FY2011 Appropriations: A Side-by-Side
Comparison of Key Proposals
Garrett Hatch, Coordinator
Analyst in American National Government
Marian Leonardo Lawson, Coordinator
Analyst in Foreign Assistance
March 18, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41703
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

FY2011 Appropriations: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Key Proposals

Summary
FY2011 funding levels were not enacted in the 111th Congress. Thus, the debate over FY2011
appropriations has continued into the 112th Congress. Moreover, the FY2011 spending proposals
have become a key focal point in the budget debates between the now-Republican-controlled
House of Representatives and the Obama Administration.
This report is intended to facilitate comparison of three key spending proposals for FY2011—the
Administration’s budget request, H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 to H.R. 1—to FY2010 enacted funding
levels. The report begins with a brief analysis of how each proposal may impact the federal
budget deficit. The bulk of the report consists of a funding table that details the recommended
appropriations in these proposals, by subcommittee and bill title, and compares them with
FY2010 appropriations. More detailed analysis of individual appropriations measures can be
found at CRS.gov.



Congressional Research Service

---

FY2011 Appropriations: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Key Proposals

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
FY2011 Funding Proposals and the Budget Deficit...................................................................... 1
Title-by-Title Comparison of FY2011 Proposals with FY2010 Appropriations............................. 2

Tables
Table 1. FY2010 Enacted and FY2011 Proposed Appropriations by Subcommittee and
Bill Title .................................................................................................................................. 3

Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 8

Congressional Research Service

---

FY2011 Appropriations: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Key Proposals

Introduction
The extended appropriations process for FY2011, which began with the Obama Administration’s
FY2011 budget requested in February 2010, currently revolves around two proposals, H.R. 1,
which was approved by the House on February 19, 2011, and S.Amdt. 149, offered as a substitute
proposal during Senate consideration of H.R. 1. Although both proposals were rejected by the
Senate on March 9, they are viewed by some as the starting point of final negotiations between
House and Senate leaders.1 In the meantime, the federal government has been funded through a
series of resolutions continuing funding at FY2010 levels, with adjustments and exceptions.
This report is intended to facilitate comparative analysis of the two legislative proposals and the
Administration’s budget request. The report begins with a brief analysis of how each proposal
may impact the federal budget deficit, a consideration of great importance to many lawmakers in
the current cycle. This is followed by a table depicting funding levels provided in each of the
three proposals by appropriations subcommittee and bill title, and comparing them to the FY2010
enacted appropriation.
FY2011 Funding Proposals and the Budget Deficit2
A key issue in the FY2011 appropriations debate is the impact of discretionary federal spending
on the nation’s budget deficit. The budget deficit represents the level of spending, as measured by
outlays, in excess of revenues. Appropriations acts, like those detailed in this report, provide
budget authority. The outlays for a fiscal year result from the budget authority provided in that
fiscal year as well as some budget authority provided in previous fiscal years. Included in the
outlay level are all types of spending (i.e., emergency, non-emergency, overseas contingency
operations) occurring during the fiscal year.
The budget deficit for FY2011 will be dependent, in part, on the ultimate level of discretionary
funding that is appropriated. Under the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline for FY2011,
the budget deficit is estimated at $1,480 billion. In the baseline, CBO assumes a full-year
continuation of funding in FY2011 at roughly FY2010 levels.3 The proposals analyzed in this
report provide annualized discretionary spending levels as follows:
• FY2011 President’s Budget (February 2010)—$1,415 billion4
• CBO Baseline—$1,375 billion5

1 Referring to these proposals, President Obama stated on March 11 that “both sides are going to have to sit down and
compromise on prudent cuts somewhere between what the Republicans were seeking that’s now been rejected and what
the Democrats had agreed to that has also been rejected.” The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, News
Conference by the President, press release, March 11, 2011, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/11/
news-conference-president.
2 This section was written by Mindy Levit, analyst in Public Finance.
3 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021, p. 11, available at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf.
4 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2011, The Budget, Table S-4, available at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

FY2011 Appropriations: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Key Proposals

• H.R. 1—$1,356 billion6
• S.Amdt. 149—$1,372 billion7
H.R. 1, the proposal which thus far proposes the greatest reduction to budget authority relative to
current levels, would result in a discretionary outlay level that is $19 billion under the CBO
baseline level of discretionary outlays. This reduction in discretionary outlays comprises roughly
1% of the deficit estimated under the CBO baseline. Savings from other proposals that would
produce smaller reductions in discretionary outlays would correspondingly represent a smaller
fraction of the FY2011 CBO baseline deficit. Some reductions in discretionary spending could
also affect the level of mandatory or net interest spending or the amount of revenue collected,
potentially impacting the ultimate deficit level for FY2011.
Title-by-Title Comparison of FY2011 Proposals with
FY2010 Appropriations
The table below is intended to provide a sense of how funding for federal departments and
agencies would be impacted by the different proposals, rather than the impact of each proposal on
overall budget numbers. The data represent discretionary appropriations as provided in the
respective proposals, by bill title and in comparison with the FY2010 enacted funding level. The
title and bill totals do not include scorekeeping adjustments. Rescission totals are noted as
separate line items, and are not deducted from the title totals.

(...continued)
5 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021, Table 3-1.
6 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, CBO Estimate of H.R. 1, the Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 as
Passed by the House of Representatives on February 19, 2011 Corrected, available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/
120xx/doc12075/hr1corrected.pdf.
7 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, CBO Estimate of Mr. Inouye’s Amendment #149 to H.R. 1, the Full Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12091/
Amendment149toHR1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

FY2011 Appropriations: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Key Proposals

Table 1. FY2010 Enacted and FY2011 Proposed Appropriations
by Subcommittee and Bill Title
(in billions of U.S.$)
FY2011
S. Amdt.
Req. v.
H.R. 1 v.
S.
149 v.
FY2010
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
Amdt.
FY2010

Enacted
Request
Enacted
H.R. 1
Enacted
149
Enacted
Agriculturea
Title I: Agricultural
7.38 7.43 1% 6.44 -13%
7.08 -4%
Programs
Title II: Conservation
1.01
0.97
-4%
0.86
-15%
0.88
-13%
Title III: Rural Development
2.93
2.68
-9%
2.28
-22%
2.70
-8%
Title IV: Nutrition
8.05
8.03
0%
6.89
-14%
7.26
-10%
Title V: Foreign Assistance
2.24
2.17
-3%
1.28
-43%
2.10
-6%
Title VI: Related Agenciesb
2.53
2.52
0%
2.23
-12%
2.52
0%
Title VII: General
0.38 0.01 0.01 0.01
Provisions
TOTAL
24.52 23.81 -3% 19.99 -18%
22.54 -8%
Rescissions
-0.63
-0.91

-1.89

-0.85

Total, Net of
23.89 22.90 -4% 18.09 -24%
21.69 -9%
Rescissions
Commerce-Justice-Sciencec
Title I: Dept. of Commerce
14.27
8.97
-37%
7.38
-48%
7.67
-46%
Title II: Dept. of Justice
28.28
29.74
5%
27.12
-4%
27.42
-3%
Title III: Science Agencies
25.66
26.43
3%
24.70
-4%
25.39
-1%
Title IV: Related Agencies
0.93
0.97
4%
0.86
-8%
0.93
0%
TOTAL 69.14
66.11
-4%
60.06
-13%
61.41
-11%
Rescissions
-0.77
-0.69

-1.84

-2.38

Total, Net of
68.37
65.42
-4%
58.22
-15%
59.03
-14%
Rescissions
Defensed
Title I: Military Personnel
124.17 127.67 3% 126.38 2% 126.38 2%
Title II: Operation and
Maintenance
154.25
167.88 9% 164.13 6% 163.66 6%
Title III: Procurement
104.40
111.19
7%
102.12
-2%
101.63
-3%
Title IV: Research,
Development, Test and
Evaluation
80.54 76.13 -5% 74.96 -7% 74.62 -7%
Title V: Revolving and
Management Funds
3.13
2.38
-24%
2.91
-7%
2.91
-7%
Title VI: Other Department
of Defense Programs
32.37
34.03
5%
34.31
6%
34.31
6%
Congressional Research Service
3

---

FY2011 Appropriations: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Key Proposals

FY2011
S. Amdt.
Req. v.
H.R. 1 v.
S.
149 v.
FY2010
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
Amdt.
FY2010

Enacted
Request
Enacted H.R.
1 Enacted
149
Enacted
Title VII: Related Agenciese 0.71 0.71 0% 0.65 -8% 0.65 -8%
Title VIII: General
Provisions -0.94
0.01
-101%
0.50
-153%
-0.21
-78%
Medicare Eligible Retiree
Health Care Accrualf
10.80 10.87 1% 11.02 2% 11.02 2%
Subtotal, Base Budget
509.42
530.87
4%
516.98
1%
514.97
1%
Rescissions
-1.24


-1.11

-1.21

Base Total, Net of Rescissions
508.18
530.87
4%
515.87
2%
513.76
1%
Overseas Contingency
Operations
161.03
158.08 -2% 157.68 -2% 157.68 -2%
Total, Net of
Rescissions
669.21
688.95 3% 673.55 1% 671.44 0%
Energy & Waterg
Title I: Corps of Engineers
5.45
4.88 -10% 4.90 -10% 5.23 -4%
Title II: CUP & Reclamation
1.13
1.11 -2% 1.09 -4% 1.11 -2%
Title III: Department of
27.11
29.61 9% 24.60 -9%
26.33 -3%
Energy
Title IV: Independent
0.29
0.28 -3% 0.28 -3% 0.26 -10%
Agencies
TOTAL
33.98
35.88
6%
30.87
-9%
32.93
-3%
Rescissions



-0.42

-0.35

Total, Net of
33.98 35.88 6% 30.45 -10% 32.58 -4%
Rescissions
Financial Servicesh
Title I: Department of the
13.56 14.03 3% 12.73 -6%
13.84 2%
Treasury
Title II: Executive Office of
0.77 0.76 -1% 0.65 -16%
0.73 -5%
the President
Title III: The Judiciary
6.43
6.90
7%
6.29
-2%
6.49
1%
Title IV: The District of
0.75 0.73 -3% 0.67 -11%
0.71 -5%
Columbia
Title V: Independent
4.45 4.84 9% 2.80 -37%
4.08 -8%
Agencies
TOTAL 25.96
27.26
5%
23.14 -11% 25.85 0%
Rescissions
-0.09
-0.06 -0.43 -0.43
Total, Net of
25.87 27.20 5% 22.71 -12% 25.42 -2%
Rescissions
Homeland Securityi
Title I: Management and
Operationsj 1.25
1.75
40%
1.22
-2%
1.34
7%
Congressional Research Service
4

---

FY2011 Appropriations: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Key Proposals

FY2011
S. Amdt.
Req. v.
H.R. 1 v.
S.
149 v.
FY2010
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
Amdt.
FY2010

Enacted
Request
Enacted H.R.
1 Enacted
149
Enacted
Title II: Security,
Enforcement and
Investigationsk 31.30l 31.05 -1% 30.65 -2% 31.18 0%
Title III: Protection,
Preparedness, Response
and Recovery
13.68 8.75 -36% 8.95 -35% 8.60 -37%
Title IV: Research,
Development, Training
Assessments and Services
1.92
1.99
4%
1.31
-32%
1.68
-13%
TOTAL 48.15l 43.54 -10% 42.13 -13% 42.80 -11%
Rescissions
-0.04


-0.4

-0.59

Total, Net of
Rescissions 48.11
43.54
-9%
41.73
-13%
42.21
-12%
Interior-Environmentm
Title I: Department of
11.03 11.02 0% 10.29 -7%
11.03 0%
Interior
Title II: Environmental
10.33 10.03 -3% 7.54 -27% 9.90 -4%
Protection Agency
Title III: Related Agencies
11.00
11.39
4%
10.58
-4%
10.82
-2%
Title IV: General
0.01 0.00 -100% 0.00 -100% 0.00 -100%
Provisionsn
TOTALo 32.37
32.44 0% 28.41 -12% 31.75 -2%
Rescissions
-0.10
-0.07

-0.61

-0.66

Total, Net of
32.27
32.37 0% 27.80 -14% 31.09 -4%
Rescissions
Labor-HHS-Educationp
Title I: Department of
13.55 13.97 3% 8.57 -37% 13.16 -3%
Labor
Title II: Department of
74.18 74.9 1% 64.67 -13%
72.93 -2%
Health and Human Services
Title III: Department of
64.28 67.84 6% 59.38 -8%
70.10 9%
Education
Title IV: Related Agencies
14.08
15.23
8%
12.32
-12%
14.39
2%
TOTAL 166.09
171.94
4%
144.94
-13%
170.58
3%
Rescissionsq
-0.75
-0.60 -3.63 -2.35
Total, Net of
165.33
171.34
4%
141.31
-15%
168.23
2%
Rescissions
Legislative Branchs
Title I: Legislative Branch
4.67
5.13
10%
4.46
-4%
4.50
-4%
TOTAL
4.67
5.13
10%
4.46
-4%
4.50
-4%
Rescissions





-0.05

Congressional Research Service
5

---

FY2011 Appropriations: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Key Proposals

FY2011
S. Amdt.
Req. v.
H.R. 1 v.
S.
149 v.
FY2010
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
Amdt.
FY2010

Enacted
Request
Enacted H.R.
1 Enacted
149
Enacted
Total, Net of
4.67
5.13
10%
4.46
-4%
4.45
-5%
Rescissions
Military Constructiont-Veteransu
Title I: Military
Construction 23.50
18.75
-20%
17.98
-23%
17.48
-26%
Title II: Department of
56.94w
Veterans Affairs
53.04
7% 56.73w 7% 57.51w 8%
Title III: Related Agencies
0.28
0.28
0%
0.22
-21%
0.20
-29%
Title IV: Military
Construction, Overseas
Contingency
Operations 1.40 1.26 -10% 1.26 -10% 1.22 -13%
TOTAL
78.22
77.23
-1%
76.19
-3%
76.41
-2%
Rescissions
-0.22


-0.75

-2.34

Total, Net of
Rescissions
78.00
77.23
-1%
75.44
-3%
74.07
-5%
State-Foreign Operationsx
Title I: State Department &
17.46 17.25 -1% 15.13 -13%
16.22 -7%
Related
Title II: USAID Admin.
1.66
1.70
2%
1.44
-13%
1.61
-3%
Title III: Bilateral Economic
25.03 24.58 -2% 18.05 -28% 21.65 -14%
Assistance
Title IV: Military/Security
8.27 9.96 20% 9.17 11% 8.78 6%
Assistance
Title V: Multilateral
2.65 3.31 25% 1.46 -45%
2.57 -3%
Assistance
Title VI: Export Aid
-0.11
-0.14
27%
-0.03
-73%
0.07
-164%
TOTAL
54.96
56.66
3%
45.22
-18%
50.90
-7%
Rescissions



-0.19

-0.4

Total, Net of
54.96
56.66
3%
45.03
-18%
50.50
-8%
Rescissions
Transportation-HUDy
Title 1: Dept. of
Transportation 21.95
23.14
5%
16.81
-23%
19.41
-12%
Title II: Dept. of Housing
and
Urban
Development 46.23 45.61 -1% 38.99 -16%
44.91 -3%
Title III: Related Agenciesz 0.38 0.30 -5% 0.52 37% 0.52 37%
TOTAL
68.56
69.11
1%
56.32
-18%
64.83
-5%
Rescissionsaa
-0.56
-0.36

-3.95

-0.75

Total, Net of
Rescissions
68.00bb
68.81
1%
52.37
-23%
64.08
-6%
Congressional Research Service
6

---

FY2011 Appropriations: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Key Proposals

Sources: FY2012 Congressional Budget Justifications; H.R.1, as passed by the House; S.Amdt. 149 to H.R. 1,
with accompanying Explanatory Statement for Division A (Congressional Record, March 9, 2011); P.L. 111-117;
Appropriations Committee Tables (both official and unofficial); H.Rept. 111-559; H.Rept. 111-564; CBO
estimates; CRS calculations.
Notes: Totals do not include scorekeeping adjustments. FY2010 Enacted includes supplemental funds. Advance
appropriations, offsetting receipts, and anomalous features of various agency budgets are treated on a case-by-
case basis, as described below.
a. This section prepared by Jim Monke, specialist in Agriculture Policy.
b. All columns include Food and Drug Administration, but only FY2010 and H.R. 1 include Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC) ($168 million in FY10 and $112 million in H.R. 1); Senate jurisdiction for
CFTC is Financial Services subcommittee.
c. This section prepared by Nathan James, analyst in Crime Policy.
d. This section prepared by Stephen Daggett, specialist in Defense Policy and Budget, and Pat Towell, specialist
in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget.
e. Excludes $292 million in mandatory funding for related agencies that is subject to appropriation.
f.
Amount shown for Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Accrual is a permanent appropriation.
g. This section prepared by Carl Behrens, specialist in Energy Policy.
h. This section prepared by Garrett Hatch, analyst in American National Government.
i.
This section prepared by Jennifer Lake, section research manager for the Federalism and Emergency
Management Section. Totals include contingency funds and funds marked for defense functions.
j.
Amounts are net of offsetting receipts.
k. FY2010 Title II and DHS discretionary totals do not include $1,361 million in mandatory Coast Guard
Military Retirement Fund. Neither the FY2011 request, H.R. 1, nor the S.Amdt. 149 totals for Title II and
DHS include $1,401 million in appropriated mandatory funding for the Coast Guard Military Retirement
Fund.
l.
Includes supplemental appropriations contained in P.L. 111-230 and P.L. 111-242.
m. This section prepared by Carol Hardy-Vincent, specialist in Natural Resources Policy.
n. H.R. 1 and S.Amdt. 149 both include $2 million for General Provisions, which rounds to zero.
o. Includes offsetting receipts.
p. This section prepared by Pamela Smith, analyst in Biomedical Policy. Advance appropriations are included in
the title totals.
q. H.R. 1 provides that unobligated funds appropriated for FY2011 to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
in the FY2009 Labor-HHS-Education appropriation be rescinded, but no amount is specified.
r. Includes $242 million in supplemental funding from P.L. 111-212 and -$143 million in rescissions for ED
from P.L. 111-226.
s. This section prepared by Ida Brudnick, analyst on the Congress.
t. This section prepared by Dan Else, specialist in National Defense.
u. This section prepared by Christine Scott, specialist in Social Policy.
v. Does not include advance funding.
w. Includes $48.18 billion in advanced funding from P.L. 111-117.
x. This section prepared by Susan Epstein, specialist in Foreign Policy, and Marian Lawson, analyst in Foreign
Assistance.
y. This section prepared by Maggie McCarty, specialist in Housing Policy, and Randy Peterman, analyst in
Transportation Policy. Advance appropriations, offsetting collections and receipts are included in title totals.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

FY2011 Appropriations: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Key Proposals

z. The Related Agencies figures subsequent to the FY2011 request include the additional expense of a policy
change made by Section 146 of the original FY2011 CR (P.L. 111-242).
aa. Rescission of contract authority under DOT is included.
bb. Includes $100 million in supplemental funding for HUD and -$69 million in rescissions for DOT, which were
included in a supplemental funding bill, P.L. 111-212.


Author Contact Information

Garrett Hatch, Coordinator
Carol Hardy Vincent
Analyst in American National Government
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
ghatch@crs.loc.gov, 7-7822
chvincent@crs.loc.gov, 7-8651
Marian Leonardo Lawson, Coordinator
Pamela W. Smith
Analyst in Foreign Assistance
Analyst in Biomedical Policy
mlawson@crs.loc.gov, 7-4475
psmith@crs.loc.gov, 7-7048
Mindy R. Levit
Ida A. Brudnick
Analyst in Public Finance
Analyst on the Congress
mlevit@crs.loc.gov, 7-7792
ibrudnick@crs.loc.gov, 7-6460
Jim Monke
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in National Defense
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664
delse@crs.loc.gov, 7-4996
Nathan James
Christine Scott
Analyst in Crime Policy
Specialist in Social Policy
njames@crs.loc.gov, 7-0264
cscott@crs.loc.gov, 7-7366
Stephen Daggett
Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets
Specialist in Foreign Policy
sdaggett@crs.loc.gov, 7-7642
sepstein@crs.loc.gov, 7-6678
Pat Towell
Maggie McCarty
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
Specialist in Housing Policy
ptowell@crs.loc.gov, 7-2122
mmccarty@crs.loc.gov, 7-2163
Carl E. Behrens
David Randall Peterman
Specialist in Energy Policy
Analyst in Transportation Policy
cbehrens@crs.loc.gov, 7-8303
dpeterman@crs.loc.gov, 7-3267
Jennifer E. Lake

Section Research Manager
jlake@crs.loc.gov, 7-0620


Congressional Research Service
8

---