Sherwood Boehlert: “some Members have argued that we should include portions of regional or national significance under minimum guarantee.…”

“some Members have argued that we should include portions of regional or national significance under minimum guarantee. These projects by definition are vital to the Nation as a whole and should not impact formula distribution to the States. Let me give you a classic example. Whether you are on the west coast in Oregon or the east coast in the Port of New York-New Jersey, we have a problem. It is called the congestion in the hub in Chicago. You have got to do something. I want to put a lot of money in Chicago to solve that problem. Does that mean because we are dealing with a problem of national significance we should penalize Illinois and have it taken from its allocation? Of course not. This is a Nation. We are dealing as a Nation. We are not just dealing in little individual States. When I look at this Isakson amendment, it is almost like a roll call of a who's-who of States. State after State would lose under this. Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, it goes on and on and on. Mr. Chairman, this does not make sense. We are a national legislative body, not a State legislative body. Let me tell the gentleman from Florida about fairness. I have the highest regard for him, but New Yorkers are not treated fair in so many different categories. I could make a persuasive argument. The gentleman treats us fair, I know it; but we send more than $20 billion to Washington than we get back. Do we complain?…”