Jerry Nadler: “The States that have greater needs and greater populations would not be substantially benefited and treated…”

“The States that have greater needs and greater populations would not be substantially benefited and treated substantially more fairly under the substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia. Compare: Washington would only lose $28 million instead of $35 million. Is $7 million substantial? It would still lose $28 million from what it should get. Virginia would lose $18 million instead of $27 million. New York would lose $270 million. It is better than $318 million, but still $270 million. Unfair. Illinois would lose $63 million. Better than $83 million. California would lose $155 million. A little better than $186 million, but still $155 million less than it should get. Georgia, $14 million; Florida, $3 million. The sum and substance, Mr. Chairman, is that most States, the majority of States, 26 States, would be treated unfairly under this amendment and under the substitute. Six States would gain. There is no reason for that other than a desire to protect the States which have relatively less need, and in this era of fiscal stringency, where we are going to be cutting down the funds appropriated pursuant to this appropriations bill, we should not treat the States unfairly.”