WASHINGTON -- In the national debate about a housing rescue, there is a surprising wild card: the lame-duck White House.

For weeks, lawmakers say, the administration has sent conflicting signals about what kind of bill it would approve, vacillating between veto threats and suggestions of flexibility.

•  The Issue: Lawmakers say the White House has sent mixed signals about what kind of housing bill it would approve.•  The Latest: Top Senate lawmakers Thursday reached an agreement in principle on a bill.•  The Background: The House passed its version of the legislation last week despite the administration's veto threat.

At least 10 officials from the Bush administration, including the president, have weighed in publicly. The muddled message is complicating Congress's task of passing a giant housing bill that will tackle everything from housing regulation to help for struggling borrowers.

Thursday, top Senate lawmakers reached an agreement in principle as they tried to cobble together a deal to satisfy all sides. (See related article.) The House passed its version of the legislation last week despite the administration's veto threat.

Democrats have combined several major housing initiatives, some of which the White House wants and others that it opposes. They have offered to create a bulked-up regulator for government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a big White House initiative. In exchange, Democrats want to expand a government program that would insure refinanced loans for distressed homeowners, an idea the White House has been hesitant to back.

On April 24, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Reuters that he was "behind the objectives" of the House bill. "We have not issued a veto threat," he said.

Two weeks later, the White House issued a veto threat, roiling Capitol Hill.

"This idea 'I'm going to veto this bill no matter what you do,' that's just infuriating to people who are struggling every day to keep their families together," Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) said after the veto threat.

Also last month, Roy Bernardi, the acting secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, sent a letter to lawmakers raising concern about the bill and saying the administration "strongly" opposed the measure, language that stopped short of a veto threat. An earlier draft of the letter was more flexible, said a person briefed on the matter, but the language later was toughened by officials from the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

"That's our job; we're supposed to be the toughen-up-the-language guys here," OMB Director Jim Nussle said.

Administration officials defend its approach, contending it has been consistent. Spokesman Tony Fratto said the White House has outlined its top housing priorities "not for weeks or months, but for years."

"The Hill knows exactly what our position has been on housing from the beginning," he said.

The Bush administration is hamstrung by key vacancies during its last months in office. On April 18, HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson stepped down, and there are two empty slots on the Council of Economic Advisers.

Moreover, because the country's economic problems have infected credit, financial and housing markets, different pockets of the Bush administration have been drawn in, making it sometimes unclear who is taking the lead.

Brian Gardner, Washington analyst for Keefe Bruyette & Woods, said the scenario "hasn't been helpful." He added: "They don't have a great history of vetoing legislation, so they have to be careful about how they threaten and in what ways."

Keith Hennessey, one of the president's top economic advisers, has become more visible recently, expressing the White House's opposition to the House plan while saying a deal could be possible.

The White House's varied messages have done little to keep congressional Republicans in line. Some have aligned themselves with the White House, convinced that the public doesn't want the government exposing tax dollars to the housing turmoil. Others, especially those facing re-election or from states hit hard by the housing downturn, have been more willing to negotiate.

"The White House has to do what the White House has to do, and we have to do what we have to do," Sen. Mel Martinez (R., Fla.) said.

Mr. Nussle, who served for 16 years in Congress, said lawmakers might not be as confused as they profess: "If you want to hear clarity, there's a lot of clarity. If you want to look for some ambiguity...you can always say there's ambiguity."

Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com and Henry J. Pulizzi at henry.pulizzi@dowjones.com

Ansal’s Husing Pot Sheme under MRTPC Sanner

Mahindras to drive into low-cost housing projects

House Passes Homeowner Aid

Democrats Face Rescue Backlash