Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Congressional research reportJan 11, 2012

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Transportation, Housing and Urban

Development, and Related Agencies:

FY2012 Appropriations

(name redacted)

Analyst in Transportation Policy

(name redacted)

Specialist in Housing Policy

January 11, 2012

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R42149

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Summary

The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD)

appropriations subcommittee is charged with providing annual appropriations for the Department

of Transportation (DOT), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and related

agencies. The HUD budget generally accounts for the largest share of discretionary

appropriations provided by the subcommittee. However, when mandatory funding is taken into

account, DOT’s budget is larger than HUD’s budget. Mandatory funding typically accounts for a

little less than half of the bill total.

The President’s FY2012 budget request for DOT reflected a reauthorization proposal for DOT

surface transportation programs. This proposal would have front-loaded a large increase in

funding in the first year of the Administration’s proposed six-year surface transportation

reauthorization plan, with funding levels for each of the subsequent five years lower than the total

for FY2012. The President’s FY2012 budget for HUD requested about a $2.5 billion increase in

funding for HUD’s programs and activities, to be partially offset by about a $1.6 billion increase

in offsetting collections and receipts.

The House never introduced a formal FY2012 THUD appropriations bill. A draft bill, marked up

by the THUD subcommittee, included significantly decreased funding for both HUD and DOT

relative to FY2011. The Senate-passed FY2012 THUD appropriations bill provided increased

funding for DOT relative to FY2011 but decreased funding for HUD relative to FY2011.

In the final FY2012 THUD appropriations law (Division C of P.L. 112-55, referred to as a

“Minibus” because it included appropriations bills from two other subcommittees), Congress

provided about $57 billion in discretionary funding for the programs and activities funded under

the Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies subcommittee. This total funding level is an

increase over the FY2011 level of $55 billion. DOT received approximately the same level of

new funding as it received in FY2011, while net budget authority for HUD decreased by about

$3.7 billion from FY2011. The FY2012 DOT budget appears to be larger than it was in FY2011

because the FY2011 appropriations act included over $3 billion in rescissions to offset the DOT

budget total, which had the effect of making the total look smaller without reducing the amount

of funding available to the agency. DOT also received nearly $2 billion in emergency relief

appropriations in FY2012, which counterbalanced a $2 billion reduction in highway funding.

Most of the decrease in HUD’s net budget authority is attributable to increases in the amount of

offsetting collections available to offset the cost of the HUD budget, although total funding for

programs and activities was reduced by about $1 billion.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Contents

Introduction to Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies (THUD) ........................................... 1

Status of the FY2012 THUD Appropriations Bill ........................................................................... 2

THUD Funding Trends .................................................................................................................... 3

A Note on Changing Appropriations Subcommittee Structures ................................................ 3

Composition of the THUD Funding Bill ......................................................................................... 4

Budget Concepts Relevant for THUD....................................................................................... 4

Allocation Across Agencies....................................................................................................... 5

Impact of Offsets ....................................................................................................................... 6

FY2012: Detailed Tables and Selected Key Issues.......................................................................... 7

Title I: Department of Transportation........................................................................................ 7

Key Budget Issues............................................................................................................... 9

Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development ...................................................... 14

Key Budget Issues............................................................................................................. 17

Title III: Related Agencies....................................................................................................... 20

Key Budget Issues............................................................................................................. 20

Figures

Figure 1. Allocation of THUD Net Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2011 ................................ 6

Figure 2. Allocation of THUD Total Budgetary Resources (Including Contract Authority),

FY2011 ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Tables

Table 1. Status of FY2012 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related

Agencies Appropriations .............................................................................................................. 2

Table 2. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and

Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2011-FY2012 .................................................................... 2

Table 3. Funding Trends for Department of Transportation and Department of Housing

and Urban Development, FY2005-FY2011.................................................................................. 4

Table 4. Budget Savings in FY2011 THUD Appropriations Bill .................................................... 6

Table 5. Department of Transportation FY2012 Detailed Budget Table ......................................... 7

Table 6. HUD FY2012 Detailed Budget Table .............................................................................. 14

Table 7. Appropriations for Related Agencies, FY2011-FY2012.................................................. 20

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 22

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Introduction to Transportation, HUD, and Related

Agencies (THUD)

The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD)

appropriations subcommittee is charged with providing annual appropriations for the Department

of Transportation (DOT), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and

related agencies.

Title I of the annual THUD appropriations bill funds the Department of Transportation. The

mission of DOT is to serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and

convenient transportation system that meets vital national interests and enhances the quality of

life of the American people today and into the future.1 DOT is primarily a grant-making and

regulatory organization; its programs are organized roughly by mode, providing grants to support

the construction of transportation infrastructure for highways, transit, and intercity passenger rail,

while providing regulatory oversight to promote safety for the freight rail, commercial trucking,

and maritime industries. The exception is aviation; the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) not

only administers grants for airport development and regulates the safety of aviation operations, it

also operates the air traffic control system of the United States, and it thus accounts for the

majority of the employees of DOT.

Title II of the annual THUD appropriations bill funds the Department of Housing and Urban

Development. HUD’s mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality

affordable homes for all.2 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 persons who are poor, elderly, and/or have disabilities. Three

rental assistance programs—Public Housing, Section 8 Vouchers, and Section 8 project-based

rental assistance—account for the majority of the department’s nonemergency funding (about

three-quarters of total funding in FY2010). Two flexible block grant programs—HOME and

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)—help communities finance a variety of housing

and community development activities designed to serve low-income families. Other, more

specialized grant programs help communities meet the needs of homeless persons, including

those with AIDS. HUD’s Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insures mortgages made by

lenders to home buyers with low downpayments and to developers of multifamily rental buildings

containing relatively affordable units.

Title III of the THUD appropriations bill funds a collection of related agencies. The agencies

under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee are a mix of transportation-related agencies and

housing and community development-related agencies. They include the Access Board, the

Federal Maritime Commission, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Amtrak Office of

Inspector General,3 the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (often referred to as

http://www.dot.gov/about.html#whatwedo.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/about/mission.

The Amtrak IG’s office has typically been funded through Amtrak’s general appropriation; recently, an incident

where the Amtrak Board replaced the Inspector General raised questions about the whether the independence and

effectiveness of the Amtrak IG’s office was being compromised. In the wake of that incident, Congress has been

providing funding for the Amtrak IG’s office separately, under the Related Agencies title of the appropriations act, to

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

NeighborWorks), the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, and the costs

associated with the government conservatorship of the housing-related government-sponsored

enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Status of the FY2012 THUD Appropriations Bill

Table 1 provides a timeline of legislative action on the FY2012 THUD appropriations bill, and

Table 2 lists the total funding provided for each of the titles in the bill for FY2011 and the

amount requested for that title for FY2012.

Table 1. Status of FY2012 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and

Related Agencies Appropriations

Subcommittee

Markup

Bill

House

Senate

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

Senate

Passage

Conf.

Report

Conference Report

Approval

House

Senate

Public

Law

Nov. 17,

2011

Nov. 17,

2011

P.L. 11255

House Draft

S. 1596

(Incorporate

d into S.

“Minibus”,

S.Amdt. 738

to H.R.

2112,

Div. C.

THUD)

Sep. 8,

2011

Sep. 20,

2011

(Draft)

Sep. 21,

2011

—

S.Rept.

112-83

Nov. 1,

2011

(S.Amdt.

738 to

H.R.

2112)

Nov. 14,

2011

H.Rept.

112-284

Source: CRS Appropriations Status Table.

Table 2. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and

Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2011-FY2012

(in millions of dollars)

Title

FY2011

Enacted

FY2012

Request

FY2012 House

(draft)

FY2012

Senate

FY2012

Enacted

Title I: Department

of Transportation

$67,975

$128,721

$74,746

$71,574

Title I

Discretionary

$13,726

$32,504

$16,693

$19,807

$19,505

Title 1 Mandatory

$54,249

$96,217

$54,199

$52,069

Title II: Housing and

Urban Development

$41,111a

$42,080

$38,076

$37,319

$37,434

(...continued)

underline the independent role the Amtrak IG’s office is expected to play in oversight of Amtrak

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Title

FY2011

Enacted

Title III: Related

Agencies

FY2012

Request

FY2012 House

(draft)

FY2012

Senate

FY2012

Enacted

$539

$377

$371

$353

$373

$109,625a

$171,178

$111,749

$109,381

Total

Discretionary

$55,376a

$74,960

$55,150

$57,550

$57,312

Total

Mandatory

$54,249

$96,217

$54,199

$52,069

Total

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on information available in H.Rept. 112-284 (for FY2011 enacted, FY2012

request, and FY2012 enacted), S.Rept. 112-83 (for FY2012 Senate), and draft documents available on the House

Appropriations Committee website (for FY2012 House Draft). “Total” represents net total budgetary resources.

Totals may not add up due to rounding and scorekeeping adjustments. Totals include emergency funding.

Note: Figures include advance appropriations provided in the bill, rather than advance appropriations that will

become available in the fiscal year. The former are the amounts generally shown in committee press releases;

the latter are the amounts against which the committee is generally “scored” for purposes of budget

enforcement.

This number does not match the figure from S.Rept. 112-83 because S.Rept. 112-83 has a different

treatment of the advance appropriation in FY2011 than has been applied in other years. The treatment of

the advance presented here has been adjusted to make it consistent with the FY2012 totals.

THUD Funding Trends

A Note on Changing Appropriations Subcommittee Structures

Between 2003 and 2008, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reorganized their

subcommittee structures three times. Prior to FY2005, DOT and HUD were funded in separate

appropriations bills under the jurisdiction of separate subcommittees. From the time those

departments were placed under the jurisdiction of the same subcommittee through FY2008, the

list of other agencies also under the jurisdiction of the Transportation, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, and Related Agencies subcommittees changed as well.

These changes make year-to-year comparisons of Transportation and Housing and Urban

Development appropriations 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 for DOT and HUD over the period FY2005FY2010, omitting emergency funding and other supplemental funding, and the amounts requested

for FY2012. The purpose of Table 3 is to indicate trends in the funding for these agencies, which

is why emergency supplemental appropriations are not included in the figures.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 3. Funding Trends for Department of Transportation and Department of

Housing and Urban Development, FY2005-FY2011

(in billions of current dollars)

Department

FY2005a

FY2006b

FY2007

FY2008c

FY2009d

FY2010

FY2011

DOT

$59.6

$59.5

$63.2

$64.7

$67.2

$75.7

$68.7

HUD

31.9

34.0

36.2

37.6

41.5

46.9

41.1

Source: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Comparative Statement of Budget

Authority tables from FY2005 through FY2011. Unless otherwise noted, amounts are reduced to reflect acrossthe-board rescissions.

FY2005 figures reflect a 0.83% across-the-board rescission.

FY2006 figures reflect a 1.0% across-the-board rescission but do not reflect emergency supplemental

appropriations provided for DOT and HUD. DOT and HUD received emergency funding for response to

the effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes; DOT’s total FY2006 funding, including emergency funding, was

$62.3 billion; HUD’s total FY2006 funding, including emergency funding, was $45.5 billion.

FY2008 figures reflect a 2.0% rescission applied to most programs that included designated earmarks but do

not reflect emergency funding. DOT received $195 million in emergency funding; HUD received

$3.0 billion.

FY2009 figures do not reflect $61.8 billion in emergency economic stimulus funding (P.L. 111-5).

Composition of the THUD Funding Bill

Budget Concepts Relevant for THUD

The numbers cited in discussions of the THUD appropriations act can be confusing. Different

totals may be published by the committees in their tables and press releases, reported in the press

or by advocates, and even presented in this report, all of which may be correct. This is possible

because the THUD appropriations bill includes different types of funding mechanisms and

savings mechanisms, which can result in different figures being reported for the same programs,

depending on how the numbers are being presented. The following section of this report explains

the different types of funding often included in the THUD appropriations bill.

Most of the programs and activities in the THUD bill are funded through regular annual

appropriations, also referred to as discretionary appropriations.4 This is the amount of new

funding allocated each year by the appropriations committees. Appropriations are drawn from the

resources of the general fund of the Treasury. For some accounts, the appropriations committees

provide advance appropriations, or regular appropriations that are not available until the next

fiscal year.

In some years, Congress will also provide emergency appropriations, usually in response to

disasters. These funds are sometimes provided outside of the regular appropriations acts—often

According to Congressional Quarterly’s American Congressional Dictionary, discretionary appropriations are

defined as appropriations not mandated by existing law and therefore made available annually in appropriation bills in

such amounts as Congress chooses. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 defines discretionary appropriations as

budget authority provided in annual appropriation acts and the outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes

appropriations for entitlements.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

in emergency supplemental spending bills—and are generally provided in addition to regular

annual appropriations. Although emergency appropriations typically come from the general fund,

they may not be included in the discretionary appropriation total reported for an agency.

In addition to appropriations, much of the Department of Transportation’s budget is derived from

contract authority. Contract authority is a form of budget authority based on federal trust fund

resources, in contrast to “regular” (or discretionary) budget authority, which is based on the

resources of the general fund of the Treasury. Contract authority for DOT is generally derived

from the Highway Trust Fund and the airport and airways trust fund.

Congressional appropriators are generally subject to limits on the amount of new non-emergency

discretionary funding they can provide in a year. One way to stay within these limits is to

appropriate no more than the allocated amount of discretionary funding in the regular annual

appropriation act. Another way is to find ways to offset a higher level of discretionary funding. A

portion of the cost of providing regular annual appropriations for the THUD bill is generally

offset in two ways. The first is through rescissions, or cancellations of unobligated or recaptured

balances from previous years’ funding. The second is through offsetting receipts and collections,

generally derived from fees collected by federal agencies.

When the Appropriations Committee subcommittees are given their “302(b) allocations”—that is,

when the total amount that the Appropriations Committee has to spend for a fiscal year is divided

among the subcommittees—that figure includes only net discretionary budget authority (nonemergency appropriations, less any offsets and rescissions); contract authority from trust funds is

not included. This can lead to confusion, as the annual discretionary budget authority allocations

for THUD are typically around half of the total funding provided in the bill, with the remainder

made up of contract authority.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), which was enacted into law (P.L. 112-25) on August 2,

2011, following negotiations over raising the ceiling on the national debt, established overall

limits, or caps, on the amount of total federal discretionary appropriations that can be provided

for each of FY2012 through FY2021. Within these annual spending limits, decisions about the

actual amount of appropriations for individual programs or agencies will continue to be made

through the regular appropriations process. Under the law, these limits are to be enforced through

a sequestration process involving the cancellation of budgetary resources (i.e., spending cuts).

This means that if the limits are breached, spending for each non-exempt program will be cut by a

uniform percentage. The FY2012 302(b) allocations, including the allocation for the THUD

subcommittee, were established to reflect the discretionary spending caps established under the

BCA.

Allocation Across Agencies

Once the THUD subcommittees receive their 302(b) allocations, they must decide how to allocate

the funds across the different agencies within their jurisdiction. As shown in Figure 1, when it

comes to net discretionary budget authority (appropriations, less any offsets), the vast majority of

funding allocated by the appropriations committee generally goes to HUD (over 74% in FY2011).

However, as shown in Figure 2, when taking into account contract authority—which, as noted

earlier, is not allocated by the appropriations committees—the total resources available to DOT

are greater than the resources available to HUD.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Figure 1. Allocation of THUD Net

Discretionary Budget Authority,

FY2011

DOT

1.0%

HUD

Related Agencies

Figure 2. Allocation of THUD Total

Budgetary Resources (Including Contract

Authority), FY2011

HUD

Related Agencies

24.8%

0.5%

37.3%

62.3%

74.2%

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on information

available in H.Rept. 112-284.

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on information

available in H.Rept. 112-284.

Impact of Offsets

Besides the level of the 302(b) allocation, one of the most important factors in determining how

much in new appropriations the THUD subcommittee will provide in each year is the amount of

savings available from rescissions and offsets. Each dollar available to the subcommittee in

rescissions and offsets serves to reduce the “cost” of providing another dollar in appropriations.

As shown in Table 4, in FY2011, without rescissions and offsets, it would have “cost” the THUD

Subcommittee an additional $8 billion to provide the same amount of appropriations.

Table 4. Budget Savings in FY2011 THUD Appropriations Bill

(dollars in millions)

Components of THUD Budget Authority

FY2011

New Appropriations (Including Advance Appropriationsa)

$63,425

Savings

-$8,049

Rescissions of Prior-Year Funding

-$721

Rescissions of Contract Authority

-$3,206

Offsetting Collections and Receipts

-$4,122

Total Net Budget Authority

$55,376

Source: Comparative Statement of New Budget (Obligational) Authority for Fiscal Year 2011 and Budget

Estimates and Amounts Recommended in the Bill For Fiscal Year 2012, S.Rept. 112-83.

Adjusted by $8 million to reflect advance appropriation provided in the bill.

In any given year, the amount of these “budget savings” can be higher or lower, meaning that the

“cost” of providing the same level of appropriations may be higher or lower.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

FY2012: Detailed Tables and Selected Key Issues

Title I: Department of Transportation

Table 5. Department of Transportation FY2012 Detailed Budget Table

(in millions of current dollars)

Department of Transportation

Selected Accounts

FY2011

Enacted

FY2012

Request

—

5,000

Essential Air Servicea

150

123

National Infrastructure Development

527

FY2012

House

(Draft—

See Note)

FY2012

Senate

FY2012

Enacted

—

100

143

2,000

—

550

500

808

2,289

230

830

780

Operations

9,514

9,823

9,674

9,636

9,653

Facilities & Equipment

2,731

2,870

2,798

2,631

2,731

170

190

175

157

168

3,515

2,424

3,350

3,515

3,350

Total, FAA

15,929

18,656

15,997

15,938

15,902

Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)(total)

41,846b

70,414

27,739

43,746

41,545

Motor Carrier Safety Operations and

Programs

245

276

230

250

248

Motor Carrier Safety Grants to States

310

330

300

307

555

606

530

557

555

Operations and Researchc

246

250

232

250

Highway Traffic Safety Grants to States

620

550

495

550

878d

860

731

800

(400)f

—g

—

100

—

4,000

—

1,484

—h

1,126

1,481

1,418

—

4,046

—

National Infrastructure Bank

Office of the Secretary (OST)

Total, OST

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Research, Engineering, & Development

Grants-in-Aid for Airports (AIP)

(limitation on obligations)

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

(FMCSA)

Total, FMCSA

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA)

Total, NHTSA

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

High-speed and intercity passenger rail

grant programe

Network Development

Amtrak

System Development

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

FY2011

Enacted

FY2012

Request

FY2012

House

(Draft—

See Note)

1,306

8,229

1,342

1,787

1,632

Formula and bus grants

8,343

—

5,200

8,361

Capital investment grants (New Starts)

1,597

—

1,554

1,955

10,017

22,350

7,043

10,630

10,550

Maritime Administration (MARAD)

359

358

335

353

349

Assistance to small shipyards

—

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration (PHMSA)

202

220

183

208

201

Research and Innovative Technology

Administration (RITA)

Office of Inspector General

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development

Corporation

Surface Transportation Board

Appropriation (discretionary funding)

17,612

33,951

16,747

19,807

17,942

Limitations on obligations (mandatory

funding)

54,249

94,432

36,685

54,199

52,069

Exempt contract authority (mandatory

funding)

739

Total non-emergency budgetary resources,

DOTi

72,600

129,122

54,171

72,985

70,750

—

1,900

1,662

Total non-emergency discretionary funding

17,612

33,950

16,747

18,046

17,942

Rescissions

-3,886

-57

-54

-139

-99

Net new discretionary budget authority

13,726

33,893

16,693

17,907

19,505

Department of Transportation

Selected Accounts

Total, FRA

FY2012

Senate

FY2012

Enacted

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

Total, FTA

DOT Totals

Emergency appropriations

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on information available in H.Rept. 112-284 (for FY2011 enacted, FY2012

request, and FY2012 enacted), S.Rept. 112-83 (for FY2012 Senate), and draft documents available on the House

Appropriations Committee website (for FY2012 House Draft).

Notes: FY2012 House Draft figures are CRS estimates based on the figures contained in draft documents and

press releases posted on the House Appropriations Committee website: http://appropriations.house.gov/

UploadedFiles/9.7.11_THUD_Subcommittee_Draft_Summary_Table.pdf, http://appropriations.house.gov/

UploadedFiles/FY_2012THUD.bill_xml.pdf. Table subtotals may not add due to omission of some accounts.

Subtotals and totals may differ from those in the source documents due to treatment of rescissions, offsetting

collections, etc. The figures in this table reflect new budget authority made available for the fiscal year. For

budgetary calculation purposes, the source documents may subtract rescissions of prior year funding or contract

authority, or offsetting collections, in calculating subtotals and totals.

These figures include the $50 million in mandatory funding received by the Essential Air Service each year.

The FY2012 request also counts $22 million in unobligated balances from previous years, for a total of $195

million.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Does not reflect a $3.1 billion rescission of contract authority.

Includes National Driver Register Modernization funding.

Reduced to $796 million for budget purposes by a $76 million rescission of contract authority.

FY2012 base figure is calculated by CRS.

No new funding for FY2011; rescinded $400 million from previous years’ appropriations.

The Administration requested $4 billion for a proposed new Network Development program, which would

have included the High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program, and would have been funded

largely from the $50 billion “up front” increment.

The Administration requested $4 billion for a proposed new System Development program, which would

have included grants to Amtrak, and would have been funded largely from the $50 billion “up front”

increment.

Figures reflect budgetary resources, except DOT FY2012 request reflects budget authority; DOT FY2012

budget requests $123.9 billion in budgetary resources, $128.6 billion in budget authority.

Key Budget Issues

Program Authorizations

The legislative acts authorizing both the federal aviation program and the federal surface

transportation programs have expired, and the programs’ authorizations have been extended

repeatedly. The aviation program has been extended 22 times; the extension is scheduled to expire

on January 31, 2012. An aviation reauthorization bill has passed both the House and the Senate,

but the two bodies have not been able to agree on a final version of the bill. The surface

transportation program has been extended; the current extension is scheduled to expire on March

2012. Bills reauthorizing parts of the surface transportation program have been introduced in the

Senate, and the House is reportedly planning to introduce reauthorization legislation in early

2012.

Comparison of FY2011 and FY2012 Figures

DOT funding has typically increased from year to year. The FY2011 appropriation broke that

trend, with an overall new funding level of $72.6 billion, $4.3 billion (5.5%) less than the

comparable FY2010 level. The Obama Administration’s FY2012 budget request reflected a

reauthorization proposal for DOT surface transportation programs. This included a proposed

restructuring of some surface transportation programs and a $50 billion “up-front” appropriation,

on top of DOT’s requested base FY2012 funding, to provide an immediate boost to transportation

infrastructure improvement and job creation. This up-front funding was depicted as an alternative

to the typical surface transportation reauthorization funding plan, in which funding levels

gradually increase over an authorization period of several years. This proposal would have frontloaded a large increase in funding in the first year of the Administration’s proposed six-year

surface transportation reauthorization plan, with funding levels for each of the subsequent five

years lower than the total for FY2012.

The Administration did not submit legislation to implement its reauthorization proposal during

the 1st session of the 112th Congress; the existing authorization for surface transportation

programs has been extended and Congress provided funding in that existing arrangement. Thus,

while the FY2011 enacted funding and the congressional figures for FY2012 are comparable,

comparing the surface transportation figures to those in the FY2012 budget request is complex.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

This requires an unwinding of the proposed new program structures in the Administration’s

request to be able to compare the request to the existing program structure, and decisions about

how to allocate the additional $50 billion request for up-front funding between discretionary

funding and mandatory funding.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations allocated about $20 billion of the up-front funding

request to discretionary funding, resulting in a discretionary budget request of $34.0 billion,

compared to enacted new funding of $17.6 billion in FY2011. The remaining $30 billion was

allocated to mandatory (trust fund) budget authority, resulting in a request for $94.4 billion, up

from $54.2 billion enacted in FY2011.

Highway Trust Fund Solvency

Most highway and transit funding comes from the Highway Trust Fund, whose revenues come

largely from the federal motor fuels excise tax (“gas tax”). For several years, expenditures from

the fund have exceeded revenues; for example, in FY2010, revenues were approximately $35

billion, while expenditures were approximately $50 billion. Congress transferred a total of $34.5

billion from the general fund of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund during the period

FY2008-FY2010 to keep the trust fund solvent. The Congressional Budget Office projects that

the trust fund will become insolvent around the end of FY2012, given current revenue and

expenditure levels.

A host of reports by the Department of Transportation, congressionally created commissions, and

nongovernmental groups assert that the nation is not spending enough to maintain its existing

transportation infrastructure, let alone to make needed improvements. These reports call for

considerably higher levels of spending on transportation infrastructure, by both the federal

government and the states.

One dilemma faced by Congress is that while raising the federal gas tax—which has not been

increased since 1993 and which is not indexed for inflation—is seen as the simplest and most

efficient way to provide significantly increased funding for transportation infrastructure, there

appears to be little support in Congress or in the Administration for raising the gas tax.

The President’s FY2012 budget proposed to rename the fund the Transportation Trust Fund and

to increase authorized expenditures from the fund to a total of $554 billion over the next six years

by increasing the funding levels of existing surface transportation programs and by adding the

Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts transit

construction program to the programs funded by the fund. This proposal reflected, in part, a

recommendation of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to expand the

Highway Trust Fund to cover rail infrastructure—but the Commission also recommended

increasing the gas tax by 15 cents per gallon by 2015, and thereafter limiting expenditures from

the fund to match its revenues.5 The budget request did not propose an increase in the gas tax, nor

did it explain how the fund would support the proposed higher level of expenditures; it said that

the President did not support an increase in the federal gasoline tax, but would work with

Congress to find new revenue sources.

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, “The Moment of Truth,” December 2010,

Recommendation 1.7, p. 24, http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/

TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The House draft stated that it provided funding from the Highway Trust Fund at a level that the

revenues of the fund could support in FY2012; this represented a reduction in funding of 35%

from FY2011 levels for the two largest accounts supported by the Highway Trust Fund (from

$41.1 billion to $27.0 billion for the federal-aid highway program account, and from $8.3 billion

to $5.2 billion for the transit formula and bus grant funding account).

The Senate bill’s committee report said that the bill recommended the levels of funding for

highway and transit that are authorized in the SAFETEA extensions; that is virtually the same

level as in FY2011 ($41.1 billion for highways and $8.4 billion for transit). The report did not

address the Highway Trust Fund’s revenue difficulties.

The conference agreement provided $39.9 billion for the federal-aid highway program, plus

another $1.7 billion for the Disaster Relief Program, to fund repairs to damaged infrastructure.

The amount provided for the federal-aid highway program is $2.0 billion less than the amount

provided for the program in FY2011, and $2.0 billion less than the amount recommended by the

Senate. This is the authorized level for FY2012, but the authorized level for FY2012 was reduced

from FY2011. The conference report notes that the funding level provided will deplete the

Highway Trust Fund by the end of FY2012, and that without additional revenues, the Highway

Trust Fund will not be able to support a federal-aid highway program in FY2013.6

Essential Air Service (EAS)

The President’s budget requested $123 million for the EAS program, a $27 million (12%)

decrease from the $150 million Congress provided in FY2011. The Senate approved $143 million

for the program for FY2012; the House Appropriations Committee THUD subcommittee draft

bill recommended $100 million. The conference agreement provided $143 million. These funds

are added to $50 million that is reserved for the program each year, so the total funding that is

available as a result of the enacted figure is $193 million, compared to a total of $200 million in

FY2011 (and the same amount in FY2010). The conference agreement included a directive to the

Secretary that, if the amount appropriated was not sufficient to meet the costs of the program for

FY2012, the Secretary shall transfer funds from other accounts to cover the costs of the program.

This program seeks to preserve air service to small communities by subsidizing the cost of that

service. Supporters of the EAS program contend that preserving airline service to small

communities was a commitment Congress made when it deregulated airline service in 1978, as

anticipated reductions in air service due to deregulation were claimed to reduce economic

development opportunities in rural areas. Critics note that the subsidy cost per passenger is

relatively high, that many of the airports in the program serve few passengers, and that some of

the airports receiving EAS subsidies are little more than an hour’s drive from major airports.

The costs of the program have more than doubled since FY2008. This is due to several factors.

Route reductions by airlines have resulted in an average of six new communities joining the

program each year in recent years. Also, there is a requirement that planes servicing EAS

communities must have, at a minimum, capacity to carry 15 passengers. Critics of this

requirement note that smaller planes would be cheaper to operate and that the number of

passengers at many EAS airports could be handled by smaller planes.

H.Rept. 112-284, p. 296.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The Administration proposed to limit FY2012 funding in the program to those communities

which received subsidies in FY2011 (the same proposal was made for the FY2011 budget,

seeking to limit recipients to those funded in FY2010), and to eliminate the 15-passenger aircraft

requirement. The Senate-passed bill supported both of these proposals. The House draft bill

supported the limit on new recipients. The conference agreement included both Administration

proposals. It also included a provision barring any efforts to implement a plan that would require

EAS communities to assume the costs of the subsidies they require (“local participation”); this

provision has been included in DOT appropriation acts since the “local participation” program

was created in 2003.

National Infrastructure Bank (I-Bank)

The budget proposed $5 billion for a national infrastructure bank. The bank would provide loans

or grants to finance transportation projects having national or regional significance. Such projects,

such as major bridges on the interstate highways system, are often difficult to build under the

current structure of transportation funding, because they benefit the residents of many states but

their costs fall on the residents of the state in which the project is located. In the past, such

projects have sometimes been financed through specific funding designations (earmarks) by

Congress. The national infrastructure bank would, according to the Administration, provide a

means for such projects to be evaluated and for the most productive projects to be selected and

financed.

Legislation to implement this proposal was not enacted, and the proposal was not funded by the

House draft, the Senate-passed bill, or the conference agreement.

High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail

The budget proposed $4 billion for high speed and intercity passenger rail development under a

new account, Network Development. This was described as the first installment of a proposed

six-year, $53 billion program. High speed and intercity passenger rail development is seen as a

way of creating new jobs; providing a new transportation option for intercity travel; and

increasing the capacity, competitiveness, and environmental sustainability of the transportation

system.

To date, Congress has provided $10.1 billion for DOT’s high speed and intercity passenger rail

grant program, beginning with $8 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of

2009. However, all of that funding was provided by the 111th Congress. In the Full Year

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, which was enacted by the 112th Congress after the

Administration submitted its FY2012 budget request, Congress eliminated funding for the high

speed and intercity passenger rail grant program for FY2011, and rescinded $400 million of the

unobligated portion of the $10.5 billion already appropriated. The FY2012 Senate bill

recommended $100 million for the grant program. The FY2012 House draft did not include any

funding for the program. The conference agreement did not provide any funding for the program.

In common usage, references to “high speed rail” are generally taken to mean systems such as

those of Japan, France, Spain, and China, where trains travel on dedicated networks at speeds

greater than 150 miles per hour. Perhaps because it is convenient to abbreviate references to this

program by dropping the middle phrase “and intercity passenger rail,” it is often taken to be a

program designed just to fund high speed lines similar to those in other countries. But much of

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

the funding in this program has gone to develop intercity passenger rail service with top speeds of

90 or 110 miles per hour.

In its public comments the Administration has emphasized the high speed rail portion of the

program. Critics have questioned the economic efficiency of building expensive high speed rail

lines, or even of improving conventional rail lines. While grants have been awarded to 23 states,

after the elections of November 2010, the newly elected governors of three states—Wisconsin,

Ohio, and Florida—rejected grants for rail projects for which their states had received grants

totaling $3.6 billion. The governors said their states could not afford the costs of improving or

building and maintaining rail lines that would likely require ongoing operating support. The

Administration redistributed the grant money to several other states that are pursuing passenger

rail development.

Amtrak

The budget proposed to place Amtrak funding into a new Federal Railroad Administration

account, system preservation, for which $4 billion was requested. This account would fund public

rail asset development and maintenance; initially Amtrak would be the only recipient of grants,

though in the future competition for the grants is envisioned. It appears that the budget request

envisioned $1.5 billion for “base” funding (comparable to the $1.5 billion Amtrak received for

FY2011), and another $2.5 billion that would come from the up-front supplemental funding, for

the $4 billion total.7 Amtrak’s own FY2012 grant request totaled $2.2 billion.8

The Senate bill recommended $1.48 billion for Amtrak; that is almost identical to the amount

provided in FY2011, but $80 million less than provided in FY2010. The House draft

recommended $1.12 billion. The conference agreement provided $1.42 billion, $66 million less

than Amtrak received in FY2011.

Federal Transit Administration New Starts and Small Starts (Capital

Investment Grants)

FTA’s Capital Investment Grants program funds new fixed-guideway transit lines and extensions

to existing lines. It is is commonly referred to as the New Starts and Small Starts. New Starts

(major capital investment projects) include capital projects with total costs over $250 million

which are seeking more than $75 million in federal funding. Small Starts include capital projects

with total costs under $250 million which are seeking less than $75 million in federal funding.

New Starts projects must go through a multi-stage process, during which they are repeatedly

evaluated by FTA. Projects must receive positive ratings to proceed to the next step. The final

step is signing of a full-funding grant agreement (FFGA) with FTA. The FFGA details how much

funding the project will receive from FTA and the steps of project development. One purpose of

the FFGA is to encourage accurate estimates of project costs; cost overruns are the responsibility

of the grantee.

Based on the crosswalk table in the Federal Railroad Administration’s FY2012 Budget Estimate, p. 109.

Amtrak, FY2012 Grant and Legislative Request, February 7, 2011, Table 1; available at http://www.amtrak.com

(Inside Amtrak>Reports and Documents).

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The Capital Investment Grants program received $2.0 billion in FY2010; in FY2011, it received

$1.6 billion.

For FY2012, the Administration requested $3.2 billion for the New Starts program (see “New

Starts Funding Share”). The Senate-passed bill would have provided $2.0 billion, the same level

provided in FY2010 but $400 million more than the amount provided in FY2011. This would

cover the majority of the costs for existing and pending full funding grant agreements. The House

draft recommended funding at approximately the FY2011 level ($1.6 billion). The conference

agreement provided $1.955 billion.

New Starts Funding Share

The federal share for New Starts projects can be up to 80%. Since FY2002, DOT appropriations

acts have included a provision directing FTA not to sign any full funding grant agreements that

provide a federal share of more than 60%. This provision was again included in the Senate bill.

The House draft bill proposed to prohibit FTA from signing any agreement with a federal share of

more than 50%. The conference bill retained the 60% limit.

Critics of this provision note that the federal share for highway projects is typically 80% and in

some cases is higher. They contend that, by providing a lower share of federal funding (and thus

requiring a higher share of local funding), this provision tilts the playing field toward highway

projects when communities are considering proposed new transportation projects. Advocates of

this provision note that the demand for New Starts funding greatly exceeds the amount that is

available, so requiring a higher local match allows FTA to support more projects with the

available funding. They also note that requiring a higher local match likely encourages

communities to scrutinize the costs and benefits of major transit projects more closely.

Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Table 6 presents an account-by-account summary of FY2012 appropriations for HUD, compared

to FY2011. Totals for the House have not been included, since a formal bill has not been

introduced and the draft bill has not been reported by the House Appropriations Committee. For a

more complete discussion of FY2012 appropriations for HUD, see CRS Report R41700,

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): FY2012 Appropriations, coordinated by

(name redacted).

Table 6. HUD FY2012 Detailed Budget Table

(in millions of dollars)

FY2011

enacted

FY2012

Request

FY2012 House

(Draft—See

Note)

FY2012

Senate

FY2012

enacted

Management and Administration

1,315

1,350

1,233

1,350

1,332

Tenant Based Rental Assistance (Sec. 8

vouchers)

18,371

19,223

18,468

18,872a

18,914a

Housing Certificate Fund

Transforming Rental Assistance

200

Accounts

Appropriations

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

FY2011

enacted

FY2012

Request

FY2012 House

(Draft—See

Note)

FY2012

Senate

FY2012

enacted

Public housing capital fund

2,040

2,405

1,532

1,875

Public housing operating fund

4,617

3,962

3,862

3,962

250

120

HOPE VI

100b

Native American housing block grants

649

700

649

650

Indian housing loan guarantee

Native Hawaiian Block Grant

Housing, persons with AIDS (HOPWA)

334

335

334

330

332

Community Development Fund (Including

CDBG)

3,501

3,781

3,501

3,001

3,308

150

Sec.108 loan guarantee; subsidy

HOME Investment Partnerships

1,607

1,650

1,200

1,000

Self-Help Homeownership

Homeless Assistance Grants

1,901

2,372

1,901

Project Based Rental Assistance (Sec. 8)

9,265

9,429

9,419

9,340

Housing for the Elderly

399

757

600

370

375

Housing for Persons with Disabilities

150

196

150

165

Housing Counseling Assistance

Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund

Rental Housing Assistance

FHA Expenses

215

239

216

207

GNMA Expenses

Research and technology

Fair housing activities

Office, lead hazard control

120

140

120

Working capital fund

200

243

218

192

199

Inspector General

125

126

115

125

124

Transformation Initiative-Combating

Mortgage Fraud

45,274

47,902

43,890

43,933

44,241

Housing Certificate Fund

-50

-200

TBRA Prior Year Advance Rescission

-750

-650

Rental housing assistance rescission

-41

-7

-232

Accounts

Choice Neighborhoods

Native Hawaiian loan guarantee

Sustainable Communities

Appropriations Subtotal (Including advances

provided in current year for subsequent year)

Rescissions

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

FY2011

enacted

FY2012

Request

FY2012 House

(Draft—See

Note)

FY2012

Senate

FY2012

enacted

-41

-57

-1,182

-1,082

Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund

-7

-4

Federal Housing Administration (FHA)

-3,386d

-5,113

-5,177

-5,172

GNMA

-729d

-645

-651

-650

Offsets Subtotal

-4,122

-5,765

-5,758

-5,832

-5,826

Emergency CDBG

400

100

Emergency Subtotal

400

100

Authorized Budget Authority, Excluding

Emergency Funding

41,111e

42,080

38,076

36,919

37,334

Available Budget Authority, Excluding

Emergency Funding (adjusted for

advances)

41,096

42,080

38,076

36,919

37,334

Authorized Budget Authority, Including

Emergency Funding

41,111

42,080

38,076

37,319

37,434

Available Budget Authority, Including

Emergency Funding (adjusted for

advances)

41,096

42,080

38,076

37,319

37,434

Accounts

Rescissions Subtotal

Offsetting Collections and Receipts

Emergency Funding

Totals

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on information available in H.Rept. 112-284 (for FY2011 enacted, FY2012

request, and FY2012 enacted), S.Rept. 112-83 (for FY2012 Senate), and draft documents available on the House

Appropriations Committee website (for FY2012 House Draft).

Note: FY2012 House Draft figures are CRS estimates based on the figures contained in draft documents and

press releases posted on the House Appropriations Committee website: http://appropriations.house.gov/

UploadedFiles/9.7.11_THUD_Subcommittee_Draft_Summary_Table.pdf, http://appropriations.house.gov/

UploadedFiles/FY_2012THUD.bill_xml.pdf.

This amount includes the advance appropriations provided for FY2013. The advance appropriations

provided for FY2012 will be reduced by the amount shown under “TBRA Prior Year Advance Rescission”

later in this table. Therefore, the amount available for the Housing Choice Voucher program in FY2012 will

be the amount shown here, less the amount of the rescission ($750 million proposed by the Senate, $650

million in the final law).

Includes a $65 million set-aside for a Choice Neighborhoods demonstration.

The President’s budget requested a new fee structure for this account, which would eliminate the need for

appropriations.

Totals include CBO’s estimates of increased offsetting receipts resulting from increased loan limits

authorized in Section 145 of P.L. 111-242.

Totals shown here differ from totals shown in committee documents by $8 million because of a difference

in the treatment of advance appropriations in the tenant-based rental assistance account.

Includes an additional $9 million payment to the manufactured housing fee trust fund.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Key Budget Issues

Funding for Section 8 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, which is funded by the Tenant-based Rental

Assistance account, is the largest HUD assistance program for low-income families both in terms

of funding and the number of families served. Each year, the roughly 2 million vouchers being

used by families to supplement their rent in the private market expire and need new funding in

order to be renewed. Each year, the President’s budget includes an estimate for the amount of

funding that would be necessary to renew some or all of the existing vouchers in use. It is then up

to the appropriations committees to decide (1) whether the President’s estimate is still the correct

estimate of the amount of funding needed to maintain current services; (2) how much they wish to

provide for the program (current services, less, or more); and (3) how the funds should be

allocated. Additionally, the account typically also funds administrative fees and, in some years,

additional vouchers.

The FY2012 President’s Budget request included about $17 billion for voucher renewals, which,

they contended, would be sufficient to maintain current services. The Senate appropriations bill

included the President’s requested level for renewals, but would have rescinded another $750

million to be offset against agencies with reserve funding above a specified level. Recent

estimates released by low-income housing advocacy groups have contended that the amount

provided for renewals in the Senate bill would not be sufficient to fully fund renewal needs.9 The

President’s Statement of Administrative Policy released during Senate floor consideration on the

bill stated that the “funding provided for [the Housing Choice Voucher Program] is sufficient to

maintain rental assistance to current low-income residents.”10

P.L. 112-55 funds voucher renewals at the President’s requested level, but, like the Senate bill,

rescinds $650 million, which will be achieved by offsetting allocations to PHAs with reserves.

Public Housing Operating Fund Offset

The Public Housing Operating Fund account provides formula-based funding to local Public

Housing Authorities (PHAs) for the ongoing operation and maintenance of low-rent Public

Housing. The President’s FY2012 budget requested a 14% reduction in the Operating Fund

compared to the final FY2011 funding law. The President’s budget proposes to supplement the

requested funding level by offsetting the funding allocations to PHAs with reserves above a

certain level. This proposal would effectively force certain PHAs to spend down their reserves.

This proposal has been opposed by PHA industry groups, who contend that the reserves are

necessary and that the proposal punishes PHAs who have managed their funding well.11 HUD

contends that if funding is limited, this strategy ensures that funding levels will be higher for

agencies without large reserves.12

CBPP

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps2112s_20111017.pdf

See Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA) Issue Brief on Operating Reserves, available from

http://www.clpha.org/articledetail/?aid=233.

See Written Testimony of Sandra B. Henriquez, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public and Indian Housing,

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Hearing before the House Appropriations Subcommittee

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The Senate appropriations bill included the President’s requested funding level, but would have

offset PHAs’ reserves by a lower level ($750 million, compared to $1 billion as proposed by the

President). Like the Senate bill, P.L. 112-55 funds the operating fund at the requested level and

includes the offset, but caps it at $750 million.

Administrative Reforms

The President’s FY2012 budget included a request for several statutory changes related to income

and rent determination that would affect HUD’s rental assistance programs, including the public

housing and Section 8 programs. The provisions are designed to streamline and simplify the

administration of the rental assistance programs. Similar provisions were included in Section 8

voucher reform legislation considered in the 111th Congress. HUD estimated that these changes

would result in an overall reduction in the cost of HUD rental assistance programs. The Senate

bill included the requested reforms; the House draft bill did not. P.L. 112-55 did not include the

proposed reform language.

Additionally, President Obama’s FY2012 budget again requested funding for a new

“Transforming Rental Assistance” initiative, which was initially proposed in the FY2011 budget

request. The initiative is designed to streamline HUD’s multiple rental assistance programs in

order to permit owners of HUD-assisted properties to better leverage outside resources.

Specifically, the $200 million requested would be used to transfer a variety of HUD-assisted

housing units with project-based rental assistance from their existing subsidy types to a new form

of project-based rental assistance. For FY2012, HUD is proposing that TRA be treated as a

demonstration, with a rigorous assessment component, under which up to 236,000 units of public

housing and other rent-assisted units owned by private property owners could convert to longterm Section 8 contracts or project-based Section 8 vouchers. According to HUD’s budget

documents, the demonstration will test conversion under TRA as a tool for preserving public and

other assisted housing. Further, this new form of rental assistance will feature tenant mobility,

meaning that families living in units receiving this new form of project-based rental assistance

would have the option to take their subsidies with them if they choose to move to a new unit of

private market housing.

The Senate bill included the authority for HUD to conduct a “Rental Assistance Demonstration”,

but did not provide additional funding for the demonstration, instead directing the Secretary to

use its existing resources. The House draft bill did not include authority for RAD. P.L. 112-55

includes a modified version of RAD, similar to what was proposed in the Senate, with no

additional funding and participation capped at 60,000 units.

Housing Counseling Funding

The President’s FY2012 budget requested $88 million for HUD’s housing counseling program, an

increase of $500,000 over the FY2010 level. However, in FY2011 Congress did not provide any

funding for HUD’s housing counseling program. The elimination of HUD housing counseling

funding reflected the fiscal environment at the time that the FY2011 appropriations law was

passed, as well as some concerns over the time it took HUD to distribute prior years’ funds. Some

(...continued)

on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, May 25, 2011.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

policymakers also questioned whether the funding was duplicative of foreclosure mitigation

counseling funds that have been appropriated to the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling

Program, administered by NeighborWorks America, since FY2008.13 However, proponents of

HUD’s housing counseling program note that the HUD funding can be used for a wider range of

types of housing counseling than the NeighborWorks funds, which are limited to foreclosure

counseling.

The Senate bill proposed $60 million for HUD’s housing counseling program. S.Rept. 112-83

encouraged HUD to work with Neighborworks to reduce duplication and to prioritize the use of

HUD housing counseling funds for activities that are not supported under by NeighborWorks.

(See “Funding for Neighborworks National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program” later in

this report.) The House draft bill did not include funding for HUD’s housing counseling program.

P.L. 112-55 provided $45 million for HUD’s housing counseling program.

For more information on both HUD’s housing counseling program and the NeighborWorks

counseling funding, see CRS Report R41351, Housing Counseling: Background and Federal

Role, by (name redacted).

Funding for Section 202 and Section 811

Through the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly program and the Section 811

Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program, HUD provides capital grants and

rental assistance to nonprofit developers to build or rehabilitate housing units for elderly residents

and residents with disabilities.14 In FY2011, funding for the two programs was cut roughly in

half. In his FY2012 budget, the President requested that funding levels for Section 202 be

restored to levels closer to the amount provided in FY2010. The President also requested that

Section 811 be increased, but not to levels provided in FY2010. The reason the President gave for

requesting a lower level for Section 811 is a change in the way the program is funded, since some

of the costs of the program are now met by funds provided through the tenant-based rental

assistance account.

The Senate bill proposed to fund Section 202 at about $30 million less than FY2011 levels and

Section 811 at FY2011 levels, whereas the House draft bill proposed significant funding increases

for both programs. P.L. 112-55 funded both programs at levels just above the Senate proposed

funding levels.

FHA Loan Limits

During Senate floor consideration of the Minibus, an amendment was approved that would have

increased the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) conforming loan limits and Federal

For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing

and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Budget Hearing—Housing Counseling with Neighborhood

Reinvestment Corporation—Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing and NeighborWorks Acting CEO,

112th Cong., 1st sess., March 29, 2011.

For more information about the Section 202 program, see CRS Report RL33508, Section 202 and Other HUD Rental

Housing Programs for Low-Income Elderly Residents, by (name redacted). For more information about the Section 811

program, see CRS Report RL34728, Section 811 and Other HUD Housing Programs for Persons with Disabilities, by

(name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Housing Administration (FHA) loan limits for some high cost communities through December

31, 2013. On October 1, 2011, the loan limits under these programs reverted from higher

temporary limits, which had been enacted and extended over the past several years, to lower

statutory limits. The changes to the GSE conforming loan limits were to be accompanied by a fee

increase designed to offset the cost of the increase.

P.L. 112-55 included the FHA loan limit increases proposed in the Senate bill, but did not include

the GSE loan limit changes. (See also “GSE Conforming Loan Limit Changes” later in this

report.)

Title III: Related Agencies

Table 7 presents appropriations levels for the various related agencies funded within the

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

Table 7. Appropriations for Related Agencies, FY2011-FY2012

(dollars in millions)

FY2011

Enacted

FY2012

Request

FY2012

House

(Draft)

FY2012

Senate

FY2012

Enacted

Access Board

Federal Maritime Commission

National Transportation Safety Board salaries

and National Transportation Board

102

Amtrak Office of Inspector General

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

(Neighborworks)

233

215

200

215

155

THUD Related Agencies

United States Interagency Council on

Homelessness

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on information available in H.Rept. 112-284 (for FY2011 enacted, FY2012

request, and FY2012 enacted), S.Rept. 112-83 (for FY2012 Senate), and draft documents available on the House

Appropriations Committee website (for FY2012 House Draft).

Key Budget Issues

Funding for Neighborworks National Foreclosure Mitigation

Counseling Program

Since FY2008, Congress has provided increased appropriations for the Neighborhood

Reinvestment Corporation (Neighborworks) for a National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling

Program (NFMCP). This money was provided in addition to funding for HUD’s housing

counseling program. However, in FY2011 Congress did not provide any funding for HUD’s

housing counseling program. The elimination of HUD housing counseling funding reflected the

fiscal environment at the time that the FY2011 appropriations law was passed, as well as some

concerns over the time it took HUD to distribute prior years’ funds. Some policymakers also

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

questioned whether the funding was duplicative of foreclosure mitigation counseling funds that

have been appropriated to the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program. Proponents

of HUD’s housing counseling program note that the HUD funding can be used for a wider range

of types of housing counseling than the NeighborWorks funds, which are limited to foreclosure

counseling

The President’s FY2012 budget requested $88 million for HUD’s Housing Counseling Program,

to be provided in addition to the $80 million requested for Neighborworks NFMCP.

The Senate-passed FY2011 appropriations bill included $65 million for the NFMCP and $60

million for HUD’s housing counseling program. S.Rept. 112-83 encourages HUD to work with

Neighborworks to reduce duplication and to prioritize the use of HUD housing counseling funds

for activities that are not supported under the NFMCP. The House draft bill included $80 million

for the NFMCP, but no funding for HUD’s program.

P.L. 112-55 includes $80 million for the NFMCP and $45 million for HUD’s program.

For more information on both HUD’s housing counseling program and the NeighborWorks

counseling funding, see CRS Report R41351, Housing Counseling: Background and Federal

Role, by (name redacted).

GSE Conforming Loan Limit Changes

On October 1, 2011, conforming loan limits for high cost areas reverted from higher

temporary limits, which had been enacted and extended over the past several years, to lower

statutory limits. The conforming loan limit establishes the maximum size mortgage that Fannie

Mae and Freddie Mac (two of the housing-related Government Sponsored Enterprises, or GSEs)

can purchase. The GSE conforming loan limits have implications for HUD FHA insured loans

and Department of Veterans Affairs loans, since the loan limits for those programs are tied to the

GSE conforming loan limits.

S.Amdt. 857, approved during Senate floor consideration of the FY2012 “Minibus,” would have

increased the GSE conforming loan limits (and, as a result, the FHA and VA loan limits) for some

high cost communities through December 31, 2013. When the conforming loan limit increase was

extended in FY2011, the Congressional Budget Office scored the policy change as having a

budgetary cost (as shown in Table 7). The changes to the GSE conforming loan limits proposed

in S.Amdt. 857 would have be accompanied by a fee increase designed to offset that cost.

P.L. 112-55 does not include a loan limit increase for the GSEs, but does extend the FHA loan

limits.

For more information about conforming loan limits, see CRS Report RS22172, The Conforming

Loan Limit, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Analyst in Transportation Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

(name redacted)

Specialist in Housing Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.