Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations to the crew members of the Sugar Island ferry in Sugar Island, MI for their outstanding service to the community. Each year, civic groups on Sugar Island choose an individual to recognize his or her contributions to the community. This year, however, the entire crew of the Sugar Island ferry was chosen to be honored for their enormous efforts for the betterment of the Sugar Island community. The first regularly scheduled ferry to bring cars to Sugar Island was the Service, which began operation on July 1, 1928. On that day, 30 automobiles were transported from the island to the mainland of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. It cost 45 cents for cars and 15 cents for foot passengers to be carried across St. Mary's River. In addition to cars and trucks, the ferry also carried horse-drawn wagons during this period. The Service, was in use until 1932, when it was replaced by the Beaver. The Beaver ran until 1937, when a second ferry, Scow No. 1, was placed into service. Later rebuilt and named Chippewa, that ferry was in use until a larger, steel ferry with a 12 car capacity was constructed. That ferry, the Sugar Islander, built in 1947, is still in use today. The Sugar Island ferry was privately-owned by the Eastern Upper Peninsula Transportation Authority in 1979. In 1994, 252,339 vehicles were transported by the Sugar Islander. The ferry provides a vital link from Sugar Island to the city of Sault Ste. Marie in the Upper Peninsula. In addition to its regular service, the ferry goes out of its way to promptly transport emergency vehicles and ambulance, fire and police personnel for the benefit of Sugar Island residents. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the ferry is known for its outstanding service. It operates every half hour in good weather and bad, 365 days a year. The highly dedicated crew works 11-hour shifts, and I commend the crew members of the Sugar Islander, for their unfailingly courteous and reliable service. Specifically, I would like to congratulate the current members of the Sugar Island ferry, including: Tom Stevens, Brian Dynes, Dan Cairns, Paul McCoy, Derek Myerscough, Doug Bisdorf, Mike Patten, Tim Switzer, Don Soper, Jim Gort, Jr., and Rick Brown. I know my colleagues join me in honoring those crew members who enrich the lives of Sugar Island residents, as well as visitors to that Northern Michigan community.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Coast Guard bill and, in particular, the Traficant amendment to H.R. 1361. In my district in northern Michigan, it has more coast line than any other congressional district except Alaska, but yet the Coast Guard is proposing to close Station Marquette located in the middle of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and they plan there to operate a search and rescue on this vast Northern Michigan Peninsula from the extreme ends of the peninsula in Portage and Ste. St. Marie. Now the shore line of Lake Superior up there is about 500 miles long, and our search-and- rescue missions will be on the extreme ends instead of in the middle where Marquette is, and at Marquette they have a 44-foot lie boat capable of operating in the hazardous waters of Lake Superior. Now, if we are going to have to rely upon Ste. St. Marie and Portage to come over with a 44-foot boat for search and rescue from Ste. St. Marie, it takes 14 hours in a 44-foot boat, and, from Portage, 6\1/2\ hours. I know that the distinguished chairman may argue, and has argued in a Dear Colleague letter, that the Coast Guard has a nationwide system of air stations with helicopters for search and rescue which is much faster than these 40-foot boats. I would agree that the problem is in northern Michigan there are no helicopters in the Upper Peninsula. They must come from the Lower Peninsula, and then, when they finally get from the Lower Peninsula to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, they have to stop and refuel. So it seconds in search and rescues and having to wait for helicopters coming from another part of the State to try to patrol the areas of northern Michigan. In Marquette county alone there are over 8,000 recreational boaters, and we should not put these people at risk by closing down their station. Marquette is a major shipping destination. Marquette is also a major shipping destination in the Great Lakes, and more than 7\1/2\ million tons of iron ore flows from Marquette, but the Coast Guard, besides search and rescue, must also enforce our environmental laws, our law enforcement laws, fishing regulations, so it does not seem practical, at least from this point of view, that we close down Marquette, not just for search and rescue, but also for enforcement of environmental laws, pollution laws and fishing laws. So we, in the past few years, we have asked the Coast Guard to continue to expand their services. They have. It has put great strain on their budget. We understand that, but I do not think at this time we can stand here and in a straight face say we can jeopardize lives, environmental laws, law enforcement of our Nation's waters, to save a mere $3 million in a multibillion dollar budget. So I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and, more importantly, to support the Traficant amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and distinguished military officer, Brig. Gen. Rudolph F. Peksens, who is retiring this month after nearly three decades of service in the U.S. Air Force. Simply put, General Peksens epitomizes all that a military officer should be: A dedicated and knowledgeable professional known for his outstanding work and his devotion to those who served under him and to the community at large. General Peksens is a native of Boston, MA, who graduated from Tufts University in 1966 as a member of the Reserve Officers Training Corps program. Following his graduation, General Peksens enlisted in the Air Force. General Peksens has had a long and distinguished military career. He is the only Air Force officer to have flown fighter, bomber, and reconnaissance aircraft in combat. He is a command pilot with nearly 4,000 flying hours, including more than 600 hours in combat over Vietnam and Iraq. General Peksens served two combat tours in Vietnam, flying B-52's and RF-4C's. During our involvement in Operations Desert Storm and Provide Comfort, he served as vice commander and later combat missions over Iraq in the F4G Phanton II Advanced ``Wild Weasel.'' In his years in the Air Force, General Peksens has a long history of command. He served as commander of the joint U.S. Air Force/U.S. Army in Europe Warrior Preparation Center, the largest computer war gaming facility in the world. From July 1988 to July 1989, General Peksens commanded the 26th Reconnaissance Wing in Zweibrucken, Germany. Under his command, the wing won the annual world-wide reconnaissance competition. From July 1989 to July 1991, he commanded the 52nd Fighter Wing ``Wild Weasels'' at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. During this period, the 52nd Fighter Wing deployed early and contributed significant resources to our Nation's combat operations in the Persian Gulf war. From September 1992 to July 1994, General Peksens commanded the 410th Bomb Wing at K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base in my district in Northern Michigan. During that period of time, the wing won the U.S. Strategic Command's first Omaha Trophy as the best flying unit in that command. General Peksens currently serves as the director of Strategy, Policy and Plans for the U.S. Southern Command in Panama. In this capacity, he is responsible for formulating the long range strategy for achieving U.S. military objectives in Latin America. General Peksens has been recognized repeatedly for his work and valor. His decorations include the Legion of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross with oak leaf cluster, the Bronze Star and the Air Medal with nine oak leaf clusters. I came to know General Peksens when he served at K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base. As the commander of K.I. Sawyer, General Peksens presided over the base at the time that it was announced for closure by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Understandably, this was a painful, difficult time for the residents of the Marquette area. Through these rough times, General Peksens was always there for the community, to give his advise, time and assistance. To this day, people in Marquette still speak of his commitment and caring for the area and its residents. The General's devotion and hard work earned him the respect and genuine affection of virtually every person in the Marquette/Gwinn area. He was at all times, a caring and competent professional who personally and professionally reflected the highest standards and the greatest credit on him and the U.S. Air Force. Mr. Speaker, General Peksens is retiring this year after nearly 30 years of distinguished service to this Nation. Serving in our Nation's Armed Forces is not an easy vocation. It is difficult, dangerous work where one can be called upon to work in an office one day, and to risk your life in combat the next. The tremendous sacrifices of these military officers and their families are inspiring. In peace and war, General Peksens has given of himself for the benefit of this country. I am proud to know him, to call him a friend, to say that this Nation owes him a debt of gratitude. While we northern Michiganites will miss General Peksens, we want to take this opportunity to express our deep gratitude for a job well done and wish him and his wife, Ruthi, well in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and an exemplary man, Bob Slade, who is retiring, after serving 18 years as a teacher in the Escanaba area public schools and 16 years as a representative for the Michigan Education Association in the central Upper Peninsula. Bob Slade received a bachelor's degree from Northern Michigan University, a master's degree from the University of Pennsylvania, and did postgraduate work in labor law at the University of Michigan. Bob Slade taught physics, physical science, math, and driver education at Escanaba area high school. During Bob's career as a teacher, he was twice awarded the Outstanding Teacher Award. Always placing the needs of others before his own, Bob was rewarded for his dedicated and professional service by being recognized by the Escanaba City Council for assisting at the scene of an auto accident in which a youngster was seriously injured. Bob was also honored by Mead Paper Corp. for serving on the original citizens committee which instituted the MEAD science essay contest for high school students in the areas of biology, chemistry, math, and physics. He is strong when strength is needed, and possesses a sense of humor when things are too serious. Always dignified, he helps others before himself. He will be remembered by his friends and family for his good sense of humor and his interest in politics. Mr. Speaker, it is not only my hope, but all Escanaba's, that Bob will continue to enjoy the fruits of his labor starting with his retirement party, April 8, 1995. A man of great character, his achievements and contributions remain unparalleled. We can never adequately express our gratitude for his tireless service. I would like to express my deep pride and admiration in having such a fine citizen in my district. A citizen that my wife and I can call our friend and our teacher. Congratulations Bob, and best wishes.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, even though I am a Democrat, I must say congratulations to my friends, the Republicans on this side of the aisle, for passing a Contract on America. They showed a lot of discipline in doing so, I say, ``Congratulations,'' but, being a former police officer, as I was for 13 years, I say, ``I admire the discipline you showed on the contract, but please use that discipline when you now try to pay for your contract.'' As my colleagues know, the tax cut bill that was passed last night, in there they took $5 billion from the crime trust fund to start paying for these cuts. That $30 billion in the crime trust fund is going to pay for more prisons, is going to pay for local grants back to our districts. I say to my colleagues, ``You've already reneged on your first promise. You've cut $5 billion out of the crime trust fund to start paying for this new tax bill that you put forth, so what I ask you to do in your disciplined ways is quit spending the same money over, and over, and over again. Don't go back to your good old days of spend, spend, spend without the money being there.'' So, again, congratulations, but let us be cautious on how we are spending that money three times over.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and law enforcement colleague, James C. Carr, who in February of this year retired from his post as undersheriff for Leelanau County, in Michigan's First Congressional District. Undersheriff Carr had held his position for the last 10 years and retires with the admiration of all who have known him. Our paths criss-crossed 17 years ago when Jim and I were members of the Michigan State Police, assigned to the State Capital Post No. 1616. I retired from the State Police in 1984 and left Jim to continue serving our citizens. A short time later Jim joined me in retirement, but as fate would have it, both of us went back to serving the citizens of the great State of Michigan. Little did Jim know at the time of his retirement that he was destined to give 10 more years of his life to law enforcement and the people of Leelanau County. When Jim first retired, Sheriff Charles Johnson knew that Jim would be a perfect candidate for undersheriff and asked him to share his law enforcement professionalism and skills with the people of Leelanau County. As a result, Jim has been Sheriff Johnson's faithful undersheriff for the past 10 years. The job of undersheriff is a difficult and challenging one. Jim, however, always handled it with ease. It is not for this reason, however, that I wish to pay tribute to him. Rather, it is because when one goes out on the street in Leelanau County, it becomes apparent how much admiration and respect Jim commands of the people which he served. It is easy to find people who are pleased to stop and tell stories about a positive encounter they had with Undersheriff Carr, about how Undersheriff Carr fixed a problem, about how he went about his job with a degree of professionalism and compassion that made his sheriff, the citizens of Leelanau County, and those of us who were privileged to serve him, or to be served by him, very proud. We are all proud that he is ``our cop.'' Jim has always been an avid sportsman. I hope that he will enter into retirement in search of that ``perfect buck'' or that ``perfect fish.'' If Jim pursues his hobbies the way he handled his professional life, I'm sure he'll find both. Thank you for your service Jim. We will all miss you, ``old friend.'' Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, over the past few weeks I have been coming to this floor to talk about what I call with Dependent Children, but aid for dependent corporations. Over this 100 days we have seen the Republicans repeatedly reward the privileged and special interests while trying to do cuts in veterans programs, student financial aid, and law enforcement, and in this bill there is a $5 billion cut for law enforcement. This tax bill is another example of those misguided priorities. The Republican tax plan essentially repeals the corporate income tax by phasing out, among other things, the corporate alternative minimum tax, a provision of the tax code that was put in in 1986 to ensure that profitable corporations pay a fair share of income taxes. This alternative minimum tax repeal was not included in the original Contract on America, but was inserted at the last minute following pressure by corporate lobbyists and special interest groups. I offered an amendment before the Committee on Rules to delete the phase-out, but that was not made in order by the Republican leadership. What does the alternative minimum tax mean for average working Americans? It means that corporations cannot use attorneys and tax loopholes to avoid paying a minimum level of taxes. Every year thousands of parents make room in their household budget to buy school supplies for their kids. Like this 99 cent bottle of glue. Most of you do not know that in 1981 virtually every parent who purchased a bottle of glue like this paid taxes, more than the company that produced it. According to the watchdog group Citizens for Tax Justice, in 1981 the producer Borden Company, makers of the glue, despite a profit of over $200 million, paid no income taxes. In fact, they got back $14.9 million in income tax credits. This is the very thing which the corporate minimum tax was designed to stop and to end. Even President Ronald Reagan supports the alternative minimum tax. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill, it is going to stick it to big corporations and we must not allow big corporations to take advantage of another tax loophole brought forth by the GOP.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, lately I have been on the floor talking about what I call the Republican version of AFDC, not aid to families with dependent children, but aid for dependent corporations. This tax bill is another example of AFDC, welfare for corporations. The Republican tax bill repeals the corporate alternative minimum tax, AMT, a provision of the 1986 Tax Code which ensures that profitable corporations pay their fair share of income taxes. to prevent the repeal of this provision, but it was not made in order by the Republican leadership. Every year thousands of parents make room in their budget to buy school supplies for their kids, things like this 99-cent bottle of glue. Most of you do not know, but in 1981 virtually every one of those parents paid more in taxes than the multimillion-dollar company which produced this product. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, in the 1981 tax year, Borden, the makers of this glue, despite making a profit of over $201 million, paid no income tax. In fact, they got back $14.9 million in tax credits. Mr. Speaker, I hope we reject this bill, reject this rule, bring back tax fairness.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. I believe the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is right. You know, it was H.R. 831. I think I said 381, but it is H.R. 831, which was to amend the IRS Code to permanently extend the deduction for health insurance costs for self-employed individuals, something we all wanted to do. In order to get this bill through and get it passed by April 15, so people could take advantage of it, because it had expired, so they could take advantage of it for the 1994 tax season, they put in a provision permitting this nonrecognition of the capital gains to take care of the Viacom situation, again, all honorable, all well-intended. But what happens so often on this floor, then, they put in things we do not know about, or they slipped something in. I was always proud to say the House never did that, that we had very strict rules and amendments and everything had to be germane to the bill before it. No one got special treatment in the House. The Senate, at times, the other body, may add a couple things here and there. We go to conference. Those things are knocked out and taken care of. You know what got knocked out on this one was the American people, and about $63 million we have to pay for now. knocked out just to take care of Mr. Murdoch on the other end of the deal.

Mr. STUPAK. Work-study, you are right. Where is it going to go? To help pay for this tax plan for the corporations.

Mr. STUPAK. $450 for each taxpayer. It is three times greater for corporate welfare than it is for individuals. And you mentioned student loans, which is part of this tax bill. The student loans, my university, Northern Michigan University, University of Northern Michigan, their tuition has gone up this year alone. It is proposed to go up 15 percent. Where are they going to get the money? But yet we are going to let the corporations not pay any taxes. And that money to help out with our direct student loan, the interest on the loan, the Stafford grants----

Mr. STUPAK. You were talking a little bit about some of the things that have happened on this floor. We were talking with welfare and AFDC, aid for and to dependent children. Everyone gets all excited about that, but yet we have this corporate welfare, too, where it is aid for dependent corporations, AFDC as we call it in 1995. And we do not mind helping out any corporations. And there are good corporations out there. We do not mind helping them out. But if you take this fiscal year and this tax year we are in, for every taxpayer in this country, we are giving corporate welfare out at the amount of $1,388 for every individual. You know what we give for heating, for food stamps, for housing, for low-income folks?

Mr. STUPAK. So in summation, I hope the President does veto the bill. I believe in the intent of the bill, but I certainly do not believe in the final analysis of this bill and what we now know in less than 48 hours after it was passed that there was a special deal. So I hope the President, if he is listening, as you indicated, would veto this bill, bring it back. We will work hard to get it passed by the end of the week.

Mr. STUPAK. It is only fair to our audience to let them know where we are now. This bill has gone through both the House and Senate and the conference reports, and we voted on it. It is now on its way to the President. And one of the things I have asked for tonight and I hope others would join with me in urging the President to veto this whole bill, the bill that is on its way to his desk to allow that tax break for the self-employed individuals. We do not want to hurt that part of the bill. We want to kill the $63 million deal that we see for Mr. Murdoch. But the only way we can kill that whole situation is ask for the President to veto that bill. If he vetoes the bill, I would urge my support, I am sure the Democratic leadership would do the same, to bring a bill to permanently extend that self-insured business deduction expense for health care for working Americans.

Mr. STUPAK. The other thing I think in this whole debate that is somewhat lost is this money, this tax shift, that we are seeing money go from the working class to the wealthier corporations and to wealthier individuals in this country. It is going to them. It is not going for deficit reduction. It is not going to reduce the National debt. We are going to shift over 5 years like $188 billion, and yet we have a $176 billion deficit, $4.7 trillion debt. Why are we running around giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people and the wealthiest corporations while we are deficit spending? Wouldn't the money be better served, couldn't we help out those corporations, couldn't we help out those individuals if we would, of course, put the money toward deficit reduction, which we could do more of? You know, the logic is, is this the right time in this Nation's history to be giving tax breaks when we are running a deficit? Where are you going to get the money for the 188 other than taking it from the working class? But wouldn't we really be doing our kids a bigger favor if we brought down the deficit, the debt?

Mr. STUPAK. Nothing. In fact, they supplemented their pretax profits by obtaining $179 million in tax rebates, in tax rebates. I mean, $3.8 billion, you do not pay any taxes. We turn around through tax loopholes and tax provisions, give Du Pont $179 million in tax rebates. They want to bring back that kind of tax system because they say it is good for American families when the secretary, the clerk, or the watchman is paying Federal taxes, but the corporation they work for that may have billions of dollars in profits do not have to pay any taxes. In fact, they can get a tax rebate. So I know it is going to be a long week; it is going to have some intense battles, but these are the inequities that we are trying to correct to truly help the middle class. And I do not consider the middle class Du Pont Corp. with $3.8 billion, or some of these other large corporations that pay no taxes, yet the American people have to pay a minimum 20 percent tax on their wages to the Federal Government.

Mr. STUPAK. I would agree. I do not think there would be much intestinal fortitude to try to allow a $63 million tax break for one company, for the benefit of one individual. Who pays for that but all of us, all the working men and women around this country. But you know when we were talking a little bit earlier about the alternative minimum tax. We are going to have a tax bill up this week on the floor, and we are going to give tax breaks and tax breaks here and tax breaks there, but one of the most repulsive tax breaks is the repeal of the alternative minimum tax. I know you started this special order tonight talking about that alternative corporate minimum tax, and you are talking about, before 1985, before 1986 really when the bill was signed into law, how corporations did not pay any taxes. And yet the person with the lunch bucket or the secretary or the clerk or the midnight watchman has to pay his Federal taxes. But corporations did not because they could afford the accountants, the lawyers to find the tax loopholes, and they would not have to pay any taxes. You brought up, oh, about 130 companies that did not pay any taxes. I guess one of the most striking ones was Du Pont Corporation. Between 1982 and 1985 their pretax profits were $3.8 billion--pretax profit, $3.8 billion. You know how much they paid in taxes during those years?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. No, I do not.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Hoke, I am not part of the conference committee.

Mr. STUPAK. If the gentleman will yield, I know you have read the same articles I have on the $63 million deal from Mr. Murdoch. When that question was put to the junior Senator from Illinois, what did she say? What did she say? If I had my way, we would never repeal the exemption for minority-owned stations, and that junior Senator is a minority, because she thinks it is wrong. She opposed it.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. I am asking about the corporate tax repeal.

Mr. STUPAK. I just had a question, Mr. Speaker. In your statement you indicated that the person would be better off under your tax plan because he would have more money in his pocket. Yet how do you justify the gentleman with the lunch bucket paying Federal taxes, and yet your tax bill repealed the alternative minimum corporate tax, so the corporations do not have to pay their taxes? How would that help the gentleman with the lunch bucket?

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, when I was growing up as a young kid in northern Michigan, we used to have a saying, and I think it was a popular TV program, that the $64,000 question, the $64,000 question is, and part of that game show was if you got it right you would get $64,000. That was the big question back then, and that was the question that everyone wanted to answer because it was the epitome of all questions. And if you would answer that, you would be so much further ahead. This $64,000 question used to be the ultimate question. But I guess in today's terminology and now in the 1990's it was the mother of all questions. Mr. Speaker, the $64,000 question has now grown with inflation and all to a $63 million question, a $63 million question, a question that we must have an answer to. It is a question that America needs an answer to. It is a question that this institution as an institution needs an answer to. The $63 million question is whether or not the President will veto H.R. 381, the bill which amends the IRS Tax Code to permanently extend the deduction for health insurance costs of self-employed individuals. Well, I agree with that provision. I think probably most Members in this House would agree with that provision. I agree that the intent of the bill, H.R. 381, was to permanently extend the deduction for health insurance costs for self-employed individuals. But in that bill that was voted on last Thursday, which most Members on this side of the aisle, Democratic Members, voted no, there was a $63 million question. Because in there was a $63 million deal for one self-employed individual named Rupert Murdoch. Now, I do not know if Mr. Murdoch does or does not need the 25 percent deduction for his health insurance, as was the original intent of H.R. 381. For I believe that probably one of his companies probably picks up his health insurance. But I will not give him the $63 million special exemption allowed to only him and only to his company under H.R. 381. You see, H.R. 381 not only permanently extends the deduction for health insurance costs for self-employed individuals but it also repeals the provision of nonrecognition of gain. It repeals the capital gains tax if you sell your FCC license, Federal communication license or a TV or radio station to a minority-owned company. If you did that, you did not have to pay the capital gains tax. We had a big hoopla about that because of the Viacom deal. So in this bill we went back. We were going to correct all that. We were not going to give special tax breaks to minorities anymore in capital gains. And that was found in H.R. 381, and we repealed that special tax break. Many of the people, I am sure, listening in this audience said that was a good provision. But is it good that only one person or one company gets a $63 million tax break? Why is this special tax break repealed for everyone, repealed for every company except Mr. Murdoch? A $63 million tax break for one individual and his company by specifically exempting that company and that deal under H.R. 381. I well remember Mr. Murdoch. That is not the first time his name has came up in this esteemed body. His company gave the Speaker a $4.5 million book deal. Now Mr. Murdoch gets a $63 million special tax deal. He pays no capital gains tax for this and his company under the profit or from sale of his corporation, a capital gains tax that was to help but one person who, if my memory serves me correct, that individual is not even a citizen of this country. yet Mr. Murdoch and his country gets a huge tax break. Why another $63 million deal? Mr. President, I hope you veto this bill. In your veto message I hope you will tell Mr. Murdoch there is no special deals in this body, in the House. Tell Mr. Gingrich there is no special deal for owners of companies that give special deals on books. Tell them no special tax cuts to individuals who are not citizens of this country.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I was not here on Thursday, March 30, as I was in Michigan attending a funeral. I missed two rollcall votes: rollcall vote No. 278 and rollcall vote No. 279. If I had been here, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 278 and ``no'' on rollcall 279. I ask that this be reflected in the Record.