[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 163 (Thursday, October 27, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1952]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         H.R. 674 AND H.R. 2576

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 27, 2011

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to vote in support of H.R. 
674, which would repeal the onerous requirement that federal, state, 
and local government entities withhold three percent of payments to 
government contractors. Although never put into effect, the requirement 
would constitute a significant burden on all levels of government, 
which are presently sorely lacking in resources. Withholding three 
percent of payments was unsound policy when enacted by the Republican 
Congress in 2005, and I gladly will help my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle correct their mistake.
  I am less disposed to be helpful on H.R. 2576, a bill to adjust the 
definition of ``modified adjusted gross income,'' MAGI, so that fewer 
Americans qualify for tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. This 
strikes me at best as a solution in search of a non-existent problem. 
To add insult to injury, H.R. 2576 will cause American families, 
seniors, and those with disabilities to pay more for their healthcare 
at a time when they can least afford it. I have spent my entire career 
fighting to ensure working American families have access to affordable, 
good-quality healthcare. Supporting H.R. 2576 would be in direct 
contravention of that goal, and I cannot in good conscience do so. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by noting the rascality 
underlying the rule for H.R. 674 and H.R. 2576. It allows separate 
votes on both bills--one non-controversial and the other very 
controversial--and then requires they be merged for consideration by 
the Senate. I oppose this sort of legislating and believe each chamber 
should be allowed to work its will on separate items, rather than 
forced to accept bad policy in the guise of procedural tricks and faux 
compromise. This is skullduggery at its finest, Mr. Speaker, and an 
unnecessary affront to regular order, which your side so consistently 
claims to cherish.

                          ____________________