of leasing and cost data, with adjustments, similar to the formula
used in the FY2007 CR. The conference agreement would have used a formula
similar to the one included in the Senate version of the bill.
The final appropriations act, P.L. 110-161, allocates renewal funding using a
different formula from the House, Senate, or House-Senate conference agreement.
Renewal funds will be allocated to PHAs based on their leasing and cost data from
the prior year, plus inflation and other adjustments, and then reduced by the amount
by which their unusable program reserves exceed 7% of their FY2007 funding
allocation. As noted earlier, P.L. 110-161 reduced the total funding for renewals with
a rescission of $723 million, the amount estimated to be available in unusable agency
reserves. (For more information, see CRS Report RL33929, Recent Changes to
Section 8 Housing Voucher Renewal Funding, by Maggie McCarty, and CRS Report
RL34002, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: Issues and Reform
Proposals in the 110th Congress, by Maggie McCarty.)
Prior to FY2008, no new vouchers — called incremental vouchers — had been
funded since FY2002. Both the House and Senate bills for FY2008 proposed
funding for new incremental vouchers targeted to certain populations. The House
version of H.R. 3074 would have provided $30 million for incremental vouchers for
certain non-elderly disabled families and homeless veterans. The Senate bill would
have provided $105 million for incremental vouchers for homeless veterans and for
families with children in the child welfare system or youth transitioning out of foster



care. The conference agreement would have provided $135 million for incremental
vouchers for the same populations.
P.L. 110-161 provides $125 million for incremental vouchers for homeless
veterans, families with children in the child welfare system or youth transitioning out
of foster care, and non-elderly disabled families.
Public Housing. The President’s FY2008 budget requested a $130 million
increase in funding for the public housing Operating Fund. In recent years, HUD has
not requested, and Congress has not provided, sufficient appropriations to fund all
PHAs at 100% of their Operating Fund formula eligibility. Instead, PHAs generally
receive some percentage of their eligible budgets, referred to as the proration level.
The FY2007 CR provided $3.8 billion for the Operating Fund, which resulted in a
proration of 83%. For FY2008, the President requested $4 billion ($3.99 billion for
formula grants), which is estimated to result in a proration level of just over 80%.
The FY2008 appropriations law (P.L. 110-161) — as proposed in the House bill,
Senate bill, and their conference agreement — provides $200 million more than the
President’s request for the Operating Fund. (For more information, see CRS Report
RS22557, Public Housing: Fact Sheet on the New Operating Fund Formula, by
Maggie McCarty.)
For FY2008, the President requested $2 billion for the Capital Fund, a $400
million reduction from FY2007 funding. The majority of the reduction would come
from the formula grants that HUD provides to PHAs to use to modernize their public
housing. Both the House- and Senate-passed bills would have increased funding
above the President’s requested level for the public housing Capital Fund. The House
bill would have funded the account at the FY2007 level ($400 million above the
President’s request), and the Senate bill would have provided almost $500 million
above the President’s request. P.L. 110-161 — like the House-Senate conference
agreement — funds the account at the House-passed level.
For FY2008, the President again requested that Congress provide no new funds
for the HOPE VI program, and that Congress rescind the $99 million provided to the
program in FY2007. P.L. 110-161 — like the House bill, Senate bill, and the House-
Senate conference agreement — provides funding for the HOPE VI program and
does not rescind FY2007 funding, as requested in the President’s budget. P.L. 110-
161 funds the program at $100 million, which is less than the amount proposed in the
House bill and House-Senate conference agreement ($120 million), but the same as
proposed by the Senate bill.
Community Development Programs. The President’s FY2008 budget
recommendation for the formula portion14 of the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program was approximately $3 billion, 20% less than the $3.7 billion
appropriated for distribution to entitlement communities and states in FY2007. As


14 The CDBG program also generally receives some funding for Indian tribes and other
purposes. For more information, see CRS Report RL34022, The Department of Housing
and Urban Development: FY2008 Appropriations, by Maggie McCarty, Libby Perl, Bruce
E. Foote, Eugene Boyd, and Meredith Peterson.

approved by the House, H.R. 3074 would have provided $3.9 billion for CDBG
formula grants. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3074 would have funded CDBG
formula grants at $3.7 billion. The conference agreement would have provided $3.8
billion. P.L. 110-161 funds CDBG at $3.6 billion, less than the amount proposed by
the House, Senate, or House-Senate conference agreement.
In addition to the CDBG program, the Community Development Fund account
has also been used to fund other community development programs, including
congressionally directed projects through the Economic Development Initiatives
(EDI) and Neighborhood Initiatives (NI) programs. The President’s budget proposed
eliminating funding for EDIs and NIs, characterizing these programs as duplicative
of the activities funded by the CDBG formula grant program. Both House and
Senate bills would have provided funding for EDI and NI earmarks. The House-
passed version of H.R. 3074 recommended $160 million for EDIs and $20 million
for NIs; the Senate-passed version would have provided $248 million for EDIs and
$40 million for NIs. The conference agreement would have provided $184 million
for EDIs and $27 million for NIs. P.L. 110-161 provides slightly less than the
conference agreement: $180 million for EDIs and $26 million for NIs.
The Administration’s budget also proposed eliminating funding for several
community development programs funded outside of the Community Development
Fund account, including Brownfields Redevelopment, Section 108 loan guarantees,
and Rural Housing and Economic Development Grants. The President’s request for
no new funding for these accounts was rejected in the House and Senate bills, as well
as the House-Senate conference agreement and P.L. 110-161. The House bill would
have funded Section 108 loan guarantees at $3.7 million, Brownfields
Redevelopment at $9.9 million and Rural Housing and Economic Development
Grants at the enacted level for FY2007, $16.8 million. The Senate bill would have
provided $6 million for Section 108 loan guarantees, $10 million for Brownfields
Redevelopment, and $17 million for Rural Housing and Economic Development.
P.L. 110-161 — as proposed in the House-Senate conference agreement — provides
$4.5 million for Section 108 loan guarantees, $10 million for Brownfields
Redevelopment, and $17 million for Rural Housing and Economic Development
Homeless Programs. The President’s budget for FY2008 proposed to
increase funding for the Homeless Assistance Grants by $144 million above the
FY2007 level, to $1.586 billion. However, $25 million of the FY2008 requested
appropriation would have been transferred to the Department of Labor to fund a
Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative under the President’s request. As in past years, the
Administration also proposed to consolidate the three competitive Homeless
Assistance Grants — the Supportive Housing Program (SHP), the Shelter Plus Care
(S+C) program, and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for Single Room
Occupancy Dwellings (SRO) program — into one competitive grant.
As passed by the House, H.R. 3074 did not include the Prisoner Re-Entry
Initiative, and instead proposed to fund the homeless programs at $25 million less
than the President’s request — $1.561 billion. The Senate-passed bill also did not
fund the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative; however, it would have funded the homeless
programs at $1.586 billion, the same level recommended by the President. Of that
amount, $25 million would have funded a new demonstration program to rapidly



rehouse homeless families living in shelters. P.L. 110-161 — as proposed in the
House-Senate conference agreement — adopts the Senate-passed funding level and
includes funding for the demonstration program. None of the funding bills
considered by Congress, including P.L. 110-161, included the President’s proposal
to consolidate the competitive grants. However, separate legislation introduced in
both the House (H.R. 840) and Senate (S. 1518) proposed to consolidate the
programs. (For more information about the distribution of the Homeless Assistance
Grants, see CRS Report RL33764, The HUD Homeless Assistance Grants:
Distribution of Funds, by Libby Perl.)
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled. The President’s
FY2008 budget proposal for the Section 202 Housing for the Elderly program would
have reduced funding by almost $160 million (nearly 29%) from the FY2007 level,
to $575 million. The House-passed version of H.R. 3074 would have provided just
under $735 million for elderly housing programs, while the Senate-passed version
would have provided exactly $735 million. P.L. 110-161 — as proposed in the
House-Senate conference agreement — provides $735 million for the Section 202
program. (For more information, see CRS Report RL33508, Section 202 and Other
HUD Rental Housing Programs for the Low-Income Elderly, by Libby Perl.)
The President’s FY2008 budget, like that for FY2007, proposed to cut funding
for the Section 811 Housing for the Disabled program nearly in half. In FY2007, the
program was funded at just under $237 million. In FY2008, the Administration’s
budget requested $125 million for the Section 811 Housing for the Disabled program.
The decrease would have resulted from the President’s proposal to stop funding the
capital grants component of the program and to only fund the rental voucher
component of the program. The House-passed bill would have provided funding at
the FY2007 level (just under $237 million); the Senate-passed bill, conference
agreement, and P.L. 110-161 included $237 million for Section 811.
Federal Housing Administration (FHA). For FY2008, the FHA account
was expected to generate $250 million in offsetting receipts, which is less than the
amount of administrative expenses expected to be incurred by the account. This is
a significant change from a few years ago when the income to the insurance funds
(which was regularly in excess of $1 billion) exceeded the costs and resulted in
negative appropriations for FHA. This decline in offsetting receipts tracks FHA’s
declining market share.
The President’s FY2008 budget included three legislative proposals that it
estimated would generate $362 million in budget savings. The first proposal was to
remove the aggregate limit on the number of Home Equity Conversion Mortgages
(HECMs) and set the loan limit for HECMs at 100% of the conforming loan limits,
rather than allowing them to vary by area. The second proposal was to amend the
National Housing Act to permit HUD to increase the loan limits on the various
multifamily housing programs by up to 170% on an area-by-area basis and by up to
215% on a project-by-project basis. The third proposal was to increase the fee
charged by the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) for
guaranteeing mortgage-backed securities by six basis points. P.L. 110-161 — as
proposed in the House bill, Senate bill, and House-Senate conference agreement —



adopted only the first two proposals, but with larger estimates of savings ($540
million, as shown under the heading Legislative Proposals in Table 5).
The President’s budget also proposed to move several accounts from the
General Insurance/Special Risk Insurance fund to the Mutual Mortgage Insurance
fund. None of the appropriations bills considered by Congress, including P.L. 110-

161, adopted the President’s proposed transfer.