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

Congressional research reportFeb 14, 2008

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Transportation, Housing and Urban

Development, and Related Agencies (THUD):

FY2008 Appropriations

(name redacted), Coordinator

Analyst in Transportation Policy

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Transportation Policy

February 14, 2008

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL34046

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

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

Summary

The FY2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

appropriations bill (THUD) provides funding for the Department of Transportation (DOT), the

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and five independent agencies related to

these two departments.

The Bush Administration requested $100.3 billion (after scorekeeping adjustments) for FY2008,

an increase of $300 million (less than 1%) over FY2007. DOT would receive $64.5 billion, $1.3

billion more than provided in FY2007. HUD would receive $35.6 billion, $1.0 billion less than

provided in FY2007.

A conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446) on H.R. 3074, the FY2008 THUD appropriations bill,

followed both the House- and Senate-passed versions of the bill in recommending more funding

for both DOT and HUD than requested by the Administration. The conference agreement was

published on November 13, 2007, and brought to the House floor and approved on November 14.

The President threatened to veto the conference agreement because it exceeded the amount

requested. The Senate did not take up the agreement.

On December 19, 2007, a revised THUD appropriations act was passed as Division K of H.R.

2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). Division K, the

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

2008, provided $103.6 billion (after rescissions and other adjustments) in total budgetary

resources for the agencies included in the THUD appropriations bill, $4.0 billion more than the

FY2007 level, $3.3 billion over the Administration request, and $2.2 billion less than the amount

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

HUD received $37.6 billion, $1.4 billion over the FY2007 level.

For DOT, the agreement recommended increases in the requested level for highways, transit,

Amtrak, and aviation. The agreement also included a provision included in both the House- and

Senate-passed bills that would bar FY2008 funding from being used to establish a cross-border

trucking demonstration program, which allows Mexican trucking companies to operate beyond

the commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border. DOT has announced that it would not

establish any new cross-border trucking demonstration programs, but would continue to operate

the program it established on September 6, 2007 (after passage of the House and Senate THUD

bills but before passage of the final appropriations act). For HUD, the agreement recommends

increases in the requested level for Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance, Housing for the

Elderly, Housing for the Disabled, and the Community Development Block Grant program, and

recommends funding for HUD programs that were slated for elimination in the President’s

budget. The act includes a 2% rescission applied to funding designated for projects under certain

programs whose funding is extensively earmarked.

This report will not be updated.

Congressional Research Service

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

Contents

Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1

Overview ....................................................................................................................................1

The President’s Budget Request ......................................................................................1

House and Senate Action.................................................................................................2

The Conference Agreement .............................................................................................3

The Consolidated Appropriations Act ..............................................................................3

Changing Appropriations Subcommittee Structures ...............................................................5

Transportation Appropriations .....................................................................................................7

Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues .................................................8

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ......................................................................... 12

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)..................................................................... 13

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) ................................................ 13

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ........................................... 14

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)......................................................................... 14

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)............................................................................ 15

Maritime Administration (MARAD) ............................................................................. 16

Housing and Urban Development Appropriations...................................................................... 17

Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and Key Policy Issues.................. 19

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers) ................................................... 21

Public Housing ............................................................................................................. 22

Community Development Programs.............................................................................. 23

Homeless Programs ...................................................................................................... 23

Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled....................................................... 24

Federal Housing Administration (FHA)......................................................................... 24

Tables

Table 1. Status of FY2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related

Agencies Appropriations ..........................................................................................................4

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

Appropriations, FY2007-FY2008.............................................................................................4

Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and

Related Agencies, FY2003-FY2008 .........................................................................................6

Table 4. Department of Transportation Appropriations, FY2007-FY2008 ....................................7

Table 5. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development, FY2007-FY2008 ........................... 17

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 25

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

Congressional Research Service

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

Most Recent Developments

On December 26, 2007, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R.

2764), into law (P.L. 110-161). This act incorporated 11 of the 12 FY2008 appropriations bills;

the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

2008, was included as Division K of the act. The THUD appropriations act provided $103.6

billion (after rescissions and other adjustments) in total budgetary resources, $4.0 billion more

than the FY2007 level. DOT received $65.5 billion, an increase of $2.3 billion over FY2007.

HUD received $37.6 billion, $1.4 billion over the FY2007 level.

In an exchange of amendments between the Senate and the House, Congress converted the State,

Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, 2008, into the Consolidated

Appropriations bill, 2008, and completed action on the new bill during December 17-19, 2007.

Prior to that, on November 14, 2007, the conference committee on the FY2008 THUD

appropriations bill (H.R. 3074) had reported a conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446) on

November 13, 2007, and the House had approved the agreement on November 14, 2007. The

conference agreement recommended $105.8 billion (after rescissions and other adjustments), $6.2

billion more than the FY2007 enacted funding level, and $5.5 billion over the Administration’s

budget request. The President threatened to veto the bill for exceeding the requested funding

level. The Senate did not take up the agreement.

During the period between the beginning of FY2008 (October 1, 2007) and the signing of the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Congress provided funding through a series continuing

resolutions, generally at FY2007 funding levels.

On September 12, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 3074, which provides $105.9 billion (after

rescissions and other adjustments) for transportation and housing and urban development

appropriations for FY2008. The Senate Committee on Appropriations had reported a draft of the

legislation (in the form of S. 1789) on July 16, 2007. The committee recommended a total of

$104.7 billion (after rescissions and other adjustments); $1.2 billion was added to the bill during

deliberations on the Senate floor for highway bridge repair and replacement, in response to

concerns about the integrity of bridges raised by the collapse of an interstate highway bridge in

Minnesota on August 1, 2007. This is $5.9 billion (6%) more than the comparable amount for

FY2007, and $5.6 billion (6%) more than requested for FY2008.

On July 24, 2007, the House passed H.R. 3074, which provides $104.4 billion (after rescissions

and other adjustments) in THUD appropriations for FY2008. This is $4.4 billion (4%) more than

the comparable amount provided for FY2007, and $4.1 billion (4%) more than requested for

FY2008.

Overview

The President’s Budget Request

The President’s net FY2008 request for the programs covered by this appropriations bill was

$100.3 billion (after scorekeeping adjustments). This was $300 million (less than 1%) over the

net total provided for FY2007.

Congressional Research Service

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

The DOT request was $64.5 billion, $1.3 billion (2%) more than the amount provided for

FY2007. This increase was largely for highway (net $1.7 billion increase) and transit (net $447

million increase) programs. These increases reflected the increase in the FY2008 authorized

funding level over the FY2007 level for these two programs, which receive almost all of their

funding from transportation trust funds. However, the request did not provide the full authorized

funding level: it was $631 million below the authorized level for highway programs and $309

million below the authorized level for transit programs.

The HUD request was $35.6 billion, $1.0 billion (3%) less than the amount provided for FY2007.

This reduction reflected the Administration’s continued effort to reduce or eliminate funding for a

number of HUD programs that it regards as ineffective or inefficient. Secretary Jackson’s

introductory letter to the FY2008 HUD budget summary document noted, “In a budget season

marked by the President’s goal to continue to support what works and cut the Federal budget

deficit, the FY2008 HUD budget request demonstrates an effort to prioritize funding towards

programs with measurable, documented results.”1

The Administration’s FY2008 budget request included spending reductions that had also been

proposed by the Administration in previous budget requests, without success. These proposed

reductions from FY2007 funding included roughly $1 billion from reductions in several HUD

programs and elimination of several other programs, and roughly $1 billion from cuts to several

DOT programs. Among the programs proposed for reductions or elimination were

•

DOT’s Airport Grants (-$764 million), Amtrak (-$494 million), and subsidies for

air service to small communities (-$59 million) programs;

•

HUD’s Community Development Funds (-$735 million), Housing for the Elderly

(-$160 million), and Housing for the Disabled (-$112 million) programs; and

•

HUD’s HOPE VI, Rural Housing and Economic Development, Brownfields

Redevelopment, and Section 108 Loan Guarantees programs, for which no

funding was requested (-$130 million total).

House and Senate Action

Both the House and the Senate have passed versions of H.R. 3074, the FY2008 appropriations

bill, for THUD. Both chambers rejected the Administration’s proposed reductions, and provided

increases for both DOT and HUD over both the FY2007 levels and the FY2008 requested levels.

The House-passed version of H.R. 3074 would provide a total of $104.4 billion, $4.1 billion (4%)

more than requested and $4.4 billion (4%) more than the FY2007 funding. Within that total the

bill provides $65.5 billion for DOT ($1.1 billion more than requested and $2.4 billion more than

FY2007), $38.7 billion for HUD ($3.1 billion more than requested and $2.0 billion more than

FY2007), and $235 million for the related agencies ($1 million more than requested and $12

million more than FY2007).

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3074 would provide a total of $105.9 billion, $5.6 billion (6%)

more than requested and $6.3 billion (6%) more than the FY2007 level. Within that total, the bill

provides $66.9 billion for DOT ($2.4 billion more than requested and $3.8 billion more than the

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

Congressional Research Service

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

FY2007 level), $38.7 billion for HUD ($3.1 billion more than requested and $2.1 billion over the

FY2007 level), and $235 million for the other independent agencies ($1 million more than

requested and $12 million over the FY2007 level). The Senate bill’s major funding difference

with the House bill is in providing more funding for DOT; most of that additional funding is for

repairs to bridges in response to the collapse of an interstate highway bridge in Minnesota after

passage of the House version of the bill.

The Conference Agreement

The conference agreement on H.R. 3074 recommended a total of $105.8 billion. This is $5.5

billion (6%) more than requested and $6.2 billion (6%) more than the FY2007 enacted level. The

agreement recommends $66.7 billion for DOT, $2.2 billion more than requested and $3.5 billion

more than provided in FY2007. The conferees recommended $38.7 billion for HUD, $3.1 billion

more than the budget request and $2.4 billion more than the amount provided in FY2007.

The conference agreement was reported on November 13, 2007. It was brought to the House floor

on November 14, 2007, and approved by a vote of 270-147 later that day. The primary topics of

discussion during consideration of the agreement had to do with the time available to review the

bill and additions made by conferees. Some members complained that not only had the rule that

members should be given three days to review a bill before voting on it been waived, but also that

the informal practice that members be given at least 24 hours to review a bill was being ignored.

There were also criticisms of the number of earmarks in the bill, and of the addition by conferees

of some earmarks that had not been in either the House- or Senate-passed versions of the bill (a

practice known as “air-dropping” earmarks).

Complaints were also voiced about a provision (Section 193) added by conferees that would

prohibit any funds in the agreement from being used to provide budget justifications to any

congressional committee, other than the appropriations committees, prior to May 31, 2008. In

2006, the Office of Management and Budget began directing agencies to make their budget

justifications available to the public, and to post the justifications on the Internet, within two

weeks of the transmittal of those materials to Congress in early February. A similar provision was

inserted in the conference agreement on the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban

Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act

of 2006 (TTHUD) (P.L. 109-115, Section 182), and was added to the Senate-passed version of the

FY2007 TTHUD appropriations bill (H.R. 5576); that bill was never passed by the Senate, and

the prohibition was not included in the continuing resolution that provided funding for those

agencies for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5).

The President issued a Statement of Administration Policy on the conference agreement,

threatening to veto the bill for exceeding the level of funding requested by the Administration.

The margin of passage of the bill in the House was less than the two-thirds majority that would be

required to override a veto.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act

In December 2007, with 11 unfinished appropriations bills, including the THUD bill, several of

which faced veto threats from the President for exceeding the level of funding requested in the

Administration budget proposal, Congress decided to combine the unfinished appropriations bills

into one consolidated appropriations act. The legislative vehicle used was H.R. 2764, originally

Congressional Research Service

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

the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008. The

THUD appropriations act became Division K of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. After

negotiations with the Administration over the total level of spending in the bill, Congress agreed

to reduce the overall level of spending in the bill, leaving it up to each appropriations

subcommittee to achieve the agreed-upon reduction. The THUD committee did so through

rescission of contract authority in certain programs and a 2% rescission applied to the earmarked

projects in the bill (see sections 129 and 186 in Title I, and under the heading “Community

Development Fund” in Title II).

Table 1 notes the status of the FY2008 THUD appropriations bill.

Table 1. Status of FY2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and

Related Agencies Appropriations

Subcommittee

Markup

Bill

House

H.R.

3074

6/11/07

House

Report

House

Passage

7/10/07

—

Senate

Passage

Conf.

Report

Senate

H.Rept.

110238

S.Rept.

110131

7/24/07

268-153

7/18/07

H.R.

2764

Senate

Report

—

Conference

Report

Approval

Public

Law

House

Senate

9/12/07

88-7

110-446

11/13/07

11/14/07

270-147

—

12/18/07

76-17

12/17/07a

—

12/26/07

P.L. 110161

7/16/07

12/17/07

253-154

An explanatory statement was published in the Congressional Record on December 17, 2007, accompanying

the House amendment that transformed H.R. 2764 into the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008.

Section 4 of the House amendment specified that the accompanying explanatory statement would have the

same effect as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a committee of conference (Congressional Record,

December 17, 2007, Book II, H15741). The explanatory statement for the THUD appropriations act is

Division K of the explanatory statement, located in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, Book III,

H16458-H16640. The text of the act and the explanatory statement for Division K is also available in a

committee print published by the House Committee on Appropriations in January 2008.

Table 2 lists the total funding provided for each of the titles in the bill for FY2007 and the

amount requested for that title for FY2008.

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

Appropriations, FY2007-FY2008

(millions of dollars)

Title

Title I: Department of

Transportation

Congressional Research Service

FY2007

Enacted

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

FY2008

Senate

FY2008

Conf

(H.R. 3074)

FY2008

Enacted

(H.R.

2764)

$63,181

$64,479

$65,542

$66,913

$66,712

$65,527

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

FY2007

Enacted

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

FY2008

Senate

FY2008

Conf

(H.R. 3074)

FY2008

Enacted

(H.R.

2764)

Title II: Housing and Urban

Development

36,633

35,597

38,666

38,737

38,659

37,637

Title III: Related Agencies

223

234

235

435

415

$100,038

$100,310

$104,444

$105,885

$105,806

$103,579

Title

Total

Source: Budget table provided by the House Appropriations Committee and published in connection with the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. A budget table for the THUD appropriations act was published at the

end of Division K of the explanatory statement in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2007, pps.

H16632-H16640. However, there are some inconsistencies between the figures in that table and with the

funding levels set by the legislative text as printed in the Congressional Record on the same date. However, the

account-level budget table included in Division K of the joint explanatory statement published in the committee

print on H.R. 2764 by the House Committee on Appropriations in January 2008 is correct (see note in Division

K, page 2589, of the committee print). Thus, for THUD figures the table in the committee print should be used

in place of the table printed in the Congressional Record. This table is on pp. 2590-2612 of the committee print,

available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/appropriations/08conappro.html. “Total” represents total

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

adjustments.

Changing Appropriations Subcommittee Structures

Since 2003, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have reorganized their

subcommittee structure three times. In 2003, a new subcommittee (Homeland Security) was

added; in order to maintain the existing number of subcommittees at 13, the Transportation

appropriations subcommittees were combined with the Treasury, Postal Service, and General

Government appropriations subcommittees, becoming the Subcommittees on Transportation,

Treasury, and Independent Agencies.

In early 2005, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations again reorganized their

subcommittee structures. The House Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of

subcommittees from 13 to 10. This change included combining the Transportation, Treasury, and

Independent Agencies subcommittee with the District of Columbia subcommittee; to the resulting

subcommittee, in addition, jurisdiction over appropriations for the Department of Housing and

Urban Development and the Judiciary, as well as several additional independent agencies, was

added. The subcommittee was then known as the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury,

Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies

(or TTHUD).

The Senate Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of subcommittees to 12. The Senate

also added jurisdiction over appropriations for the Departments of Housing and Urban

Development and the Judiciary to the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies

subcommittee. The Senate retained a separate District of Columbia Appropriations subcommittee.

As a result, the areas of coverage of the House and Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction over

this appropriations bill were almost, but not quite, identical; the major difference being that in the

Senate the appropriations for the District of Columbia originate in a separate bill.

At the beginning of the 110th Congress in 2007, the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations again reorganized their subcommittee structures. The House and Senate

Congressional Research Service

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

committees divided the responsibilities of the TTHUD subcommittees between two

subcommittees: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

(THUD); and Financial Services and General Government, whose jurisdiction included the

Treasury Department, the Judiciary, the Executive Office of the President, the District of

Columbia, and many of the independent agencies formerly under the jurisdiction of the TTHUD

subcommittees.

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

Development appropriation bills complex, as their appropriations appear in different bills in

combination with various other agencies. Other factors, such as supplemental appropriations for

response to disasters (such as the damage caused by the Gulf Coast hurricanes in the fall of 2005)

and changes in the makeup of the Department of Transportation (portions of which were

transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in 2004), also complicate comparisons of

year-to-year funding. Table 3 shows funding trends over the five-year period FY2003-FY2007,

and the amounts requested for FY2008, for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and

Urban Development. The purpose of Table 3 is to indicate trends in the funding for these

agencies, so emergency supplemental appropriations are not included in the figures. The agencies

generally experienced funding increases during the period FY2003-FY2007.

Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and

Related Agencies, FY2003-FY2008

(billions of current dollars)

Department

FY2003a

FY2004b

FY2005c

FY2006d

FY2007

FY2008

Request

FY2008

Enactede

Title I: Transportationf

$55.7

$58.4

$59.6

$59.5

$63.2

$64.5

$65.5

Title II: Housing and

Urban Development

31.0

31.2

31.9

34.0

36.2

35.6

37.6

Source: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Comparative Statement of

Budget Authority tables from fiscal years 2003 through 2008. Figures for FY2006 do not reflect emergency

appropriations.

FY2003 figures reflect a 0.65% across-the-board rescission.

FY2004 figures reflect a 0.59% across-the-board rescission.

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

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

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

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

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

FY2008 figures do not reflect a 2.0% rescission applied to most programs with designated earmarks.

Figures for Department of Transportation appropriations for FY2003 have been adjusted for comparison

with FY2004 and later figures by subtracting the United States Coast Guard, the Transportation Security

Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Architectural and Transportation

Barriers Compliance Board, and by adding the Maritime Administration.

Congressional Research Service

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

Transportation Appropriations

Table 4. Department of Transportation Appropriations, FY2007-FY2008

(in millions of dollars; totals may not add)

FY2007

Enacted

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

FY2008

Senate

FY2008

Enacted

$171

$96

$150

$160

$157

109

110

Operations (trust fund & general fund)

8,374

8,726

8,717

8,762

8,740

Facilities & Equipment (F&E) (trust fund)

2,516

2,462

2,515

2,517

2,514

Grant-in-aid for Airports (AIP) (trust fund) (limit. on

oblig.)

3,515

2,750

3,600

3,515

Research, Engineering & Development (trust fund)

130

140

149

147

14,482

14,077

14,622

14,593

14,604

39,086

39,585

40,216

41,216

(Exempt Obligations)

739

Additional funds (trust fund)

—

Additional funds (general fund)

—

Rescissions of contract authority

(4,343)

(2,000)

(3,385)

(3,121)

(4,107)

36,255

37,915

37,565

39,070

38,068

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

(FMCSA)

517

528

531

530

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA)c

821

833

813

815

1,478

1,081

1,667

1,657

1,561

1,294

800

1,450

1,370

1,325

General Funds

1,747

1,550

1,838

1,692

1,590

Capital Investment Grants (New Starts)

1,566

1,400

1,700

1,566

1,569

Trust Funds

7,263

7,872

7,873

7,768

8,975

9,422

9,710

9,565

9,358

St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Maritime Administration (MARAD)d

214

295

292

326

307

Pipeline safety program

Emergency preparedness grants

Department or Agency (Selected Accounts)

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

Essential Air Servicea

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Subtotal, FAA

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

(Limitation on Obligations)

Subtotal, FHWAb

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

Amtrak

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

Subtotal, FTA

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

(PHMSA)

Congressional Research Service

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

FY2007

Enacted

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

FY2008

Senate

FY2008

Enacted

134

148

154

156

154

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

(RITA)

Office of Inspector General

Surface Transportation Board

$63,181

$64,479

$65,542

$66,913

$65,527

Department or Agency (Selected Accounts)

Subtotal, PHMSA

Total, Department of Transportation

Source: Figures are from a budget table published by the House Appropriations Committee in a committee

print combining the text and explanatory statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R.

2764/P.L. 110-161). Because of differing treatment of offsets, the figures for “FY2008 Request” will not always

match the Administration’s budget figures from other sources. The figures within this table may differ slightly

from those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns may

not add due to rescissions, rounding, and exclusion of smaller program line-items.

The total comes from a $50 million annual authorization for the Essential Air Service program to be funded

out of overflight fee collections and an additional amount appropriated for the program.

FHWA was appropriated $39.8 billion for FY2007. The $36.3 billion figure represents the budgetary total

after subtraction of a $3.5 billion rescission of previously provided contract authority and the transfer of

$121 million to NHTSA. The House and Senate committees recommended $41.0 billion for FHWA for

FY2008; rescissions of contract authority resulted in those proposals being scored as $37.6 billion and $37.9

billion, respectively.

The House and Senate committees recommended $836 million and $835 million, respectively, in new

funding for NHTSA; those totals were reduced by rescissions of unobligated contract authority.

MARAD was appropriated $291 million for FY2007. The $214 million figure represents the budgetary total

after subtraction of a $74 million rescission of previously appropriated funds for the National Defense Tank

Vessel Program.

Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues

The President’s FY2008 budget proposed a total of $64.5 billion for the Department of

Transportation (DOT).2 This was $1.3 billion (2%) more than the $63.2 billion enacted for

FY2007. The major funding changes requested from the FY2007 enacted levels were

•

an increase of $500 million (1%) in the obligation limitation for highways and

$447 million (5%) for transit, reflecting the authorized levels in the Safe,

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

(SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59);

•

an increase of $12 million (10%) for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials

Administration, reflecting a requested increase in grants to states for emergency

preparedness;

•

an increase of $4 million (55%) for the Research and Innovative Technology

Administration;

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

Congressional Research Service

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

•

decrease of $765 million (-22%) in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport

Improvement Program, similar to a requested decrease for FY2007 that was

rejected by Congress;

•

a decrease of $494 million (-38%) in the request for Amtrak, similar to a

requested decrease for FY2007 that was rejected by Congress; and

•

a decrease of $59 million (-54%) in funding for the Essential Air Service

Program.

The Administration request also proposed restructuring the FAA budget, reflecting the

Administration’s reauthorization proposal for the FAA.

Both chambers have passed bills providing a higher level of DOT funding than requested by the

Administration: $65.5 billion ($1.1 billion more) by the House and $66.9 billion ($2.4 billion

more) by the Senate. The major difference between the House and Senate totals is that the Senate

version provides an additional $1 billion for the FHWA’s Bridge Repair and Replacement

Program and an additional appropriation of up to $195 million for emergency funding to

Minnesota, both in response to the collapse of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis on August

1, 2007. Neither chamber supported the Administration’s requested decreases in the various

transportation accounts. Nor did either chamber’s bill reflect the proposed restructuring of the

FAA budget, as Congress is still considering the reauthorization of the FAA. Among the largest

increases over the requested levels were those for the FHWA Bridge Program ($1 billion by the

Senate), the FAA Aviation Improvement Program ($850 million by the House, $765 million by

the Senate), and for Amtrak ($600 million by the House, $570 million by the Senate), and the

inclusion by both of a $631 million increase in funding for the federal-aid highway program

(authorized by the Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) mechanism included in

SAFETEA-LU).

Conferees reported a conference agreement on the bill on November 13, 2007. The conference

committee recommended $66.7 billion for DOT. This is $3.5 billion more than the amount

enacted for FY2007 and $2.2 billion more than the Administration request for FY2008. The

agreed-upon increases include an additional $1 billion for highway bridge repair and replacement

and an additional $631 million reflecting the RABA adjustment to the authorized funding level

for the federal highway program; an additional $750 million for the FAA airport grant program,

restoring the cut proposed by the budget request; and an additional $475 million for Amtrak (the

budget requested a $394 million cut from the FY2007 level). This agreement was approved by the

House on November 14, 2007, but was not taken up in the Senate.

Congress passed an FY2008 THUD appropriations act as Division K of the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161). The THUD appropriations act provided

$65.5 billion for DOT, $2.3 billion more than enacted in FY2007 and $1.0 billion more than the

Administration request, but less than the amount agreed to by the conference committee.

Compared to the Administration request, the act included the additional $1 billion for highway

bridge repair and replacement, the additional $631 million RABA adjustment, the additional $750

million for the FAA airport grant program, and an additional $425 million for Amtrak.

Congressional Research Service

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

The Administration’s budget for DOT identified three priorities of the FY2008 request:

reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a new highway congestion

initiative, and alteration of Amtrak’s spending priorities.3

FAA Reauthorization

The FAA’s authorization was scheduled to expire at the end of FY2007, but has been extended.

The Administration’s proposal for aviation reauthorization includes reform of the financial

structure of the air traffic control system, a reform reflected in the budget request for FAA. The

Administration proposal would also change the revenue sources for FAA funding.

Reauthorization of the FAA is still under consideration by Congress. (For more information about

FAA reauthorization, see CRS Report RL33920, Federal Aviation Administration

Reauthorization: An Overview of Selected Provisions in Proposed Legislation Considered by the

110th Congress, coordinated by (name redacted).)

Highway Congestion Initiative

The highway congestion initiative would redirect $175 million (largely from unused funds

previously designated by Congress for specific projects) for pilot programs in cities to test

comprehensive congestion reduction strategies, including such strategies as congestion pricing,

flexible work schedules to reduce the concentration of commuter traffic during peak rush hour

periods, and more use of real-time traffic information to encourage drivers to adjust the timing

and route of their trips in light of current traffic conditions.

The House rejected the request for $175 million for the congestion initiative, noting that DOT has

considerable discretion with regard to awarding grants from the FY2007 funding for highway and

transit discretionary programs, and that a congestion initiative should be more comprehensive in

scope than the Administrative proposal, involving other modes besides highways.

The Senate approved $136 million for the congestion initiative, but provided the funds from the

additional funding produced by the RABA mechanism, rather than by taking money from projects

previously designated by Congress.

The final THUD appropriations act directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to

provide a review of DOT’s implementation of its congestion initiative in FY2007 to the

Appropriations Committee by March 31, 2008. The act also limits the amount of FTA’s bus

program funds that DOT may use for the congestion initiative in FY2008 to not more than 10%

of the unallocated funds.4

Reducing Amtrak’s Federal Subsidy

For FY2008, the House provided $1.4 billion for Amtrak—$475 million for operating assistance

and $925 million in capital assistance and debt service—plus another $50 million for a matching

grant program to encourage state investment in passenger rail. The Senate provided $1.37 billion

United States Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, pp. 108-110.

According to FTA, a total of $96.6 million was unallocated. “FTA Supplemental Fiscal Year 2008 Apportionments

and Allocations and Program Information,” Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 28 (Monday, February 11, 2008), p. 7790.

Congressional Research Service

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

for Amtrak—$485 million for operating assistance and $885 million for capital assistance and

debt service—plus another $100 million for a matching grant program to encourage state

investment in passenger rail. Both amounts represent an increase over the $1.3 billion provided

for FY2007. The Senate also approved a floor amendment eliminating a provision in the FY2006

THUD appropriations act (P.L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2414, continued in FY2007 by P.L. 110-5, 121

Stat. 9) that prohibited Amtrak from offering discounts of more than 50% off the normal peak fare

on a route. Both of the House and Senate appropriations committees expressed concerns about

Amtrak’s failure to reach collective bargaining agreements with the majority of its workforce

since the expiration of the previous agreements several years ago, and about the role of freight

railroads in Amtrak’s poor on-time performance.

The conference agreement recommended $1.375 billion for Amtrak—$475 million for operating

assistance and $900 million for capital assistance and debt service. This is $80 million (6%) more

than the amount provided for FY2007. The conference agreement also recommended $75 million

for a matching grant program to encourage states to invest in passenger rail service. The grants

would provide a 50% federal share of the capital costs of improving existing intercity passenger

rail service and providing new intercity passenger rail service.

The final THUD act provided $1.325 billion for Amtrak—$475 million for operating assistance

and $850 million for capital assistance and debt service. This is $31 million more than the amount

provided in FY2007. The act also provided $30 million for a matching grant program to

encourage states to invest in intercity passenger rail service. The grant program would provide a

50% federal share of the capital costs of improving existing intercity passenger rail service and

providing new intercity passenger rail service.

The Administration requested $900 million for Amtrak for FY2008. This was $394 million (31%)

less than the amount provided in FY2007, and of the $900 million requested, $100 million would

not go to Amtrak directly, but to a matching grant program to encourage states to invest in

intercity passenger rail-related capital improvements. Only $300 million was requested for

operating assistance; Amtrak received $490 million in operating assistance in FY2006 and

FY2007.

Amtrak’s Board of Directors, whose current members have been appointed by the Bush

Administration, submits a separate grant request to Congress each year. For FY2008, the Board

requested $1.5 billion to maintain operations and $100 million for a matching grant program to

encourage states to make intercity passenger rail-related capital improvements.

For the past several years, the Administration has sought to force changes in Amtrak’s operations,

and in intercity passenger rail policy in general, by requesting less funding for Amtrak than is

needed to maintain Amtrak’s status quo level of operations, arguing that “only a constrained

budget will force Amtrak to change the way it conducts business.”5 In its FY2008 budget, the

Administration states that it expects “the Board’s newly-installed management to make

significant changes required to enable the company to succeed without Federal operating

subsidies.”6 In previous years, Congress has provided more funding for Amtrak than requested by

the Administration, though less than requested by Amtrak’s Board, while imposing conditions on

Amtrak in the annual appropriations bill.

United States Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222.

United States Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, p. 110.

Congressional Research Service

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

Amtrak is a quasi-governmental corporation that provides intercity passenger rail service

throughout the country and operates and maintains rail infrastructure in the Northeast. It operates

at a deficit, and requires federal support each year to continue its operations. Amtrak’s

authorization expired at the end of FY2002. Reauthorization efforts since then have been stalled

by fundamental disagreements between Congress and the Administration over the future shape of

federal intercity passenger rail policy.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

The FAA budget provides both capital and operating funding for the nation’s air traffic control

system, and also provides federal grants to airports for airport planning, development, and

expansion of the capacity of the nation’s air traffic infrastructure. The President’s budget

requested $14.1 billion for FY2008, $1.0 billion less than was provided for FY2007.7 Most of that

reduction would come from the Airport Improvement Program. Both of the House and Senate

approved $14.6 billion for FAA for FY2008, as did the conference agreement and the final THUD

appropriations act.

Airport Improvement Program (AIP)

The President’s budget proposed a cut of $764 million to AIP funding, from $3.5 billion in

FY2007 to $2.8 billion for FY2008. A similar cut was proposed by the Administration for

FY2007, but was not supported by Congress.

Both the House and Senate rejected the proposed cut. The House approved $3.6 billion for

FY2008, a $95 million increase over FY2007. The Senate approved $3.5 billion, the same amount

provided in FY2007. The conference agreement also recommended $3.5 billion; the final THUD

appropriations act provided that amount.

AIP funds are used to provide grants for airport planning and development, and for projects to

increase airport capacity (such as construction of new runways) and other facility improvements.

Some Members of Congress have expressed concern at proposed cuts in the AIP program in the

face of forecasts of growth in aviation traffic.

Essential Air Service

The President’s budget requested $50 million for the Essential Air Service program, a $59 million

(54%) reduction from the $109 million provided for FY2007. A similar decrease was proposed by

the Administration for FY2007, but was rejected by Congress. Both the House and Senate again

rejected the proposed cut, providing $110 million for FY2008. The conference agreement also

recommended $110 million; the final THUD appropriations act provided that amount.

This program seeks to preserve air service to small airports in rural communities by subsidizing

the cost of that service. Supporters of the Essential Air Service program contend that preserving

airline service to rural communities was part of the deal Congress made in exchange for

deregulating airline service in 1978, which was expected to reduce air service to rural areas.

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

of contract authority.

Congressional Research Service

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

Some Members of Congress have expressed concern that the proposed cut in funding for the

Essential Air Service program could lead to a reduction in the transportation connections of rural

communities. Previous budget requests from the current Administration, as well as budget

requests from previous Administrations, have also proposed reducing funding to this program.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

The President’s budget requested $40.3 billion in new funding for federal highway programs for

FY2008, an increase of $600 million (2%) over the comparable level of $39.7 billion provided in

FY2007.8 These increases reflect the originally authorized level of funding provided for surface

transportation programs by SAFETEA (P.L. 109-59).

The authorized level of FY2008 highway funding was increased by $631 million over its original

level as a result of higher-than-expected revenues to the Highway Trust Fund, an adjustment

provided for in SAFETEA through a mechanism known as RABA. The Administration request

did not include this additional funding. The DOT Secretary noted that the Highway Trust Account

is projected to go into deficit in FY2009 unless some preventive action is taken, and stated that

not requesting the additional $631 million authorized for FY2008 by the RABA adjustment was

one of the steps the Administration was taking to forestall the projected FY2009 deficit.9

The House approved $41.0 billion in new funding for federal highway programs for FY2008, an

increase of $1.1 billion (3%) over the comparable FY2007 amount. This represented the full

authorized level for FY2008, as increased by the $631 million RABA adjustment. The Senate

approved $42.2 billion in new funding, adding $1 billion to the FHWA bridge program and up to

$195 million in emergency funding for repair of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis,

Minnesota. The conference agreement also recommended $42.2 billion in new funding.

The final THUD appropriations act provided $42.0 billion10 in new funding and up to $195

million in emergency funding for the I-35 bridge in Minnesota. This is $2.3 billion over the

FY2007 enacted figure and $1.7 billion more than the Administration requested. The increase is

due to increases in the authorized level of highway funding (including an increase due to a RABA

adjustment that was not requested by the Administration) and $1 billion provided for inspection

and repair of highway bridges following the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minnesota.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

The Administration requested the authorized level of funding for FMCSA, $528 million. This is

$11 million (2%) over the amount provided for FY2007; $300 million of the request is for grants

to states to enforce commercial truck and bus safety regulations.

The FY2007 enacted figure and FY2008 request were reduced, for accounting purposes, by rescissions of contract

authority, resulting in net budgetary totals of $36.3 billion for FY2007 and $37.9 billion for the FY2008 request.

Testimony of Mary Peters, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, before the U. S. House of Representatives

Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related

Agencies, March 14, 2007.

The FY2008 enacted figure was reduced, for accounting purposes, by a rescission of contract authority, resulting in a

net budgetary total of $38.1 billion.

Congressional Research Service

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

The House approved $528 million, the authorized level and the amount requested by the

Administration, the Senate approved $531 million, and the conference agreement recommended

$530 million. The final THUD appropriations act provided $530 million.

Both of the House and Senate bills, the conference agreement, and the final THUD appropriations

act include a provision (Section 136) that prohibits any funds in the act from being used to

“establish” a cross-border trucking demonstration program allowing Mexican trucking companies

to operate beyond the commercial zone (a zone extending 20 miles into the United States from

the U.S.-Mexico border). The DOT had implemented such a program on September 7, 2007.

DOT continued to operate the program after passage of the FY2008 act, contending that FY2008

funding used for the program would not be used to establish the program, but to continue its

operation.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

The Administration requested $833 million for NHTSA, the amount authorized for FY2008. This

is an increase of $12 million (1%) over the amount provided for FY2007; $599 million of this

amount is for grants to states for highway safety programs to reduce deaths and injuries from

motor vehicle crashes.

The House approved $836 million in new funding, $3 million more than authorized and

requested. The Senate approved $835 million in new funding, $2 million more than the level

authorized and requested. The conference agreement recommended $838 million in new funding

($815 million after a $23 million rescission of contract authority). The final THUD appropriations

act provided $838 million ($815 million after a rescission of contract authority).

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

The Administration requested $1.081 billion for FRA for FY2008. This is a decrease of $400

million (28%) from the $1.478 billion provided for FY2007. The largest portion of FRA’s budget

is for support of Amtrak, and virtually all of the proposed reduction was in funding for Amtrak, as

discussed above. The next largest portion of FRA’s budget is for safety programs intended to

reduce railroad accidents. The Administration requested $148 million, $2 million (1%) less than

provided for FY2007. The other component of the FRA budget is research and development of

rail safety improvements. The Administration requested $32 million for this, $2 million (6%) less

than the $35 million provided for FY2007.

The House approved $1.667 billion for FRA, an increase of $188 million over FY2007 and $586

million over the Administration request. Aside from $35 million for a rail line relocation grant

program that was authorized in SAFETEA, but not previously funded, and an extra $1 million for

research and development, all of the increase over the Administration request is for Amtrak.

The Senate approved $1.657 billion for FRA, an increase of $179 million over the FY2007

funding and $577 million over the Administration request. All but $7 million of the increase over

the Administration request is related to Amtrak.

The conference agreement recommends $1.656 billion. This represents the same level of funding

as FY2007 for FRA’s safety and operations account, an increase of $1.5 million over the FY2007

funding for FRA’s research and development program, an increase of $81 million over the

Congressional Research Service

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

FY2007 funding for Amtrak, and funds for two programs that were not funded in FY2007—$75

million for a capital grant program for states to support passenger rail service and $20 million for

a rail line relocation and improvement program.

The final THUD appropriations act provided $1.561 billion. This is $83 million over the FY2007

enacted level. Most of the increase was for passenger rail activities.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

The Administration requested $9.422 billion for FTA for FY2008. This was an increase of $447

million (5%) over the amount provided for FY2007,11 but was $309 million below the authorized

FY2008 funding. The increase was in funds provided to states and localities through formula

programs. The requested reduction from the authorized funding level was in the popular New

Starts program, which helps fund the construction of new transit projects and extensions to

existing transit systems. The Administration requested $1.4 billion for New Starts, a decrease of

$166 million (1%) from the FY2007 figure and $309 million (2%) less than the authorized level

of $1.7 billion. The Administration defended the reduction in New Starts funding by saying that

difficult budget choices had to be made,12 and asserted that it had requested enough funding to

cover all the New Starts projects that were ready for funding in FY2008, as well as having set

aside funding for projects that might become ready for funding during FY2008. The request also

included $100 million for the newly created Small Starts portion of the New Starts program,

which provides funding for projects whose total cost is less than $250 million. The Small Starts

portion is authorized for $200 million for FY2008, but that program’s regulations had not been

finalized as of the publication of the Administration budget request, so the Administration did not

expect that the program would be able to make $200 million in grants in FY2008.

The House approved $9.710 billion for FTA, the authorized level for FY2008. This is $701

million more than the FY2007 level and $288 million more than the Administration request. The

House provided the $1.7 billion authorized funding level for the Capital Improvement (i.e., New

Starts) program, including the $200 million authorized for the new Small Starts portion of that

program. The House Appropriations Committee’s report on the bill recommended several

recipients for a portion of the Small Starts funding.

The Senate approved $9.565 billion for FTA, an increase of $590 million over the FY2007 level

and $143 million over the Administration request, but $134 million less than the authorized level

for FY2008. The primary difference from the House funding, and the authorized level, was the

$1.566 billion provided for the New Starts program. This is the same amount provided for

FY2007, and $166 million more than requested for FY2008, but $134 million less than the

FY2008 authorized level. The Senate committee also recommended several recipients for a

portion of the funding provided for the Small Starts component of the New Starts program. The

Senate also approved a floor amendment prohibiting FTA from finalizing its proposed New Start

evaluation rule.

The conference agreement recommended $9.649 billion for FTA. The primary difference between

this level and the levels approved by the House and Senate was the funding for the New Starts

Not counting $35 million in emergency funding provided in an FY2007 supplemental funding act (P.L. 110-28).

Funding for the New Starts Program comes from the General Fund, while almost all other FTA programs are funded

from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund.

Congressional Research Service

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

program: the House approved $1.700 billion, the Senate $1.566 billion, and the conference

agreement recommended $1.650 billion.

The final THUD appropriations act provided $9.358 billion for FTA. This is $348 million over

the FY2007 enacted level, while $358 million below the FY2008 authorized funding level (and

$320 million below the amount recommended by the conference committee). Most of the

difference from the authorized level was due to a reduction of $104 million in the amount

provided for formula and bus grants, a further rescission of $105 million of bus funding, and an

appropriation of approximately $131 million less than the authorized level provided for the

Capital Grants program.

Maritime Administration (MARAD)

The Administration requested $295 million for MARAD for FY2008, $4 million (2%) above the

$291 million enacted for FY2007.13 MARAD supports the maritime transportation sector. The

largest components of its budget are the Maritime Security Program and Operations and Training.

The Administration requested $154 million (identical to the amount provided for FY2007) for the

Maritime Security Program. This provides payments of roughly $2.6 million per ship to retain a

fleet of 60 active, militarily useful, privately owned vessels to be available to the federal

government in the event they are needed for security purposes. A total of $115 million was

requested for Operations and Training, $4 million (3%) more than the $111 million provided for

FY2007. This program funds the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, State Maritime Schools, and

MARAD’s operations.

The House approved $295 million in new funding for MARAD, $4 million more than the

comparable amount for FY2007 and equal to the amount requested for FY2008. The Senate

approved $330 million in new funding for MARAD, $39 million more than the comparable

FY2007 figure and $35 million more than requested. The increase is largely due to $20 million

provided for assistance to small shipyards and $10 million provided for loan guarantees under the

Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program; no funding was provided for either of those purposes in

FY2007, nor was any requested for FY2008.

The conference agreement recommended $313 million in new funding for MARAD for FY2008.

The final THUD appropriations act provided this amount. This is $23 million more than the

comparable amount provided for FY2007 and $18 million more than the comparable amount

requested for FY2008. These increases are largely due to additional funding provided for

MARAD’s operations and training account, $10 million provided for assistance to small

shipyards, and $5 million provided for loan guarantees under the Maritime Guaranteed Loan

Program. No funding was provided for the latter two purposes in FY2007, nor was any requested

for FY2008.

MARAD’s FY2007 enacted appropriation was scored at $214 million, the $291 million total being reduced by $76

million in rescissions of previously appropriated funding, primarily from the National Defense Tank Vessel Program.

Congressional Research Service

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

Housing and Urban Development Appropriations

Table 5. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development, FY2007-FY2008

(budget authority in billions of dollars)

FY2007

Enacteda

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

FY2008

Senate

FY2008

Conf.b

FY2008

Enactedc

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Sec. 8

vouchers; includes advance

appropriations)

15.920

16.000

16.330

16.599

16.443

16.391d

Project-Based Rental Assistance (Sec.8)

5.976

5.813

6.480

5.813

6.382

Public housing capital fund

2.439

2.024

2.439

2.500

2.439

Public housing operating fund

3.864

4.000

4.200

HOPE VI

0.099

0.000e

0.120

0.100

0.120

0.100

Native American housing block grants

0.624

0.627

0.630

Indian housing loan guarantee

0.006

0.007

Native Hawaiian Block Grant

0.009

0.006

0.009

Native Hawaiian loan guarantee

0.001

Housing, persons with AIDS (HOPWA)

0.286

0.300

Rural Housing Economic Development

0.017

0.000

0.017

Community Development Fund

(Including CDBG)

3.772

3.037

4.180

4.060

4.000

3.866

Sec.108 loan guarantee; subsidy

0.004

0.000

0.004

0.006

0.005

Brownfields redevelopment

0.010

0.000

0.010

1.970

1.767

1.704

Program

Appropriations

HOME Investment Partnershipsf

1.757

1.967

1.764g

Homeless Assistance Grants

1.442

1.586

1.561

1.586

Self-help and Assisted Homeownership

0.049

0.070

0.060

0.070

0.060

Housing for the elderly

0.735

0.575

0.735

Housing for the disabled

0.237

0.125

0.237

0.050f

Rental Housing Assistance

0.026

0.028h

Research and technology

0.050

0.065

0.058

0.061

0.051

Fair housing activities

0.046

0.045

0.046

0.052

0.050

Lead Hazard Control

0.150

0.116

0.130

0.157

0.145

Salaries and expenses

0.581i

0.654

0.643

1.206j

1.222k

1.212k

Working capital fund

0.195

0.220

0.125

0.173

0.155

Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fundl

0.013

0.016

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise

Oversightl

0.066m

0.066

Housing Counseling Assistancef

Congressional Research Service

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

FY2007

Enacteda

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

FY2008

Senate

FY2008

Conf.b

FY2008

Enactedc

FHA Expensesl

0.722

0.767

0.745

0.169j

0.169k

GNMA Expensesl

0.011

0.010

Inspector General

0.089m

0.088

0.083g

0.112

39.195

38.263

41.029

40.900

40.972

40.683

Housing Certificate Fund (Section 8)

rescission

-1.650

-1.300

-1.100

-1.250

HOPE VI rescission

0.000

-0.099e

0.000

Neighborhood Initiatives (NI) rescission

0.000

-0.050o

0.000

Economic Developments Initiative (EDI)

rescission

0.000

-0.307o

0.000

Rental Housing Assistance rescission

0.000

-0.028h

-0.038h

Section 8 Voucher rescission

0.000

-0.723d

Rescissions Subtotal

-1.650

-1.783

-1.328

-1.128

-1.278

-2.011

Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund

-0.013

-0.016

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise

Oversight

-0.066m

-0.066

Federal Housing Administration (FHA)

-0.652

-0.250

GNMA

-0.181

-0.185

-0.163

-0.366

-0.540

-0.912

-0.883

-1.035

36.633

35.597

38.666

38.737

38.659

37.637

Program

Appropriations Subtotal

Rescissions

Offsetting Receipts/Program Savingsp

Legislative Proposalsq

Offsets Subtotal

Total

Source: Prepared by CRS on the basis of the President’s FY2008 Budget documents, HUD Congressional

Budget Justifications, H.R. 3074 , H.Rept. 110-238, S.Rept. 110-131, funding tables updated for floor action

provided by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, H.Rept. 110-446, and the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).

The FY2007 year-long continuing resolution funded most accounts at their FY2006 enacted level; however,

the CR specified higher or lower funding levels for some HUD accounts.

The House-Senate conference agreement for HUD was approved by the House but never considered by

the Senate. It was replaced with a HUD funding bill included as Division K in the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2008.

The account-level funding table for Division K- Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, included in the joint explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional

Record on December 17, 2007 (beginning on page H16632), is not consistent with the funding levels set by

the legislative text as printed in the Congressional Record on the same date. However, the account-level table

included in the joint explanatory statement posted on the House Rules Committee website, prior to floor

consideration of the bill, is consistent with the legislative text printed in the Congressional Record, and is also

consistent with tables provided to CRS by the House Appropriations Committee. As a result, the table

posted on the House Rules Committee website was used in place of the table printed in the Congressional

Record.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act includes $4.158 billion in advance appropriations for tenant-based

rental assistance to become available in FY2009. An amount of $4.193 billion in advance appropriations

Congressional Research Service

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

provided in FY2007 became available at the beginning of FY2008. Of the advance appropriations provided in

FY2007 for use in FY2008, P.L. 110-161 rescinds $723 million.

The President requested that Congress rescind the amount provided in FY2007 for HOPE VI.

Housing counseling assistance is typically funded as a set-aside in the HOME account. In FY2007, it was

funded at $42 million within HOME. In recent years, including FY2008, the President’s budget has requested

that the program be funded in a separate account. Both the House and Senate bills, as well as the

conference agreement, and final enacted bill included funding for housing counseling as a set-aside within the

HOME account for FY2008. The House version of H.R. 3074 would have provided $49 million (see table

note g), the Senate version would have provided $150 million, the conference agreement would have

provided $50 million, and the final, enacted bill provided $50 million.

A floor amendment would have transferred $6.76 million from the Inspector General account to the HOME

account to be used for housing counseling assistance.

As proposed by the President, House bill, Senate bill, and conference agreement, the $28 million for rental

housing assistance would have been fully offset by a rescission of $28 million in unobligated and recaptured

balances from the rental housing assistance account. The FY2008 enacted funding bill provided $28 million

for rental housing assistance but rescinded $38 million in unobligated balances, leaving a net offset of $10

million.

The CR appropriated such sums as may be necessary to fund 50% of the cost of the statutory cost-of-living

increase approved for FY2007. The amount shown here may change if estimates of the cost of this

provision change.

The Senate-passed funding bill proposed to change the way that HUD’s salaries and expenses were funded.

Traditionally, HUD has transferred funds from FHA and GNMA to cover the agency’s management and

administrative salaries. According to the committee report, the committee has eliminated such transfers and

replaced them with direct appropriations to specific salaries and expenses accounts within each HUD

mission area in order to provide more transparency. The net funding levels for salaries and expenses and

FHA and GNMA administrative costs match the President’s request.

Similar to the Senate bill, the conference agreement would have funded HUD’s salaries and expenses

directly, at the President’s requested level, in new accounts. P.L. 110-161 funded the account using the same

structure as the conference agreement, but provided $10 million less for non-personnel expenses.

The cost of these accounts is generally covered (partially, if not fully) by offsetting receipts that are listed

elsewhere in this table.

m. The FY2007 emergency supplemental appropriations law (P.L. 110-28) provided $7 million in additional

funding for HUD’s Inspector General and authorized over $6 million in additional funding for the Office of

Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, fully offset by additional OFHEO fees.

$8.25 million for GNMA expenses is included in the HUD salaries and expenses account.

The President’s budget requested a rescission of FY2007 EDI and NI funds within the CDF account, but no

EDI or NI funds were provided in FY2007.

Estimates of offsetting receipts are subject to change.

The President proposed a series of cost-saving/revenue-increasing FHA modernization proposals, several of

which were adopted by Congress. The President’s budget also included a new $4 million legislative proposal

for HUD oversight of the Government Sponsored Enterprises, which was not adopted by Congress.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and Key

Policy Issues

On February 5, 2007, President Bush released his FY2008 budget request, 10 days before the

Congress finished work on the FY2007 spending bills by enacting a revised year-long continuing

resolution (P.L. 110-5). The FY2007 CR funded most HUD programs at their FY2006 level, but

with decreases for some programs and increases for other programs. The CR provided HUD with

more than $36.6 billion for FY2007. The 110th Congress also enacted a FY2007 supplemental

Congressional Research Service

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

funding bill, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability

Act (P.L. 110-28), which contained several provisions that made changes within the FY2007

funding levels for HUD programs. (For more details, see CRS Report RL33344, The Department

of Housing and Urban Development: FY2007 Budget, by (name redacted) et al.)

The President’s FY2008 budget requested about a billion-dollar decrease in funding for HUD.

Although the budget called for increased funding for programs for the homeless, persons with

AIDS, and first-time homebuyers, several programs were targeted for elimination (HOPE VI,

Rural Housing and Economic Development, Brownfields Redevelopment, and Section 108 Loan

Guarantees) or funding cuts (Section 202 Housing for the Elderly, Section 811 Housing for the

Disabled, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, Lead Hazard Reduction,

Fair Housing programs, and the Public Housing Capital Fund). The FY2008 funding debate was

also influenced by the ongoing decline in receipts from the Federal Housing Administration

(FHA) available to offset the cost of the budget. For FY2007, it was estimated that FHA would

generate a net surplus of more than $650 million that could offset the cost of the HUD budget; for

FY2008, the amount was estimated to be about $250 million, although legislative proposals were

offered to increase the amount. (For a more detailed discussion, see CRS Report RL34022, The

Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2008 Appropriations, by (name redacted) et

al.)

On July 11, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee approved its version of the FY2008

Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act (THUD) funding bill (H.R. 3074). The following day, the Senate

Appropriations Committee approved its version (S. 1789). Both bills would have increased

funding above the President’s request for a number of HUD programs, including Section 8 tenantbased rental assistance, Housing for the Elderly and Housing for the Disabled, and CDBG. Both

bills also would have provided funding for all programs that were slated for elimination in the

President’s budget. On July 24, 2007, the House approved H.R. 3074. Several floor amendments

were adopted that would have made administrative changes to HUD programs, but only one

amendment changed funding levels, by transferring $6.76 million to housing counseling

assistance from HUD’s Inspector General account. On September 11, 2007, the Senate began

consideration of its version of H.R. 3074 after substituting the content with the language of S.

1789. On September 12, 2007, the Senate approved the legislation after adopting several housingrelated amendments, including:

•

set-aside of $100 million in the HOME account to fund foreclosure prevention

activities;

•

transfer of $380,000 from HUD’s salaries and expenses account to the fair

housing account in order to fund the creation and promotion of translated

materials to help in serving persons with limited English proficiency;

•

a set-aside of $25 million in the HOME account to fund the American Dream

Downpayment Initiative; and

•

a transfer of $2.4 million from the Working Capital Fund to the Research and

Technology account to provide additional funding for tribal colleges and

universities.

On November 8, 2007, House and Senate conferees agreed to a FY2008 THUD funding bill. The

total for HUD in the conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446) was lower than the House and

Senate-passed levels, but higher than the President’s request. The agreement was reported on

Congressional Research Service

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

November 13, 2007, and was approved by the House on November 14, 2007. According to a

Statement of Administration Policy released by the Office of Management and Budget, the

President intended to veto the bill, since its funding level was above his request. The full Senate

never considered the conference agreement.

On December 19, 2007, Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (attached to

H.R. 2764), to fund most of the federal government, including HUD, for the remainder of the

fiscal year. The overall HUD funding level provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act is

less than originally approved by the House, Senate, or House-Senate conference committee, but is

about $2 billion higher than the President’s request. It funds most HUD programs at the levels

provided in the conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-446), although it reduces funding for some

programs, including the HOPE VI program, the HOME program, and the Community

Development Block Grant program. It also reduces funding for HUD’s Research and Technology,

Working Capital, and Management Expenses accounts. Additionally, the bill contains a rescission

of $723 million in advance appropriations for the Section 8 voucher program. The bill was signed

into law by the President on December 26, 2007 (P.L. 110-161).

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers)

The President’s budget requested $16 billion for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, a slight increase

over the $15.9 billion enacted for FY2007. H.R. 3074, as passed by the House, would have

provided $16.3 billion. The Senate-passed version of the bill would have increased funding for

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance to $16.6 billion. The conference agreement would have funded

the account between the House- and Senate-passed levels, at $16.4 billion. P.L. 110-161 funded

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance just below the conference agreement level, but also included a

rescission of $723 million, leaving the total amount available for the account at $15.6 billion.

The majority of tenant-based rental assistance funding is dedicated to voucher renewals. Since

FY2004, Congress has made changes each year in how HUD is to distribute voucher renewal

funding to public housing authorities (PHAs). For example, the FY2007 CR did not adopt the

same allocation formula that was in place in FY2006. In FY2006, PHAs were funded based on

what they had received in FY2005, with some adjustments. For FY2007, Congress directed HUD

to fund PHAs based on their actual leasing and costs from the previous 12 months, with some

adjustments.

In his FY2008 budget, the President requested that PHAs receive renewal funding using a

formula similar to the one in place in FY2006. The House-passed version of H.R. 3074 adopted a

formula similar to the one requested by the President. The committee report (H.Rept. 110-38)

noted that the committee chose not to use updated data for allocating FY2008 funding because

the committee wanted to give PHAs additional time to adjust to their FY2007 allocations before

changing the formula again, since HUD had delayed allocating FY2007 funding under the new

formula. The Senate-passed bill would have allocated funding based on PHAs’ most recent 12

months of leasing and cost data, with adjustments, similar to the formula used in the FY2007 CR.

The conference agreement would have used a formula similar to the one included in the Senate

version of the bill.

The final appropriations act, P.L. 110-161, allocates renewal funding using a different formula

from the House, Senate, or House-Senate conference agreement. Renewal funds will be allocated

to PHAs based on their leasing and cost data from the prior year, plus inflation and other

adjustments, and then reduced by the amount by which their unusable program reserves exceed

Congressional Research Service

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

7% of their FY2007 funding allocation. As noted earlier, P.L. 110-161 reduced the total funding

for renewals with a rescission of $723 million, the amount estimated to be available in unusable

agency reserves. (For more information, see CRS Report RL33929, Recent Changes to the

Section 8 Voucher Renewal Funding Formula, by (name redacted), and CRS Report RL34002,

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: Issues and Reform Proposals, by (name redacted).)

Prior to FY2008, no new vouchers—called incremental vouchers—had been funded since

FY2002. Both the House and Senate bills for FY2008 proposed funding for new incremental

vouchers targeted to certain populations. The House version of H.R. 3074 would have provided

$30 million for incremental vouchers for certain non-elderly disabled families and homeless

veterans. The Senate bill would have provided $105 million for incremental vouchers for

homeless veterans and for families with children in the child welfare system or youth

transitioning out of foster care. The conference agreement would have provided $135 million for

incremental vouchers for the same populations.

P.L. 110-161 provides $125 million for incremental vouchers for homeless veterans, families with

children in the child welfare system or youth transitioning out of foster care, and non-elderly

disabled families.

Public Housing

The President’s FY2008 budget requested a $130 million increase in funding for the public

housing Operating Fund. In recent years, HUD has not requested, and Congress has not provided,

sufficient appropriations to fund all PHAs at 100% of their Operating Fund formula eligibility.

Instead, PHAs generally receive some percentage of their eligible budgets, referred to as the

proration level. The FY2007 CR provided $3.8 billion for the Operating Fund, which resulted in a

proration of 83%. For FY2008, the President requested $4 billion ($3.99 billion for formula

grants), which is estimated to result in a proration level of just over 80%. The FY2008

appropriations law (P.L. 110-161)—as proposed in the House bill, Senate bill, and their

conference agreement—provides $200 million more than the President’s request for the

Operating Fund. (For more information, see CRS Report RS22557, Public Housing: Fact Sheet

on the New Operating Fund Formula, by (name redacted).)

For FY2008, the President requested $2 billion for the Capital Fund, a $400 million reduction

from FY2007 funding. The majority of the reduction would come from the formula grants that

HUD provides to PHAs to use to modernize their public housing. Both the House- and Senatepassed bills would have increased funding above the President’s requested level for the public

housing Capital Fund. The House bill would have funded the account at the FY2007 level ($400

million above the President’s request), and the Senate bill would have provided almost $500

million above the President’s request. P.L. 110-161—like the House-Senate conference

agreement—funds the account at the House-passed level.

For FY2008, the President again requested that Congress provide no new funds for the HOPE VI

program, and that Congress rescind the $99 million provided to the program in FY2007. P.L. 110161—like the House bill, Senate bill, and the House-Senate conference agreement—provides

funding for the HOPE VI program and does not rescind FY2007 funding, as requested in the

President’s budget. P.L. 110-161 funds the program at $100 million, which is less than the amount

proposed in the House bill and House-Senate conference agreement ($120 million), but the same

as proposed by the Senate bill.

Congressional Research Service

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

Community Development Programs

The President’s FY2008 budget recommendation for the formula portion14 of the Community

Development Block Grant (CDBG) program was approximately $3 billion, 20% less than the

$3.7 billion appropriated for distribution to entitlement communities and states in FY2007. As

approved by the House, H.R. 3074 would have provided $3.9 billion for CDBG formula grants.

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3074 would have funded CDBG formula grants at $3.7 billion.

The conference agreement would have provided $3.8 billion. P.L. 110-161 funds CDBG at $3.6

billion, less than the amount proposed by the House, Senate, or House-Senate conference

agreement.

In addition to the CDBG program, the Community Development Fund account has also been used

to fund other community development programs, including congressionally directed projects

through the Economic Development Initiatives (EDI) and Neighborhood Initiatives (NI)

programs. The President’s budget proposed eliminating funding for EDIs and NIs, characterizing

these programs as duplicative of the activities funded by the CDBG formula grant program. Both

House and Senate bills would have provided funding for EDI and NI earmarks. The Housepassed version of H.R. 3074 recommended $160 million for EDIs and $20 million for NIs; the

Senate-passed version would have provided $248 million for EDIs and $40 million for NIs. The

conference agreement would have provided $184 million for EDIs and $27 million for NIs. P.L.

110-161 provides slightly less than the conference agreement: $180 million for EDIs and $26

million for NIs.

The Administration’s budget also proposed eliminating funding for several community

development programs funded outside of the Community Development Fund account, including

Brownfields Redevelopment, Section 108 loan guarantees, and Rural Housing and Economic

Development Grants. The President’s request for no new funding for these accounts was rejected

in the House and Senate bills, as well as the House-Senate conference agreement and P.L. 110161. The House bill would have funded Section 108 loan guarantees at $3.7 million, Brownfields

Redevelopment at $9.9 million and Rural Housing and Economic Development Grants at the

enacted level for FY2007, $16.8 million. The Senate bill would have provided $6 million for

Section 108 loan guarantees, $10 million for Brownfields Redevelopment, and $17 million for

Rural Housing and Economic Development. P.L. 110-161—as proposed in the House-Senate

conference agreement—provides $4.5 million for Section 108 loan guarantees, $10 million for

Brownfields Redevelopment, and $17 million for Rural Housing and Economic Development.

Homeless Programs

The President’s budget for FY2008 proposed to increase funding for the Homeless Assistance

Grants by $144 million above the FY2007 level, to $1.586 billion. However, $25 million of the

FY2008 requested appropriation would have been transferred to the Department of Labor to fund

a Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative under the President’s request. As in past years, the Administration

also proposed to consolidate the three competitive Homeless Assistance Grants—the Supportive

Housing Program (SHP), the Shelter Plus Care (S+C) program, and the Section 8 Moderate

The CDBG program also generally receives some funding for Indian tribes and other purposes. For more

information, see CRS Report RL34022, The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2008 Appropriations,

by (name redacted) et al.

Congressional Research Service

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

Rehabilitation for Single Room Occupancy Dwellings (SRO) program—into one competitive

grant.

As passed by the House, H.R. 3074 did not include the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative, and instead

proposed to fund the homeless programs at $25 million less than the President’s request—$1.561

billion. The Senate-passed bill also did not fund the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative; however, it

would have funded the homeless programs at $1.586 billion, the same level recommended by the

President. Of that amount, $25 million would have funded a new demonstration program to

rapidly rehouse homeless families living in shelters. P.L. 110-161—as proposed in the HouseSenate conference agreement—adopts the Senate-passed funding level and includes funding for

the demonstration program. None of the funding bills considered by Congress, including P.L.

110-161, included the President’s proposal to consolidate the competitive grants. However,

separate legislation introduced in both the House (H.R. 840) and Senate (S. 1518) proposed to

consolidate the programs. (For more information about the distribution of the Homeless

Assistance Grants, see CRS Report RL33764, The HUD Homeless Assistance Grants:

Distribution of Funds, by (name redacted).)

Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled

The President’s FY2008 budget proposal for the Section 202 Housing for the Elderly program

would have reduced funding by almost $160 million (nearly 29%) from the FY2007 level, to

$575 million. The House-passed version of H.R. 3074 would have provided just under $735

million for elderly housing programs, while the Senate-passed version would have provided

exactly $735 million. P.L. 110-161—as proposed in the House-Senate conference agreement—

provides $735 million for the Section 202 program. (For more information, see CRS Report

RL33508, Section 202 and Other HUD Rental Housing Programs for Low-Income Elderly

Residents, by (name redacted).)

The President’s FY2008 budget, like that for FY2007, proposed to cut funding for the Section 811

Housing for the Disabled program nearly in half. In FY2007, the program was funded at just

under $237 million. In FY2008, the Administration’s budget requested $125 million for the

Section 811 Housing for the Disabled program. The decrease would have resulted from the

President’s proposal to stop funding the capital grants component of the program and to only fund

the rental voucher component of the program. The House-passed bill would have provided

funding at the FY2007 level (just under $237 million); the Senate-passed bill, conference

agreement, and P.L. 110-161 included $237 million for Section 811.

Federal Housing Administration (FHA)

For FY2008, the FHA account was expected to generate $250 million in offsetting receipts, which

is less than the amount of administrative expenses expected to be incurred by the account. This is

a significant change from a few years ago when the income to the insurance funds (which was

regularly in excess of $1 billion) exceeded the costs and resulted in negative appropriations for

FHA. This decline in offsetting receipts tracks FHA’s declining market share.

The President’s FY2008 budget included three legislative proposals that it estimated would

generate $362 million in budget savings. The first proposal was to remove the aggregate limit on

the number of Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs) and set the loan limit for HECMs

at 100% of the conforming loan limits, rather than allowing them to vary by area. The second

Congressional Research Service

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

proposal was to amend the National Housing Act to permit HUD to increase the loan limits on the

various multifamily housing programs by up to 170% on an area-by-area basis and by up to 215%

on a project-by-project basis. The third proposal was to increase the fee charged by the

Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) for guaranteeing mortgage-backed

securities by six basis points. P.L. 110-161—as proposed in the House bill, Senate bill, and

House-Senate conference agreement—adopted only the first two proposals, but with larger

estimates of savings ($540 million, as shown under the heading Legislative Proposals in Table 5).

The President’s budget also proposed to move several accounts from the General

Insurance/Special Risk Insurance fund to the Mutual Mortgage Insurance fund. None of the

appropriations bills considered by Congress, including P.L. 110-161, adopted the President’s

proposed transfer.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted), Coordinator

Analyst in Transportation Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Housing Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Transportation Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.g

ov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development

Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Aviation Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Analyst in Housing Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Transportation Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.g

ov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Analyst in Housing Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Transportation Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Legislative Attorney

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Transportation Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

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

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise

CRS

Div.

Name

Phone

Department of Transportation

Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration

(name redacted)

RSI

7-....

Airport Improvement Program, Transportation

Infrastructure Policy, Transportation Trust Funds

(name redacted)

Federal Railroad Administration; Maritime

Administration; Surface Transportation Board

(name redac

ted)

RSI

7-....

Airport Improvement Program, Federal Highway

Administration

(name redacted)

RSI

7-....

Surface transportation policy; transit policy

(name reda

cted)

Amtrak, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,

Federal Transit Administration, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Surface Transportation

Safety

(name redacted)

RSI

7-....

RSI

7-....

RSI

7-....

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Low-income housing programs and issues and general

HUD: Section 8, Public Housing, HOPE VI, HOME

(name redacted)

Community Development programs and issues:

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG),

EZ/EC, Brownfields redevelopment

(name redacted)

Housing programs and issues for special populations:

Elderly (202), Disabled (811), Homeless, AIDS housing

(name redacted)

Homeownership and other housing issues: FHA,

Rural, Indian housing, Fair Housing

DSP

7-....

G&F

7-....

DSP

(name redacted)

DSP

(name redacted)

ALD

7-....

Related Agencies

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board

Federal Maritime Commission

(name redacted)

National Transportation Safety Board

(name redacted)

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

(name redacted)

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

(name redacted)

7-....

RSI

7-....

RSI

G&F

DSP

7-....

ALD = American Law Division

DSP = Domestic Social Policy Division

G&F = Government and Finance Division

RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service

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.