mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time . 
mr. speaker , i will be voting against the previous question on the rule , and after the bill is considered , unless it is substantially changed , i will be intending to vote against the bill itself for a variety of reasons . 
my main reason is this bill represents gross negligence of our responsibility to clean up the nation 's air and water pollution . 
this bill provides huge cuts , 40 percent cuts over a 2-year period in the clean water revolving fund . 
if there is any member of this chamber who has a district that does not have a community that needs more loans to fix their sewer and water problems , would you please raise your hand . 
i would like to see one member who thinks that they have enough money . 
i note no member of the house present has raised his hand . 
mr. speaker , i would say there is a great deal of hypocrisy surrounding the budget process . 
every time that those of us on this side of the aisle point to the shortcomings in the budget that the republican majority has just passed , we hear , `` well , we ca n't do anything about these shortages in the appropriation bills because , after all , we have limited resources. '' the gentleman who just spoke , the gentleman from utah , said the appropriations process , quote , `` should prioritize our needs. '' i fully agree . 
that is what i wanted to be able to try to do by offering an amendment which this rule would preclude me from offering . 
because what i wanted to do is to change the judgment , change the priority judgment that the majority party made when they decided it was more important to give a $ 140 , 000 tax cut to someone who makes a million bucks this year , they decided that was more important , that was a higher priority , than cleaning up our air or cleaning up our water . 
i do not think that represents the priority choice that the american people would make but it is the priority choice that the majority party has made . 
the only way that we can change that priority judgment is by offering the amendment that i wanted to offer , which would have scaled back the size of those tax cuts for anybody making a million dollars a year or more . 
it would have scaled back those average tax cuts from $ 140 , 000 to $ 138 , 000 . 
imagine those poor souls having to get by with a tax cut of only $ 138 , 000 . 
i remind you , those are people who make more than a million dollars . 
i do not begrudge , i do not denigrate in any way people who have managed to strike it rich and who are managing to make a million dollars a year . 
i hope everybody in this country at some point in their lives can do that . 
but i do believe that people who are the most blessed in our society ought to pay their fair share and the budget resolution which was imposed on this committee by this house does not allow us to reach that kind of fair distribution of tax burden . 
so if we object to that what i regard to be not just ill-advised but immoral allocation of resources , the only device that we have to try to change that is to try to make our point on each of these appropriation bills trying to get the majority party to understand that just as they reconsidered their unilateral actions on ethics committee changes a couple of weeks ago , we would also like them to reconsider their poor judgment on the budget resolution . 
because the rules committee would not allow that amendment , i am going to vote against the previous question , and i am going to vote against the bill because the bill is grossly negligent in dealing with the air and water pollution problems facing this country . 
i am also not at all thrilled by the fact that for the first time in all the years i have been in congress there will not be a single dollar provided for land acquisition programs . 
the gentleman may not want it in his state , but there are key tracts of land that we want the government to acquire in my state , there are key tracts of land we want the government to acquire , for instance , at george washington 's birthplace before real estate developers destroy that beauty for all time . 
i am an old real estate broker , so i have nothing against real estate developers but i do not think they ought to be able to get their gloms on the most pristine land in this country and turn it into a shopping mall when we have our population increase by one-third since i came to this body and when we have an increased need for resources that the average family can enjoy . 
but most of all the biggest problem with this bill is that it walks away from our obligation to help state and local governments clean up some of the dirtiest rivers and dirtiest lakes in the country . 
it walks away from our responsibility to prevent communities like milwaukee from dumping their surplus sewage into lake michigan every time there is a storm . 
that is an outrageous neglect of our stewardship responsibilities . 
i think this bill makes it even easier to ignore those responsibilities , and i think that is a disgraceful act . 
