Mr. President, the Paul amendment does reduce the aggregate authorized spending level to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2008. So basically it is going back to the 2008 levels. I am going to support the amendment because I think we have to make a start at cutting back on spending in every area of government that is discretionary and where we can make responsible cuts. However, I do want to say that the better approach, in my opinion, would be to have an overall cap on spending at the 2008 levels and then pick the priorities we must fund and take away the lesser priorities for government funding. I believe we need a more measured approach on infrastructure spending. In the case of the FAA, I would point out that the agency is funded through a mix of aviation trust fund dollars and general fund dollars. Specifically, three of the four main accounts in the FAA budget-- airport improvement, facilities and equipment, and research--are paid for entirely by the aviation trust fund.
Kay Bailey Hutchison: “Mr. President, the Paul amendment does reduce the aggregate authorized spending level to the amount appropriated in…”
On the recordFebruary 15, 2011
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses the Paul amendment related to federal spending and infrastructure funding.
Share
More from Kay Bailey Hutchison
Jan 2, 2017
Absolutely. We should reinforce our efforts to get Russia to comply with the treaty, and it is the position of the American Defense Department, State Department, that Russia is in violation.
Jan 2, 2017
NATO's door is open to all European democracies which share the values of our Alliance.
Nov 29, 2012
let me just say that is not the only thing we could do. We could change the cost of living to the chained consumer price index. That would be OK. It wouldn't get us as much of a deficit reduction over 75 years--a chained CPI--but it would…





