Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD): FY2013 Appropriations

Congressional research reportJan 22, 2014

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Transportation, Housing and

Urban Development, and Related Agencies

(THUD): FY2013 Appropriations

(name redacted)

Specialist in Housing Policy

(name redacted)

Analyst in Transportation Policy

(name redacted)

Specialist in Housing Policy

January 22, 2014

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R42578

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 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, because it includes funding from

transportation trust funds. Mandatory funding typically accounts for a little less than half of the

bill total.

In the deliberations on FY2013 THUD funding during the second session of the 112th Congress,

the House passed a THUD bill (H.R. 5972) and the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported

out a THUD bill (S. 2322), but this bill was not passed by the Senate. Thus Congress did not

enact a separate THUD funding bill prior to the beginning of FY2013.

THUD appropriations for FY2013 were provided through a pair of continuing resolutions (CRs):

P.L. 112-175 provided funding from the beginning of FY2013 through March 27, 2013, and P.L.

113-6 provided funding through the end of FY2013. These CRs provided funding at roughly the

FY2012 level. These CRs included several exceptions (anomalies) for individual DOT and HUD

accounts. P.L. 113-6 also included an across-the board rescission of 0.2%.

FY2013 THUD funding was further reduced by the imposition of a sequester, per the terms of the

Budget Control Act. The sequester reduced DOT funding by around $1.6 billion, and HUD

funding by around $3 billion.

In terms of final FY2013 THUD funding, Congress enacted $71.3 billion for DOT in FY2013;

after the sequester reduction, DOT received around $70.6 billion. Congress enacted $33.4 billion

for HUD in FY2013, pre-sequester. Accounting for sequestration, HUD was provided with about

$31.4 billion in FY2013.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Contents

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

Status of the FY2013 THUD Appropriations Bill ........................................................................... 2

FY2013 THUD Funding Consideration During the 112th Congress.......................................... 3

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013........................................................................... 4

The Budget Control Act and FY2013 Sequestration ................................................................. 4

The Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 .................................................................... 6

THUD Funding Trends .................................................................................................................... 6

Changes in Appropriations Subcommittee Structures Make It Difficult to Track

Trends ..................................................................................................................................... 6

FY2013: Detailed Tables and Selected Key Issues .......................................................................... 7

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

Selected Budget Issues ........................................................................................................ 9

Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development ...................................................... 16

Selected Budget Issues ...................................................................................................... 20

Title III: Related Agencies ....................................................................................................... 22

Selected Budget Issues ...................................................................................................... 23

Figures

Figure A-1. Allocation of THUD Net Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2012 .......................... 25

Figure A-2. Allocation of THUD Total Budgetary Resources (Including Contract

Authority), FY2012 .................................................................................................................... 25

Tables

Table 1. Status of FY2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related

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

Table 2. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013................................................................................................. 3

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

and Urban Development, FY2007-FY2013 Request.................................................................... 7

Table 4. Department of Transportation FY2013 Detailed Budget Table ......................................... 7

Table 5. Amtrak Grants, FY2012-FY2013 .................................................................................... 15

Table 6. HUD FY2013 Detailed Budget Table .............................................................................. 17

Table 7. Appropriations for Related Agencies, FY2012-FY2013 .................................................. 22

Table A-1. Budget Savings in FY2012 THUD Appropriations Bill .............................................. 26

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Appendixes

Appendix........................................................................................................................................ 24

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 26

Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 26

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Introduction to Transportation, HUD, and

Related Agencies (THUD)

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

appropriations subcommittees are charged with drafting bills to provide annual appropriations for

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

(HUD), and related agencies. Typically, these bills are reported out by the appropriations

committees and passed by the House and Senate, which then produce a conference agreement.

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 state

and local government agencies 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, but 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. 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 related

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 (IG),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: FY2013 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 FY2013 THUD Appropriations Bill

Table 1 provides a timeline of legislative action on the FY2013 THUD appropriations bill, and

Table 2 lists the total funding provided for each of the titles in the bill for FY2012 and the

amount requested for that title for FY2013. As is discussed in the next section, much of the

funding for this bill is in the form of contract authority, a type of mandatory budget authority.

Thus, the discretionary funding provided in the bill (often referred to as the bill’s 302(b)

allocation) is only around half of the total funding provided by this bill.

Table 1. Status of FY2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and

Related Agencies Appropriations

Subcommittee

Markup

Bill

House

Senate

House

Report

H.R. 5972

(112th

Congress)

June 7,

2012

April 17,

2012

June 20,

2012

S. 2322

(112th

Congress)

House

Passage

Senate

Report

June 29,

2012

April 19,

2012

Conf.

Report

Conference Approval

House

Senate

March 6,

2013

March 21,

2013

March 20,

2103

267-151

318-109

73-26

H.Rept.

112541

H.R. 933

(113th

Congress)

Senate

Passage

Public

Law

S.Rept.

112-157

P.L. 113-6

March 26,

2013

Source: CRS Appropriations Status Table.

(...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: FY2013 Appropriations

Table 2. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013

(in millions of dollars)

FY2012

Enacted

Title

FY2013

Request

FY2013 House

(H.R. 5972/

112th)

FY2013

Senate

Comm.

(S. 2322/

112th)

FY2013

Enacted:

Presequester,

Including

0.2% Acrossthe-Board

Rescissions

(ATB)

FY2013:

Postsequester

Title I: Department

of Transportation

$71,574

$73,356

$69,664

$70,203

$71,300

$70,354

Title I Discretionary

$19,505

$14,293

$17,634

$18,104

$17,909

$17,001

Title 1 Mandatory

$52,069

$59,063

$52,029

$52,099

$53,391

$53,353

Title II: Housing and

Urban Development

$37,434

$33,555

$33,583

$34,961

$33,416

$31,424

$373

$374

$388

$373

$372

Total

$109,381

$107,285

$103,635

$105,537

$105,088

Total Discretionary

$57,312

$48,223

$51,606

$53,438

$51,697

Total Mandatory

$52,069

$59,063

$52,029

$52,099

$53,391

Title III: Related

Agencies

Sources: Table prepared by CRS based on information available in H.Rept. 112-541, S.Rept. 112-157, FY2012

enacted, FY2013, and FY2014 President’s Budget, table prepared by HUD (FY2013 HUD post-sequester enacted

levels); DOT Operating Plan (FY2013 DOT post-sequester enacted levels). “Total” represents net total

budgetary resources. Totals may not add up due to rounding and scorekeeping adjustments. Figures do not

include emergency supplemental 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.

FY2013 THUD Funding Consideration During the 112th Congress

The President’s FY2013 budget requested $73.4 billion in new budget resources for DOT. The

requested funding was $3.5 billion (5%) more than the amount provided for FY2012 (not

counting $1.7 billion in FY2012 emergency funding). Both the House-passed bill and Senate

Committee on Appropriations’ bills recommended roughly the same level of funding as in

FY2012 (not counting the emergency funding). The House-passed FY2013 THUD bill (H.R.

5972) included no funding for the Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery

(TIGER) grant program or for the high speed and intercity passenger rail development program,

two priorities of the Administration. The Senate THUD bill (S. 2322) proposed to fund the

TIGER program and provide a minimal level of funding for high speed rail development ($100

million, compared to the $1.0 billion request). The Administration request proposed a

restructuring of DOT surface transportation programs reflecting a reauthorization proposal (a

similar proposal was included in last year’s request). The appropriations committees did not

support the requested restructuring; in July 2012, Congress passed surface transportation

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

reauthorization legislation that did restructure DOT’s surface transportation program but differed

from the Administration proposal.

The President’s FY2013 budget requested nearly $34 billion in net new budget authority for HUD

in FY2013. This is about $4 billion less than was provided in FY2012. However, in terms of new

appropriations for HUD’s programs and activities, the President’s budget actually requested an

increase of more than $512 million compared to FY2012. The difference—a decrease in net

budget authority versus an increase in new appropriations—is attributable to an estimated

increase in the amount of excess receipts available from the FHA insurance fund, which are used

to offset the cost of the HUD budget. S. 2322 included about $35 billion in net new budget

authority for HUD. That is about $1 billion more than the President’s request and over $2 billion

less than was provided in FY2012. H.R. 5972 included $33.6 billion for HUD, which is less than

the Senate proposed but more than the President requested.

The Administration threatened to veto the House bill. In part this threat came because of the

House’s overall discretionary funding level for FY2013, which was below the ceiling allowed for

FY2013 under the terms of the the Budget Control Act of 2011. Another stated reason for the

threat is opposition to certain program funding levels in the bill, such as zeroing out the DOT

TIGER and high speed rail programs and the HUD Choice Neighborhoods and Sustainable

Communities programs, as well as cuts to HUD homeless assistance grants and other programs.

FY2013 appropriations were not enacted before the start of the fiscal year, so Congress enacted a

continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 117) providing funding for federal agencies at roughly the

FY2012 level for the first six months of FY2013. The 112th Congress adjourned without enacting

final FY2013 appropriations.

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013

On January 29, 2013, President Obama signed the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, into

law (P.L. 113-2). The act provided $50.7 billion in supplemental funding and legislative

provisions to address both the immediate losses from Hurricane Sandy, as well as to support

mitigation for future disasters. The act contained $13.07 billion for DOT, including funding for

repairs to public transportation ($10.9 billion) and roads ($2.0 billion).

The act contained $16 billion in funding for HUD, all of which was provided to the Community

Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The law established a number of terms and

conditions for the funding that vary from the rules covering the regular CDBG program. In

addition, P.L. 113-2 included language to allow HUD to make funding adjustments in the Section

8 Housing Choice Voucher for local public housing authorities affected by the storm.4

The Budget Control Act and FY2013 Sequestration

FY2013 discretionary appropriations were considered in the context of the Budget Control Act of

2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25). The BCA established discretionary spending limits for FY2012-

For more information about the supplemental, see CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster

Relief, coordinated by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2021.5 It allowed for the adjustment of the discretionary limits for several different purposes,

including for appropriations designated as being for disaster relief and appropriations designated

as emergency requirements.

The BCA also tasked a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop a federal deficit

reduction plan for Congress and the President to enact by January 15, 2012. The failure of

Congress and the President to enact deficit reduction legislation by that date triggered an

automatic spending reduction process established by the BCA, consisting of a combination of

sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps that were scheduled to begin on January 2,

2013. However, prior to that date, Congress enacted the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

(ATRA, P.L. 112-240), which made several substantive changes to the BCA, including a delay of

the scheduled BCA sequester until March 1, 2013, and a reduction of the total amount scheduled

to be sequestered.6

The sequestration process for FY2013 required automatic, largely across-the-board spending cuts

at the program, project, or activity level to achieve equal budget reductions from both defense and

nondefense funding. The level of cuts was to be determined by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), under terms specified by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

Act of 1985, as amended by the BCA and ATRA.

On March 1, 2013, President Obama ordered the BCA-mandated sequestration. OMB calculated

that it required a 7.8% reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding, a 5.0% reduction

in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding, a 5.1% reduction for most non-exempt

nondefense mandatory funding, and a 7.9% reduction for non-exempt defense mandatory

funding.7 The majority of DOT’s budget was exempted from sequestration per Section 255 of P.L.

99-177 as amended, so the overall reduction in DOT funding was closer to 2%, though because of

the exclusions the impact was uneven, with affected accounts being reduced by 5%. Nearly all of

HUD’s budget is non-exempt discretionary funding,8 and thus was subject to a 5% reduction in

funding for FY2013. These percentages were then applied to the funding levels in place at the

time in order to calculate dollar amount reductions for each non-exempt account. According to a

report accompanying the order, funding for DOT’s programs and activities for FY2013 was

reduced by about $1.6 billion; funding for HUD’s programs and activities for FY2013 was

reduced by about $3 billion as a result of the sequester.9

For more information about the BCA, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by (name redacted),

(name redacted), and (name redacted).

For more information about ATRA, see CRS Report R42949, The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012:

Modifications to the Budget Enforcement Procedures in the Budget Control Act, by (name redacted)

Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (M-13-06),

“Issuance of the Sequestration Order Pursuant to Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

Act of 1985, as Amended, March 1, 2013.”

A very small amount of HUD funding is considered non-exempt mandatory ($3 million); about $250 million in the

tenant-based rental assistance account is considered exempt from sequestration because it is administered jointly with

the Veterans Administration; and HUD’s revolving loan fund accounts are also considered exempt from sequestration.

These totals include the sequester of amounts provided both by the continuing resolution, as well as the emergency

supplemental disaster funding provided for DOT’s Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program ($10.9 billion)

and HUD’s CDBG program ($16 billion) in response to Hurricane Sandy. The DOT total does not include a $316

million reduction in transfers to the Highway Trust Fund, which does not affect program funding for FY2013. See

“OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for FY2013,” March 1, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

The Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013

Congress passed H.R. 933, as amended, which included continuing appropriations for THUD and

several other federal agencies, on March 21, 2013; it was signed into law on March 26, 2013, as

P.L. 113-6. Division F of P.L. 113-6, the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, provides

funding for THUD in Titles I and VIII. Funding is provided generally at the level and under the

conditions provided in FY2012, as modified by anomalies, the application of the sequester, and a

0.2% across-the-board rescission in section 3004 of the act.

Anomalies include the following:

•

For DOT, adjusting the funding levels of certain accounts changing certain

statutory references to reflect provisions of P.L. 112-141, the surface

transportation authorization act enacted after passage of FY2012 THUD

appropriations.

•

Funding increases for some HUD programs. These include the Homeless

Assistance Grants, Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance, the Public Housing

Operating Fund, and Indian Housing Loan Guarantees.

THUD Funding Trends

Changes in Appropriations Subcommittee Structures Make It

Difficult to Track Trends

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 FY2007FY2012, omitting emergency funding and other supplemental funding, and the amounts requested

for FY2013. 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: FY2013 Appropriations

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

Housing and Urban Development, FY2007-FY2013 Request

(in billions of current dollars)

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

FY2013

Request

DOTa

$63.2

$64.7

$67.2

$75.7

$68.7

$71.6

$73.4

HUD

36.2

37.6

41.5

46.9

41.1

37.4

33.6

Department

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.

Note: Figures do not include emergency or supplemental funding.

Figures include mandatory funding.

FY2013: Detailed Tables and Selected Key Issues

Title I: Department of Transportation

Table 4 presents an account-by-account summary of FY2013 appropriations for DOT, compared

to FY2012.

Table 4. Department of Transportation FY2013 Detailed Budget Table

(in millions of current dollars)

FY2013

Senate

Comm.

(S. 2322/

112th)

FY2013

Enacted:

Presequester,

Post-0.2%

ATB

FY2013

Operating:

Postsequester

FY2012

Enacted

FY2013

Request

FY2013

House

(H.R. 5972/

112th)

Essential Air Servicea

143

114

143

136

National Infrastructure

Investments

500

—

500

499

474

780

783

261

830

781

742

Operations

9,653

9,718

9,698

9,634

9,148

Facilities & Equipment

2,731

2,850

2,750

2,725

2,588

Research, Engineering, &

Development

168

154

149

134

167

159

3,350

3,343

15,902

15,145

15,966

15,932

15,870

15,238

Department of Transportation

Selected Accounts

Office of the Secretary (OST)

Total, OST

Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)

Grants-in-Aid for Airports (AIP)

(limitation on obligations)

Total, FAA

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2013

Senate

Comm.

(S. 2322/

112th)

FY2013

Enacted:

Presequester,

Post-0.2%

ATB

FY2013

Operating:

Postsequester

Department of Transportation

Selected Accounts

FY2012

Enacted

FY2013

Request

FY2013

House

(H.R. 5972/

112th)

Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) (total)

41,545

42,569

39,883

40,359

40,321

Motor Carrier Safety Operations

and Programs

248

250

244

248

250

Motor Carrier Safety Grants to

States

307

330

307

309

555

580

551

572

560

Operations and Research

250

338

274

259

250

248

Highway Traffic Safety Grants to

States

550

643

502

550

553

800

981

776

809

801

High-speed and intercity

passenger rail grant program

—

—b

(2)

100

—

Network Development

—

4,000

—

1,418

—c

1,802

1,450

1,415

1,344

—

4,046

—

1,632

2,731

2,015

1,758

1,628

1,546

Formula and bus grants

8,361

—

8,361

8,461

Capital investment grants (New

Starts)

1,897

—

1,806

2,032

1,951

1,855

10,550

10,733

10,369

10,705

10,708

10,597

349

344

338

387

349

327

Assistance to small shipyards

—

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials

Safety Administration (PHMSA)

201

276

205

224

201

191

Research and Innovative

Technology Administration

(RITA)

—

Office of Inspector General

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA)

Total, FMCSA

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA)

Total, NHTSA

Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)

Amtrak

System Development

Total, FRA

Federal Transit Administration

(FTA)

Total, FTA

Maritime Administration

(MARAD)

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2013

Senate

Comm.

(S. 2322/

112th)

FY2013

Enacted:

Presequester,

Post-0.2%

ATB

FY2013

Operating:

Postsequester

FY2012

Enacted

FY2013

Request

FY2013

House

(H.R. 5972/

112th)

Saint Lawrence Seaway

Development Corporation

Surface Transportation Board

Appropriation (discretionary

funding)

17,942

19,685

17,770

18,240

17,909

17,001

Limitations on obligations

(mandatory funding)

52,069

59,062

52,029

52,099

52,652

Exempt contract authority

(mandatory funding)

739

701

Total non-emergency budgetary

resources, DOT

70,750

73,356

70,538

71,008

71,300

70,354

Emergency appropriations

1,662

—

13,070

12,417

Subtotal—new funding

72,412

74,230

70,538

71,008

84,370

82,771

—d

17,001

Department of Transportation

Selected Accounts

DOT Totals

Rescissions

-3,886

-57

-135

—d

Net new discretionary budget

authority

19,505

14,294

17,634

18,104

17,909

Sources: Table prepared by CRS based on information available in H.Rept. 112-541 (for FY2012 enacted,

FY2013 request, and FY2013 House Committee) and S.Rept. 112-157 (for FY2013 Senate Committee).

Information on post-sequester funding levels provided by DOT.

Notes: 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. Table does not include funding provided under continuing resolutions. The

FY2013 figures do not reflect $100 million in mandatory funding.

FY2012 does not reflect the $50 million in mandatory funding received by the Essential Air Service each

year. The FY2013 figures do not reflect $100 million in mandatory funding.

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.

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

have included grants to Amtrak.

Across-the-board rescission of 0.2% already reflected in figures.

Selected Budget Issues

Program Authorizations

On July 6, 2012, new surface transportation authorization legislation was signed into law. P.L.

112-141, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), was enacted after the House

had passed, and the Senate Appropriations Committee had reported out, their FY2013 THUD

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

bills. MAP-21 authorizes funding levels similar to those the affected DOT administrations

(FHWA, FMCSA, NHTSA, and FTA) received in FY2012, but it made changes to the program

structure of several of those DOT agencies.

Comparison of FY2012 and FY2013 Figures

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

trend, and in both FY2011 and FY2012 Congress provided lower levels of funding for DOT than

in FY2010. The Obama Administration’s FY2013 budget request reflected a reauthorization

proposal for DOT surface transportation programs. This included a proposed restructuring of

some surface transportation programs with overall funding roughly at the level provided in

FY2012, plus a $50 billion supplemental appropriation requested for FY2012 to provide an

immediate boost to transportation infrastructure improvement and job creation. This up-front

additional funding was described 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 front-loaded a large increase in funding in the

first year of the Administration’s proposed six-year surface transportation reauthorization plan.

The Administration had made a similar proposal in its FY2012 budget request—restructuring the

DOT surface transportation program structure, and requesting an additional $50 billion in upfront funding—which Congress did not support. Thus, while the FY2012 enacted funding and the

appropriation amounts recommended in H.R. 5972 and S. 2322 for FY2013 were comparable,

comparing these figures to the amounts requested in the FY2013 budget for DOT’s surface

transportation programs is complex.

Overall, the FY2013 request totaled $73.4 billion in new budget resources for DOT. The

requested funding was $3.5 billion (5%) more than the amount provided for FY2012 (not

counting $1.7 billion in emergency funding provided in FY2012). Both the House-passed bill and

Senate Committee on Appropriations’ bill would have provided roughly the same level of funding

as in FY2012 (not counting the emergency funding). The final enacted amount, $70.6 billion, is

slightly less (about $100 million) than the FY2012 enacted amount

Highway Trust Fund Solvency

Virtually all federal highway funding, and most 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 authorized expenditures were approximately $50

billion.10 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. In January

2012 the Congressional Budget Office projected that the trust fund would become insolvent

around the end of FY2013, given current revenue and expenditure levels.11 The MAP-21

Revenues from Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2010, Table FE-10 (“D. Net Excise Taxes”)

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/fe10.cfm); authorized expenditures represent the total

limitations on obligations for FHWA, FMCSA, NHTSA, and FTA, for FY2010.

Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook, Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022, January 2012, p. 126,

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/01-31-2012_Outlook.pdf. The Highway Trust Fund has two

accounts, one for highway expenditures and one for transit; CBO estimates that the highway account will be unable to

meet obligations in a timely manner sometime during FY2013, while the transit account will reach that point sometime

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

legislation enacted in 2012 authorized additional transfers from the general fund to the Highway

Trust Fund to keep the fund solvent through FY2014.

One reason for the shortfall in funding in the highway trust fund is that the federal gas tax has not

been raised since 1993, while improved fuel efficiency and inflation have reduced the amount of

fuel consumed and the value of the tax revenues. The tax is a fixed amount assessed per gallon of

fuel sold, not a percentage of the cost of the fuel sold. That means that whether a gallon of gas

costs $1 or $4, the highway trust fund receives the same amount from each gallon sold (18.3 cents

for each gallon of gasoline, 24.3 cents for each gallon of diesel). Meanwhile, the capacity of the

federal gas tax to support transportation infrastructure has been diminished by inflation (which

has reduced the purchasing power of the revenue raised by the tax) and increasing automobile

fuel efficiency (since more efficient vehicles are able to travel farther on a gallon of fuel,

increasing efficiency reduces the amount of tax generated by each mile of vehicle travel). The

Congressional Budget Office has forecast that gasoline consumption will be relatively flat during

the period 2013 to 2022, as continued increases in the fuel efficiency of the U.S. passenger fleet

will offset increases in the number of miles people will drive.12 It forecasts highway trust fund

revenues of $41 billion in FY2022, well short of even the current annual level of authorized

expenditures from the fund.13

A host of reports produced by the Department of Transportation, congressionally created

commissions, and nongovernmental groups generally assert that the nation is not spending

enough to maintain its existing transportation infrastructure, let alone to make desired

improvements.14 These reports call for considerably higher levels of spending on transportation

infrastructure, by both the federal government and the states.

A dilemma faced by Congress is how to provide the additional funding needed to maintain the

current level of transportation infrastructure spending, let alone to support significant increases in

that funding. While raising the federal gas tax is seen as the simplest and most efficient way to

provide significantly increased funding for transportation infrastructure in the near future, there

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

current period of economic difficulty. Even if there were support for higher gas taxes, increases in

vehicle fuel efficiency resulting from previously enacted legislation and greater use of electric

vehicles are likely to constrain motor fuel consumption, leaving in question the longer-term

viability of motor fuel taxes as the principal source of surface transportation funding.15

(...continued)

in FY2014.

Ibid., p. 91.

Ibid., Table 4-3.

For example, Paying Our Way, the Report of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing

Commission (http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Mar09FNL.pdf);

Transportation for Tomorrow: the Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study

Commission (http://transportationfortomorrow.com/final_report/index.htm), U.S. Department of Transportation’s 2010

State of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit Conditions and Performance Report to Congress

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2010cpr/).

For more information on the difficulties facing the Highway Trust Fund and alternative proposed revenue sources,

see CRS Report R41490, Surface Transportation Funding and Finance, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)

(available upon request).

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

As it did last year, the President’s FY2013 budget proposed to change the name of the highway

trust fund to the transportation trust fund and to increase authorized expenditures from the fund to

a total of $476 billion over the next six years. This money would have gone to increasing the

funding levels of existing surface transportation programs, and the Federal Railroad

Administration and the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts transit construction program

would have been added to the programs financed 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.16 The budget request did not propose an increase in the gas tax; it proposed to

offset the additional spending with savings assumed from reducing overseas military operations.

This proposal was not supported by Congress.

TIGER Grant Program

The Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program

originated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5), where it was referred to

as national infrastructure investment. It is a discretionary grant program intended to address two

criticisms of the current structure of federal transportation funding: that virtually all of the

funding is distributed to state and local governments who select projects based on their priorities,

making it difficult to fund projects that have national or regional impacts but whose costs fall

largely on one or two states; and that the federal funding is divided according to mode of

transportation, making it difficult for major projects in different modes to compete for the limited

amount of discretionary funding. The program provides grants to projects of regional or national

significance in various modes on a competitive basis, with recipients selected by the federal

DOT.17

Congress has continued to support the TIGER program through the annual DOT appropriations

acts. There have been four rounds of TIGER grants (from ARRA funding, and from FY2010FY2012 annual appropriations). The Administration requested $500 million for FY2013, the

same amount provided in FY2012.

The House-passed bill did not provide any funding for the program, noting that the

Administration has not defined the selection criteria by which recipients are selected. The Senate

Committee on Appropriations recommended $500 million. This program was not included in the

MAP-21 authorization act.18 The FY2013 enacted bill funded TIGER at the FY2012 level, $500

million; after sequestration reductions and rescission, the program received $474 million.

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.

Although the program is, by description, intended to fund projects of national and regional significance, in practice

its funding has gone more toward projects of regional and local significance. In part this is a function of congressional

intent, as Congress has directed that a portion of the funding go to projects in rural areas and has set low minimum

grant thresholds ($1 million for rural projects); in part it may be a function of the program funding—$500 million is not

a great deal of money relative to the cost of projects which will have national and regional impacts, as such projects

may cost hundreds of millions of dollars each; and in part it has been a function of the choices of DOT, which has

chosen to award grants to dozens of projects each year, with virtually all of the grants for less than $20 million.

MAP-21 includes a similar discretionary program, Projects of National and Regional Significance; to be eligible for

that program, a project must have eligible project costs expected to be exceed $500 million.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Essential Air Service (EAS)

The EAS program seeks to preserve air service to small communities whose level of ridership

makes air service unprofitable by subsidizing the cost of that service. The costs of the program

have more than doubled since FY2008, in part because route reductions by airlines have resulted

in an average of six new communities being added to the program each year.

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, anticipating that

airlines would reduce or eliminate service to many communities that were too small to make such

service economically viable. Supporters contend that subsidizing air service to smaller

communities promotes economic development in rural areas. Critics of the program note that the

subsidy cost per passenger is relatively high,19 that many of the communities in the program have

very few residents flying out of their airports, and that some of the airports receiving EAS

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

The Administration requested $114 million for the EAS program. This appeared to be a cut from

the FY2012 enacted figure of $143 million, but in fact the Administration’s request represented

an increase over the FY2012 figure. This is because the EAS program is funded from two

sources: in addition to the annual discretionary appropriation for the program, there is a

mandatory annual authorization of $50 million financed by overflight fees collected from

commercial airlines by the Federal Aviation Administration (this funding does not appear in the

appropriation budget tables).20 Thus, the total funding provided for the EAS program in FY2012

was $193 million (the $143 million appropriation added to the $50 million mandatory funding).

The Administration’s FY2013 request proposed to increase the mandatory funding from $50

million to $100 million; added to the $114 million discretionary funding requested, that would

have provided a total of $214 million for the EAS program. This would have been an 11% ($21

million) increase over FY2012.

Both the House-passed bill and the Senate Committee on Appropriations’ bill supported the

Administration request. The bills also supported the request to eliminate the 15-passenger aircraft

requirement. The EAS program has required airlines to use, at a minimum, 15-passenger aircraft

to service EAS communities, even though many of these communities typically have fewer than

15 passengers per flight. Eliminating the minimum 15-passenger aircraft requirement is seen as a

way to reduce EAS program costs. The same request was made last year, and was included in the

FY2012 appropriations act.

The current Federal Aviation Administration authorization act (P.L. 112-95, enacted February 14,

2012) included reforms intended to limit EAS program costs, some of which were included in the

FY2012 appropriations act. These include limiting funding to those communities which received

subsidies in FY2011, and limiting coverage to airports that average at least 10 passengers per day

(unless they are more than 175 miles from the nearest hub airport).21 The legislation also repealed

To remain eligible for the program, a community’s subsidy per passenger must not exceed $1,000. The per passenger

subsidy varies greatly among the communities in the program, ranging from a low of $6 to a high of $2,372. The DOT

investigates cases where the subsidy exceeds $1,000. A chart of EAS subsidies per passenger per community is on pps.

19-21 of S.Rept. 112-157 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112srpt157/pdf/CRPT-112srpt157.pdf).

These overflight fees apply to international flights that fly over, but do not land in, the United States. The fees are to

be reasonably related to the costs of providing air traffic services to these flights.

P.L. 112-95, Title IV, Subtitle B—Essential Air Service.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

the local participation program, a pilot program established in 2003 under which communities

assumed a portion of the cost of their EAS subsidy.

The final FY2013 enacted bill provided $143 million for the program, the same amount as in

FY2012; after sequestration reductions and rescission, the program received $136 million.

High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail

The budget proposed a total of $2.5 billion for high speed and intercity passenger rail funding

under two new accounts which realign existing programs: $1.5 billion for System Preservation

(which would primarily fund maintenance and improvement of existing intercity passenger rail

service, i.e., Amtrak) and $1 billion for Network Development (which would fund new intercity

passenger rail projects). The budget described high speed rail development as the signature

initiative of the Administration’s proposal for surface transportation reauthorization. It 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. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $100 million for the program. The

House-passed bill did not include any funding for new high speed rail projects.

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. The 112th Congress

provided no 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; it

also provided no funding for the program for FY2012. The final FY2013 enacted funding bill did

not provide any funding for the program.

The $10.1 billion provided in the 111th Congress went to the High Speed and Intercity Passenger

Rail Grant 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 intended only to fund high speed lines similar to those in other countries.

But much of 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. However, there is only one state, California, that is actively pursuing development of a

high speed rail line similar to those the Administration has pointed to in Europe and Asia, one that

would provide dedicated tracks for passenger trains traveling at speeds greater than 150 mph.

California has received $3.6 billion in federal funding for this project, but the total cost of

constructing the line is estimated at more than $70 billion, and the financing prospects are

uncertain.

Amtrak

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

Administration account—System Preservation—for which $1.546 billion was requested. This

account would fund publicly owned passenger rail asset development and maintenance, primarily

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Amtrak. Amtrak received $1.418 billion in capital, operating, and debt service grants in FY2012.

Amtrak also submits a grant request to Congress, separate from the Administration’s budget

request. Amtrak requested $2.167 billion for FY2013.22 Amtrak’s authorized funding level for

FY2013 is $2.256 billion.23

The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1.450 billion for Amtrak grants; that is

$32 million (2%) more than Amtrak received in FY2012. The House-passed bill recommended

$1.802 billion.

Table 5 shows the amount of funding appropriated for Amtrak grants in FY2012, requested by

the Administration for FY2013, recommended by the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations, and final enacted.

Table 5. Amtrak Grants, FY2012-FY2013

(in millions of dollars)

Grant

FY2012

FY2013

Administration

Request

FY2013

House

(H.R. 5972/

112th)

FY2013

Senate

Comm.

(S. 2322/

112th)

FY2013

Enacted:

Presequester,

Post-0.2%

ATB

FY2013

Enacted:

Postsequester

Operating

Grants

466

—

350

400

465

442

Capital and

Debt

Service

Grants

952

—

1,452

1,050

950

902

1,418

1,546

1,802

1,450

1,415

1,344

Total

Grants

Sources: H.Rept. 112-541, S.Rept. 112-157.

Notes: Both the House and Senate would direct $271 million of the Capital and Debt Service Grants to debt

service. The House would allow the Secretary of DOT to use up to $80 million of the Capital and Debt Service

grants for Amtrak operating assistance, if needed. The Administration did not request funding for these accounts,

but requested $1.546 billion for a new “System Preservation” account, which would be available to Amtrak.

The major difference between the House and Senate funding was a proposal in the House bill to

create a new program within the Amtrak Capital and Debt Service Grants account—Bridge and

Tunnel grants—to fund “high priority, state-of-good-repair, intercity infrastructure projects owned

by Amtrak or States.” The House bill included $500 million for this new program. The federal

share for projects funded under this program would be up to 80%. This proposal was not included

in the enacted bill.

Amtrak, FY2013 Grant and Legislative Request, February 1, 2012, Table 1; available at http://www.amtrak.com

(About Amtrak>Reports and Documents>Grant and Legislative Requests).

Sections 101 & 102, Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, Division B of P.L. 110-432.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Federal Transit Administration New Starts and Small Starts

(Capital Investment Grants)

The majority of FTA’s $10 billion funding is funneled to transit agencies through several formula

programs. The largest discretionary grant program is the Capital Investment Grants programs

(commonly referred to as the New Starts program). This program funds new fixed-guideway

transit lines24 and extensions to existing lines. There are two primary components to the program,

based on project cost. New Starts 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.

Congress appropriated $1.955 billion for the Capital Investment Grants program in FY2012. For

FY2013, the Administration requested $2.2 billion for the program. The Senate bill would have

provided $2.0 billion, a 2% increase over FY2012 but $200 million less than requested. This

would have covered the majority of the costs for existing and pending full funding grant

agreements. The House bill would have provided $1.817 billion, $138 million (7%) below the

FY2012 level. The final FY2013 enacted bill provided $1.955 billion; after sequestration

reductions and rescission, the program received $1.855 billion.

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.

New Starts Funding Share

The federal share for New Starts projects, by statute, 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 is in the FY2013 House

bill, but not the Senate bill.

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 how to address transportation problems. 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 assert that requiring a higher local match likely encourages

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

Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Table 6 presents an account-by-account summary of FY2013 appropriations for HUD compared

to FY2012.

Fixed-guideway refers to systems in which the vehicle travels on a fixed course; for example, subways and light rail.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Table 6. HUD FY2013 Detailed Budget Table

(in billions of dollars)

FY2013

Senate

Comm.

(S. 2322/

112th)

FY2013

Enacted:

Pre-sequester,

Post-0.2% ATB

FY2013

Enacted:

Including

Sequestration

Reductions

FY2012

Enacted

FY2013

Request

FY2013

House

(H.R. 5972/

112th)

Management and Administration

1.332

1.349

1.325a

1.339

1.329

1.262

Tenant Based Rental Assistance

(Sec. 8 vouchers)b

18.914

19.074

19.134

19.396

18.909

18.172

Public housing capital fund

1.875

2.070

1.985

1.871

1.777

Public housing operating fund

3.962

4.524

4.591

4.253

4.054

Choice Neighborhoods

0.120

0.150

0.000

0.120

0.114

Family Self Sufficiencyc

0.000c

0.060

0.000c

Native American housing block

grants

0.650

0.649

0.616

Indian housing loan guarantee

0.006

0.007

0.006

0.012d

0.012

Native Hawaiian Block Grant

0.013

0.000

0.013

0.012

Native Hawaiian loan guarantee

0.000e

0.001

0.000e

Housing, persons with AIDS

(HOPWA)

0.332

0.330

0.332a

0.330

0.331

0.315

Community Development Fund

(Including CDBG)

3.308

3.143

3.404

3.210

3.301

3.135

Sec.108 loan guarantee; subsidy

0.006

0.000f

0.006

0.000f

0.006

HOME Investment Partnerships

1.000

1.200

1.000

0.998

0.948

0.054

0.000g

0.060

0.054

0.053

0.051

2.146

2.029

1.933

Accounts

Appropriations

Self-Help Homeownership

Homeless Assistance Grants

1.901

2.231

2.005h

Project Based Rental Assistance

(Sec. 8) b

9.340

8.700

9.876

9.322

8.872

Housing for the Elderly

0.375

0.475

0.425

0.375

0.374

0.355

Housing for Persons with

Disabilities

0.165

0.150

0.165

0.150

0.165

0.156

Housing Counseling Assistancei

0.045

0.055

0.045

0.055

0.045

0.043

Manufactured Housing Fees Trust

Fundj

0.007

0.008

0.004

0.006

Rental Housing Assistancej,k

0.001

0.000

0.001

FHA Expensesj

0.207

0.215

0.207

0.196

GNMA Expensesj

0.020

0.021

0.019

0.018

Research and technology

0.046

0.052

0.046

0.044

Fair housing activitiesl

0.071

0.068

0.071

0.067

Office, lead hazard controlm

0.120

0.114

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2013

Senate

Comm.

(S. 2322/

112th)

FY2013

Enacted:

Pre-sequester,

Post-0.2% ATB

FY2013

Enacted:

Including

Sequestration

Reductions

FY2012

Enacted

FY2013

Request

FY2013

House

(H.R. 5972/

112th)

Working capital fund

0.199

0.170

0.170h

0.230n

0.199

0.189

Inspector General

0.124

0.126

0.125

0.124

0.118

Transformation Initiative

0.050

0.000o

0.050

0.043

0.050

0.047

Appropriations Subtotal (Including

advances provided in current year for

subsequent year)

44.241

44.763

44.791

46.169

44.624

42.632

Housing Certificate Fund

-0.200

0.000

TBRA Prior Year Advance

Rescission

-0.650

0.000

Rental housing assistance

rescission

-0.232

0.000

Rescissions Subtotal

-1.082

0.000

Manufactured Housing Fees Trust

Fundp

-0.004

Federal Housing Administration

(FHA)q

-5.172

-10.434

GNMA

-0.650

-0.770

Offsets Subtotal

-5.826

-11.208

Total Non-Emergency Budget

Authority Providedr

37.334

33.555

33.583

34.961

33.416

31.424

0.100

0.000

16.000s

15.200s

37.434

33.555

33.583

34.961

49.416

46.624

Accounts

Rescissions

Offsetting Collections and

Receipts

Emergency Funding

Total Budget Authority

Provided, Including

Emergency Funding

Sources: Table prepared by CRS based on H.Rept. 112-541, the House Appropriations Committee report to

accompany H.R. 5972 (FY2012 enacted levels); the President’s FY2013 budget documents, including HUD

Congressional Budget Justifications (FY2013 requested levels); H.R. 5972 and H.Rept. 112-541 (House-proposed

levels); S. 2322 and S.Rept. 112-157 (Senate Committee-proposed levels); the FY2014 Senate Appropriations

Committee Report, S.Rept. 113-45 (FY2013 enacted levels); and FY2012 enacted, FY2013, and FY2014 President’s

Budget, table prepared by HUD (FY2013 enacted levels, reflecting sequestration).

A floor amendment (H.Amdt. 1331) reduced HUD’s salaries and expenses by $2 million and provided an

additional $2 million for HOPWA.

Amounts shown reflect the amount provided in the bill for both the current year and the amount provided

in the bill for the next year in the form of an advance appropriation. The amount available to the account in

the fiscal year is actually the amount provided in the bill for the current year plus the advance provided in

the prior year. Any differences in advance appropriations are generally reflected as scorekeeping

adjustments calculated by CBO.

The Family Self Sufficiency program has traditionally been funded in the tenant-based rental assistance

account. The President’s FY2013 budget requested that a modified version of the program be funded in a

separate account. Both the House and Senate bills included funding for this program within the tenant-based

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

rental assistance account, and the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6)

continued funding through the tenant-based account.

P.L. 113-6 provided increased funding for the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program ($12 million, as

compared to $6 million in FY2012) to support a higher level of loan commitment authority in FY2013 ($976

million as compared to $360 million in FY2012). Program activity has been increasing in recent years, and

on multiple occasions HUD has had to suspend new mortgage guarantees under the program when it

exhausted its available budgetary resources. (It most recently suspended new mortgage guarantees in early

March, 2013; that suspension lasted until additional budget authority was provided in P.L. 113-6). P.L. 113-6

also authorized an increase in the guarantee fees that HUD charges under the program; increasing

guarantee fees charged to borrowers could reduce the amount of appropriated funds necessary to cover

program costs.

Amounts for the Native Hawaiian loan guarantee round to less than $1 million. Enacted levels were

$386,000 in FY2012 and $385,000 in FY2013.

The President’s budget requested a new fee structure for the Section 108 loan guarantee account, which

would have eliminated the need for appropriations. S. 2322 adopted this proposal, but it was not enacted.

The Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) account funds both SHOP and capacity

building activities. In each of the last several years, the President’s budget request has proposed not funding

SHOP, noting that activities funded under SHOP are also eligible activities under the HOME program. The

President’s budget request included funding for capacity building activities, but under the Community

Development Fund account. However, recent appropriations laws have continued to fund both SHOP and

capacity building under the SHOP account.

A floor amendment (H.Amdt. 1347) reduced HUD’s Working Capital Fund by $5 million and provided an

additional $5 million for Homeless Assistance Grants.

In addition to HUD’s housing counseling assistance program, Congress in recent years has provided funding

specifically for foreclosure mitigation counseling to the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program

(NFMCP), administered by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (also known as NeighborWorks

America). NeighborWorks is not part of HUD, but is usually funded as a related agency in the annual HUD

appropriations laws. The President’s FY2013 budget requested $85.9 million for the NFMCP, while the

Senate and House bills proposed $80 million, the same as the FY2012-enacted level. Ultimately the

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) funded the NFMCP at the FY2012

level of $80 million (prior to reduction by the across-the-board rescission and sequestration).

Some or all of the cost of funding these accounts is offset by the collection of fees or other receipts, shown

later in this table.

The Rental Housing Assistance account is used to provide supplemental funding to some older HUD rentassisted properties and, when funding is provided, it is typically offset by recaptures. Funding is not

requested in this account every year.

Fair housing activities consist primarily of grants for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) and the Fair

Housing Assistance Program (FHAP). Through FHIP, nonprofit organizations receive grants so that they can

help people who have complained of discrimination, investigate complaints, and promote the fair housing

laws. FHAP consists of grants to state and local agencies that enforce their own fair housing laws. In

FY2012, FHIP received $42.5 million and FHAP $28.0 million. In FY2013, pursuant to the Consolidated and

Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6), funding levels were the same as in FY2012, less the

0.2% across-the-board rescission and sequestration.

For more information about lead paint programs, see CRS Report RS21688, Lead-Based Paint Poisoning

Prevention: Summary of Federal Mandates and Financial Assistance for Reducing Hazards in Housing, by (name red

acted).

The Senate Appropriations Committee proposal for the Working Capital Fund (WCF) included $60 million

more than the President’s budget request. According to the Senate Appropriations Committee Report

(S.Rept. 112-157), it would have provided this additional funding to the WCF for technology modernization

activities in lieu of the President’s request for transfer authority to the Transformation Initiative.

The President’s budget request proposed that the Transformation Initiative be funded solely by transfers

from other HUD accounts.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Appropriations language specifies that the overall amount appropriated to the Manufactured Housing Fees

Trust Fund is to be made available to HUD to incur obligations under this program pending the receipt of

fee income; as fee income is received, the appropriation amount is reduced, so that the final appropriation

coming from the general fund is less than the overall appropriated amount. HUD is directed to make

changes to the fees it charges as necessary to ensure that the final fiscal year appropriation is no more than

what is specified in the appropriations language.

Amounts shown here reflect the Congressional Budget Office’s re-estimate of the President’s budget

request, so figures may not match those shown in the President’s budget documents. The President’s

budget request initially showed $688 million in mandatory funding needed to make a required transfer of

funds between FHA accounts by the end of FY2012. After the budget was released, HUD announced that it

no longer expected to need that mandatory funding due to increases in FHA reserves from recent legal

settlements with mortgage servicers and higher mortgage insurance premiums. However, HUD was

required to make a mandatory transfer of $1.7 billion at the end of FY2013, which is not reflected in this

table. For more information, see the “FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF)” section of this report.

Total shown reflects amount provided in the bill, not the amount available in the fiscal year. Any difference

is attributable to differences in advance appropriations. In FY2013, the amount of advance appropriations

provided in the bill was $229 million more than the amount available in the fiscal year as a result of

sequester reductions to the advance appropriation provided in FY2012 for use in FY2013. This difference is

typically treated as a scorekeeping adjustment by the Congressional Budget Office. The total, sequesterreduced, non-emergency funding available in FY2013, accounting for the scorekeeping adjustment, is

$31.196 billion.

Provided for CDBG in P.L. 113-2.

Selected Budget Issues

FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF)

FHA’s single-family mortgage insurance program is intended to be self-financing. The fees that

FHA collects from borrowers are deposited in its insurance fund, the Mutual Mortgage Insurance

Fund (MMIF), and have historically been sufficient to cover the expected losses from the loans

insured. However, if the MMIF ever does not have enough money to cover expected losses on

defaulted loans, it can draw on permanent and indefinite budget authority with the U.S. Treasury

to cover any shortfalls without congressional action.

The FY2013 President’s budget showed that, for the first time, HUD anticipated that the MMIF

would need to draw on this permanent and indefinite budget authority for $688 million during

FY2012.25 The budget estimated that this money would be needed to make a required transfer of

funds from the MMIF’s secondary reserve account to its primary reserve account, in order to

account for an increase in the estimated future losses expected to occur over the life of the loans

insured by FHA. The anticipated need for these funds did not mean that FHA was currently out of

money; at the time, FHA had about $33 billion in reserves that it could use to pay claims,26 and

those funds would have had to be exhausted before any additional funds from Treasury would

have been spent. Rather, the budget included these funds because it was estimated that the funds

that FHA had on hand would not be enough to cover all of its expected future losses on insured

Office of Management and Budget, The Appendix, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013,

Department of Housing and Urban Development, p.636, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/

fy2013/assets/hud.pdf.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FHA Single-Family Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund

Programs Quarterly Report to Congress FY2012 Q1, March 26, 2012, p. 11, available at http://portal.hud.gov/

hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/rmra/oe/rpts/rtc/fhartcqtrly.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

loans. Any funds drawn from Treasury would have been held in reserve to pay for these expected

future losses.

After the FY2013 President’s budget was released, HUD stated that it no longer expected to need

this funding from Treasury in FY2012. Rather, it expected that it would receive enough money

from recent increases in the fees it charges for mortgage insurance and legal settlements to cover

any increases in expected losses.27 Therefore, FHA did not have to draw on its permanent and

indefinite budget authority with Treasury in FY2012.

However, FHA did ultimately use its permanent and indefinite budget authority to draw $1.7

billion from Treasury at the end of FY2013 in order to make its required transfer of funds

between reserve accounts in that year.28

Funding for Project-Based Section 8 Rental Assistance Contracts

The project-based rental assistance (PBRA) account provides funding to administer and renew

existing project-based Section 8 rental assistance contracts between HUD and private multifamily

property owners. The President’s budget requested about $600 million less for this account than

was provided in FY2012. The President’s budget documents acknowledged that the funding level

requested would not be sufficient to fund the full 12-month renewal of all of the existing

contracts. Instead, the department planned to “short-fund” the contracts, meaning fund them for

partial terms (less than 12 months). The budget also requested policy changes, and indicated that

the department was pursuing other administrative policy changes that would result in program

savings.29 S. 2322 proposed about $1.2 billion more for the PBRA account than was requested by

the President, stating that the committee rejected the President’s proposal to short-fund Section 8

project-based rental assistance contracts and instead would provide sufficient funding to renew all

contracts for 12 months. The House bill, H.R. 5972, adopted the President’s request for the

Section 8 project-based rental assistance account. Ultimately the PBRA account was funded at the

FY2012 level ($9.340 billion), less amounts for the 0.2% across-the-board rescission (reducing

funding to $9.322 billion30), and sequestration (about another $470 million31). That amount was

See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation and

Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Hearing on the Proposed Fiscal 2013 Appropriations for the

Federal Housing Administration, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., March 8, 2012, during which Acting FHA Commissioner Carol

Galante stated that “So the budget projection in the President’s budget was that if there were no additional policy

changes, and MIP [mortgage insurance premium] increases, and no additional funds through enforcement actions, and

the economics that the projections were based on stay the same and the volumes stay the same, that we could draw

$688 million from Treasury. Given the changes ... [t]hose two things, obviously, you know, take away the need for the

$688 million.”

The President’s FY2014 budget anticipated that FHA would need funds from Treasury to make the required transfer

of funds in FY2013, although the amount that the MMIF ultimately needed was higher than the amount anticipated in

the President’s budget.

The full list of program changes are listed in HUD’s Congressional Budget Justification, Project-Based Rental

Assistance, p. A-3, available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=project-based-2013.pdf.

S.Rept. 113-45.

Office of Management and Budget, Report to Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013,

March 1, 2013, p. 31, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/

fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf. Note that this reduction is greater than the sequester reduction shown in Table 6

because it reflects the sequester reduction in the advance appropriation available in FY2013, whereas Table 6shows

only the advance provided in FY2013 for use in FY2014, which was not subject to a sequester reduction.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

not sufficient to “fully fund” PBRA contracts, thus requiring HUD to short-fund contracts in

FY2013.

Community Development Block Grants

The Community Development Fund (CDF) funds several community development-related

activities, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the federal

government’s largest and most widely available source of financial assistance supporting state

and local government-directed neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation, and economic

development activities.

For FY2013, the Administration requested $3.1 billion for CDF, which was less than the $3.3

billion appropriated in FY2012. S. 2322, the Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bill,

recommended $3.2 billion for CDF, approximately $100 million more than the President’s

request. H.R. 5972, the House-passed bill, proposed $3.4 billion for CDF, almost $300 million

more than the President’s request and $200 million more than proposed in S. 2322. The FY2013

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) funded CDF at $3.3 billion;

after the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and sequestration, the amount available for CDF was

approximately $3.1 billion.

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, FY2012-FY2013

(in millions of dollars)

FY2013

Senate

Comm.

S. 2322/

112th)

FY2013

House

(H.R. 5972/

112th)

FY2013

Enacted:

Includes 0.2%

Rescission

but not

Sequestration

FY2013

Enacted:

Includes

Sequestration

Reductions

FY2012

Enacted

FY2013

Request

Access Board

Federal Maritime Commission

National Transportation Safety

Board salaries and National

Transportation Board

102

NAa

Amtrak Office of Inspector General

NAb

Neighborhood Reinvestment

Corporation (NeighborWorks)

215

213

225

215

204c

United States Interagency Council

on Homelessness

Related Agencies

Sources: Table prepared by CRS based on H.Rept. 112-541, the House Appropriations Committee report to

accompany H.R. 5972 (FY2012 enacted levels); the President’s FY2013 budget documents, including

Congressional Budget Justifications (FY2013 requested levels); H.R. 5972 and H.Rept. 112-541 (House-proposed

levels); S. 2322 and S.Rept. 112-157 (Senate Committee-proposed levels); the FY2014 Senate Appropriations

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Committee Report, S.Rept. 113-45 (FY2013 enacted levels); and agency operating plans (post-sequestration

enacted levels).

Notes: NA means final post-sequester funding levels are not publicly available.

The sequester reduction calculated by OMB for the National Transportation Safety Board was $5 million.

Office of Management and Budget, Report to Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013,

March 1, 2013, p. 66.

The sequester reduction calculated by OMB for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of

Inspector General was $1 million. Office of Management and Budget, Report to Congress on the Joint

Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013, March 1, 2013, p. 66.

The NeighborWorks FY2013 Operating Plan, available at http://www.nw.org/network/aboutUs/policy/

documents/FY2013OperatingPlan.pdf.

The sequester reduction calculated by OMB for the Interagency Council on Homelessness is $500,000 or

less. Office of Management and Budget, Report to Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year

2013, March 1, 2013, p. 68.

Selected Budget Issues

NeighborWorks America and the National Foreclosure Mitigation Program

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, commonly known as NeighborWorks America, is

a government-chartered non-profit corporation that supports a variety of community revitalization

activities such as generating investment in communities and providing training and technical

assistance related to affordable housing. In addition to its regular annual appropriation, since

2008 NeighborWorks has also received additional funding to distribute to housing counseling

organizations to use solely for foreclosure prevention counseling. This program is known as the

National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program (NFMCP).32

In FY2012, NeighborWorks received a total of $215.3 million: a regular annual appropriation of

$135 million, of which $5 million was to be used for a multifamily rental housing program, and

an additional $80 million for the NFMCP.

The President’s FY2013 budget request included $213 million for NeighborWorks, a decrease of

just over $2 million from FY2012. This included a regular annual appropriation of $127 million,

a decrease of more than $8 million from the FY2012 enacted level, and $86 million for the

NFMCP. The Senate committee-passed bill proposed funding NeighborWorks at the same level as

FY2012: $135 million for its regular activities and $80 million for the NFMCP. The Housepassed bill proposed increasing funding for NeighborWorks to $225 million. Of that amount, $80

million was designated for the NFMCP. The FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing

Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) funded NeighborWorks at the FY2012 level, including funding

for the NFMCP, of $215.3 million. The application of the across-the-board rescission in P.L. 1136 reduced funding to $214.9 million,33 and sequestration reduced funding to $204.1 million.34

For more information on the NFMCP, see CRS Report R41351, Housing Counseling: Background and Federal Role,

by (name redacted).

S.Rept. 113-45.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, NeighborWorks America Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds

Comparison of FY2013 Justification to FY2013 Operating Plan, http://www.nw.org/network/aboutUs/policy/

documents/FY2013OperatingPlan.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Appendix.

Composition of the THUD Funding Bill

Budget Concepts Relevant for THUD

The numbers cited in discussions of the THUD appropriations bills 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.35 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

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.

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

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: FY2013 Appropriations

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, or offset in some way.

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.

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 A-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 (about two-thirds in

FY2012). However, as shown in Figure A-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.

Figure A-1. Allocation of THUD Net

Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2012

DOT

HUD

Related Agencies

Figure A-2. Allocation of THUD Total

Budgetary Resources (Including

Contract Authority), FY2012

DOT

HUD

Related Agencies

0.7%

34.0%

65.3%

Source: Prepared by CRS based on information

available in S.Rept. 112-157.

0.3%

34.2%

65.4%

Source: Prepared by CRS based on information

available in S.Rept. 112-157.

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.

Congressional Research Service

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

As shown in Table A-1, in FY2012, without rescissions and offsets, it would have “cost” the

THUD Subcommittee an additional $6 billion to provide the same amount of appropriations.

Table A-1. Budget Savings in FY2012 THUD Appropriations Bill

(in millions of dollars)

Components of THUD Budget Authority

FY2012

New Appropriations (Including Advance Appropriations)

$66,668

Savings

$-6,356

Rescissions of Prior Year Funding

$-530

Rescissions of Contract Authority

$-1

Offsetting Collections and Receipts

$-5,826

Total Net Budget Authority

$57,312

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on Comparative Statement of New Budget (Obligational) Authority for

Fiscal Year 2012 and Budget Estimates and Amounts Recommended in the Bill For Fiscal Year 2013, S.Rept. 112157. Figures include emergency funding.

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.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Housing Policy

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

(name redacted)

Specialist in Housing Policy

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

(name redacted)

Analyst in Transportation Policy

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

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise

Name

Phone

General DOT funding, passenger rail,

NHTSA, FMCSA, surface transportation

safety and security

D. Randall Peterman

7-....

Aviation safety, aviation security, Federal

Aviation Administration,

(name redacted)

E-mail

Transportation

Congressional Research Service

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Area of Expertise

Name

Phone

Airport Improvement Program, Federal

Highway Administration, transportation

trust funds

(name redacted)

Federal Railroad Administration, freight

transportation, Maritime Administration,

Surface Transportation Board

(name redacted)

Federal Transit Administration, surface

transportation policy

(name redacted)

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Public Housing, Section 8 rent assistance,

(project-based and vouchers), general HUD

funding

(name redacted)

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Community Development, including CDBG

(name redacted)

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

FHA, HOME, Housing Counseling,

NAHASDA

(name redacted)

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Section 202 and Section 811, homelessness

assistance, including HOPWA

(name redacted)

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Neighborhood Reinvestment

Corporation/NeighborWorks

(name redacted)

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Interagency Council on Homelessness

(name redacted)

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

United States Access Board

(name redacted)

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Amtrak IG

D. Randall Peterman

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Federal Maritime Commission

(name redacted)

7-....

E-mail

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Housing and Urban Development

Related Agencies

Congressional Research Service

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

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.