[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21348-21351]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                H-1B NON-IMMIGRANT WORKERS FEE INCREASE

  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R 5362) to increase the amount of fees charged to employers who are 
petitioners for the employment of H-1B non-immigrant workers, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), my distinguished colleague on the 
Committee on the Judiciary, for an explanation and a discussion of the 
purpose of the bill that he offers.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill adds the final piece to the H-1B legislation 
that we passed earlier this week. There is widespread consensus that 
the $500 fee for an H-1B visa application should be increased. The 
money collected in fees goes toward job training for American workers 
and scholarships for American students studying math and science. These 
programs will provide the long-term solution to the shortage of 
information technology workers plaguing our economy.
  H.R. 5362 raises the fee to $1,000. With the new H-1B quota of 
195,000, this increased fee could raise almost $200 million a year for 
job training and scholarships.
  The bill also exempts primary and secondary schools and universities 
from having to pay the fee. These institutions are already doing their 
part to train American students for the jobs of the future.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, as I understand the amendment, the fee charged to 
employers for sponsoring an H-1B worker will double from $500 to 
$1,000. I support the increased fee, because we have a critical need to 
retrain America's workers and educate our children to meet the demands 
of the new economy and to better administer and enforce the H-1B 
program.
  In fact, in my view, a larger fee increase may have been appropriate, 
in light of the urgent need for qualified American high-tech workers, 
particularly in minority and under-represented communities.
  The allocation of the new fee makes the training and education of 
American workers and America's children a priority. Over half the fees 
will be used by the Labor Department to provide technical skills 
training for U.S. workers. Over 35 percent of the fees will go to 
scholarships for low-income persons and the National Science Foundation 
competitive grants for K-12 math, technology, and science education.
  Now, it is common knowledge that the administration of the H-1B 
program by the Immigration Service and the Labor Department could be 
far better than it is. We have increased the funds allocated to each 
agency so that they can better administer and enforce the programs, as 
well as reduce the horrendous backlogs in applications currently faced 
by employers.
  We will review the implementation of the H-1B program in the next 
Congress, and I fully expect to see improvements in how these agencies 
handle the H-1B program. In other words, they should be held rather 
strictly accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, because the fee increase will begin to address the needs 
of the American workforce, I support the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I would like to extend my appreciation to my colleagues on the 
Committee on the Judiciary, first, for bringing this up.
  This fee increase is one which was struck through an agreement in 
legislation that my colleague next to whom the gentleman is standing, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and I worked, beginning 
last October.
  It is very important for us to recognize that while just 2 days ago 
we were able to pass legislation which does bring about that increase 
to 195,000 the number of H-1B visas, it is important for us to realize 
the long-term solution is to do exactly what my friend from Michigan 
has said, focus on scholarships for the National Science Foundation, 
increase math and science education at the K through 12 level, and 
realize that if we are going to have a workforce that is going to be 
globally competitive, we must have them trained and educated here in 
the United States.
  Until that time, we have increased the H-1B visa level. We have had a 
bipartisan agreement to do that. It seems to me that this legislation, 
which I was very proud to introduce, after we passed the H-1B visa 
bill, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, is one which we 
can move immediately.
  Again, I would like to compliment my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and 
others who have worked long and hard on trying to move ahead with the 
package.
  On this issue of education and math and science education, I 
specifically want to mention the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), 
who has done a great deal of work focusing on the importance of math 
and science training.
  So I hope we can move ahead just as quickly as possible. Again, I 
congratulate all those who have been involved in this effort.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Dreier).

[[Page 21349]]

The gentleman reminds me that I have been discussing with the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) about how, in the next term, 
if we are fortunate enough to come back to Congress elected by our 
constituents, that we really begin to work on a larger plan that 
coordinates all of the efforts that some employers are engaged in; that 
the Department of Labor should certainly be working very hard at; that 
the Department of Education, for example, should be doing more.

                              {time}  1415

  But I am still looking for, and I am willing to create with 
interested Members in the Congress, the omnibus inclusive program that 
really gets at the problem of the training, which, as we know, has the 
start in the very first grades. You cannot bring in a technical program 
for people who have not been prepared for the course studies.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, as well as the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), the Committee on Rules.
  I very much believe that this is the right thing to do today. As the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) referenced, this was the fee 
that was included in the bill here in the House. Because of the glitch, 
and I cannot argue with the parliamentarian in the other body, it could 
not be included, because revenue increases can only be instigated in 
the House and thus this is an essential thing to do. I do agree.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman will yield further?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that glitch happens to be article 1, section 
7 of the U.S. Constitution.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the 
reminder of the Committee on Judiciary members, the origin of the 
glitch.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, though, that I think that the issue 
of H-1Bs is more complicated than training programs; 98 percent of the 
H-1B visa holders have at least a bachelor's degree, half of them have 
a master's degree or Ph.D., so I am very much for the job training 
programs that are included in this. It is important, but it is a 
different employee group than the H-1B visa holders.
  And for that, I am hopeful that we will be able to do additional 
funding and additional emphasis on math and science education, so that 
poor children who are in great numbers are not getting to colleges they 
should be and not getting into the Ph.D. programs as they should be 
will have that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I would further note that this is about not just 
shortage but excellence, and we will always want the ability to recruit 
worldwide. A country that would not want somebody like Linus Torvalds 
to be in America and want to be one of us is a country that is 
inexplicable.
  So we will always want to be able to do that, but that does not 
obviate the need for putting massive effort and attention and 
additional resources especially into poor schools for poor children. We 
were losing bright minds. It is an outrage for those families and those 
kids, but further it is something that this country can no longer 
afford to do. So I am eager to support this.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the 
ranking member, for yielding to me. I am hopeful that next year we can 
do much, much more.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Houston, 
Texas (Mrs. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, continuing on the reservation 
of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), let me thank the 
gentleman very much.
  Let me acknowledge that there are elements in this UC that I 
certainly do appreciate. In particular, language taken out of H.R. 
4227, the Technology Worker Temporary Relief Act, that has a 
recognition of the burden on primary and secondary educational 
institutions with respect to paying the fee.
  These are entities that would put teachers into the primary and 
secondary public schools and, of course, this language came out of our 
bill. It was language that I drew from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) in working with our local school districts, so I am very 
gratified that this lessens the burdens on our local school districts.
  In addition, I think it is vital that we increase the fee, because, 
of course, one of the elements that many of us are concerned about with 
the H-1B philosophy, if you will, is the training that is necessary for 
American workers.
  What I would say, however, as well, is that I wish we would have 
captured an opportunity to allow us for a full debate when this 
particular legislation came to the floor of the House, my reservations 
are that in that instance, we might have been able to go from 195,000 
to 225,000. As the gentleman well knows, the industry said they need 
millions, but we did not do that.
  I think we missed a very valuable opportunity, and I would just like 
to share with my colleagues just a few brief points on the continuing 
reservation.
  There is nothing in this bill that requires H-1B tech employees to 
recruit, hire or train minority American workers. African Americans are 
only 11 percent of the high-tech industry, and they continue to be 
underemployed. There is nothing that requires H-1B employees to make 
efforts to continually train and update the existing skills incumbent 
on American workers and to promote such employees where possible.
  There is nothing in the bill that requires the employers to take 
constructive steps to recruit qualified American workers who are 
members of underrepresented minority groups, recruit historically black 
colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and advertise 
jobs to reach out to older and disabled Americans.
  There is nothing in this bill that deals with rural communities. 
Under the leadership of the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Clayton), we have been working in our Congressional Black Caucus to 
deal with these kinds of needy groups. There is nothing in this bill 
that deals with protecting American workers and ensuring that the 
salaries are competitive.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the industry and I applaud the idea that jobs 
in America creates jobs; we know that. But we missed a very valuable 
opportunity, both in the legislation on Tuesday and as well as in the 
UC, to be able to respond to those groups who obviously need to be 
addressed.
  Let me conclude, as I continue my reservation, I am gratified that 
the bill that I sponsored, Kids 2000, is in the legislation that deals 
with boys and girls club grants, and glad that the DOL will be getting 
training money. My only angst is that the training money should be 
directed toward historically black colleges and other institutions to 
specifically focus on groups that need to be encouraged to participate 
in this very vital and vibrant industry.
  I hope that in working with the administration, this time around, and 
working next time in the 107th Congress, if we are lucky enough to come 
back, Mr. Speaker, that we will look to these issues that are very 
important, that the training dollars will not randomly be sent to the 
State, but they will be designated to work on these issues that we 
think are so very important.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) because she had a bill directed at the points that she 
made; unfortunately, it was unable to be heard in the committee on 
which she is the ranking member. I think it gives us a direction for 
where we really must go in the next Congress. This is a good start, but 
it is only that.
  I hope that the gentlewoman will join in the dialogue that I have 
just begun today with members of the committee to put together an 
omnibus package that goes way beyond just increasing the fee and 
passing it on.

[[Page 21350]]

  We have to have a targeted national program if we are to get these 
youngsters that we all want to train into the pipeline to be able to 
get into the technical courses that would make them prepared to go into 
the high-tech field.
  And so I only remind the Members of this, because the gentlewoman has 
been working tirelessly on this subject ever since she became the 
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield so I may respond. I look forward to working with the 
gentleman on this omnibus effort as I think my colleague who will speak 
next, and we will continue to work in every direction that we can to 
really respond to the general need that we have on this very important 
issue of technology in America.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for her discussion under 
our reservation.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for his generosity in yielding the time. I thank him for his 
leadership, and I thank all of those who are interested in raising the 
fees so that American workers can have the opportunity for training. I 
certainly thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who has 
provided untireless hours and vigorous leadership on this issue.
  I guess part of my reservation is both process and substance. The 
process is that we did not have an opportunity to have just this kind 
of dialogue which apparently we agree on when we could have had this 
opportunity to enhance this bill.
  It is not the issue of not increasing it, because we are not anti the 
opportunity of getting the kind of technological skills in order to 
make our companies ever profitable and allow it to expand and the 
growth opportunities there but the uncertainty of the fact that we 
could not have this honest democratic discussion about how we bring 
various parts.
  I represent rural America, so I bring that bias or that perspective. 
In rural America, we do not have access to the Internet, nor do we use 
the Internet in the same proportion, and that is exacerbated, 
obviously, by the persistent poverty, the sparsity of population, the 
distance they have to travel.
  So we are finding ourselves with acts like this and others further 
disenfranchising digitally because we do not have the infrastructure, 
and to allow this opportunity to pass and not to allow American 
citizens and children and workers in rural America to benefit from this 
is not to suggest that we should not recruit others. And I agree with 
my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), we certainly 
would be very narrow minded if we did not want to get the best minds 
worldwide.
  But should we get the best minds at the expense of the best minds 
here? Should we indeed not do both? We can achieve both. I want to 
applaud what the gentleman is doing here, but I do not want the 
gentleman to think that I think we cannot do better this session. We 
ought to still stay engaged with the President and still stay engaged 
with that process to let him know we can perfect this.
  The opportunity seems to me that we indeed ought to structure some of 
these funds so it, indeed, will go to those targeted areas.
  My final comment is this, when America saw itself challenged 3 
decades ago scientifically and astronomically, when we found ourselves 
behind the Russians, we made a commitment not just to recruit the 
Russian scientists here, we made a commitment to invest in our 
children, in our school. We are not making that kind of commitment.
  And for my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) who remarked this 
is short term; the gentleman is absolutely right, this is short term. 
It is short term, and if we keep doing it, it is going to become the 
most expedient way to do it, because it costs less to do this.
  I want to make the plea to my colleague, we have to invest in our 
communities. We have to invest in our children. We have to invest in 
our workers. We have to invest in rural America so we can be a Nation 
that is proficient and enjoying the rising tide of this new economy, 
and we have to make that kind of effort.
  It is not at the exclusion of bringing the best minds. This is not 
antiimmigration. This is an inclusive way, and it is to suggest that 
the information technology people, they understand the value of having 
a workforce here in America.
  It seems to me that we short sighted their vision if we suggest that 
their only solution is that they must keep recruiting all their talents 
somewhere else. We did this in auto, and guess what? We found ourselves 
as American countries having competition all over.
  I just want to challenge us, the most important integration bill we 
had on this House, we missed the opportunity to have this kind of give 
and take and discussion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers), a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for yielding. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this 
important topic. I am in agreement with much of what I have heard 
today, but we have to recognize, as the previous speaker, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), commented, this is a 
long-term problem. It is also something that I have been involved in 
since 1967 when I was a physics professor and became very concerned 
with what was called at that time scientific illiteracy.

                              {time}  1430

  It was clear the Nation had a major problem, so I dedicated myself as 
a professor of physics, first at Berkeley, then at Calvin College in 
Grand Rapids, Michigan, to trying to eradicate scientific illiteracy in 
the areas in which I dealt. I taught special courses designed for 
students who were not scientists, so they would begin to understand 
science and comprehend it.
  That interest has continued, and I agree with the previous speaker, 
that this is a long-term problem that we have to address.
  I have developed three bills which I introduced this past year. We 
have over 110 cosponsors of those bills, and I had hoped that we could 
act on them this year, but due to various circumstances, that did not 
happen, although one of the bills was reported out of the Committee on 
Science.
  It is essential that we continue this. I have a brochure which I have 
handed out to many Members, and I will be happy to make available to 
any other Members.
  The key point to recognize, first of all, we have a very serious 
problem in this country, but we also have a real blessing going on 
right now. The blessing is the tremendous economic boom we have enjoyed 
for almost a decade, which, according to Alan Greenspan and many other 
experts, is grounded entirely in the science and math developments of 
the recent past.
  The research we have done has paid off, but we have not produced the 
manpower to keep the boom going, so we are forced to import 
scientifically, technically trained people from other countries. That 
is why we need the H-1B visas.
  But that is a short-term solution. We need to do a better job of 
educating our citizens in math, science, engineering, technology, from 
pre-school through graduate school, if we want to continue to be 
competitive as a nation.
  It is absolutely essential that we do that. The best place to start 
is our weakest link, K through 12 education. For a series of reasons, 
we are not doing a good job there. Evidence of that, of course, is the 
H-1B visa problem. Another evidence is that in any graduate school of 
science and engineering in this country, we will find over half of the 
students are from other nations. Our students cannot compete with 
students from other nations.
  Another example of this is that we have 365,000 jobs open in this 
country

[[Page 21351]]

unfilled because we do not have qualified people to fill those jobs.
  So in an attempt to solve that, I have introduced these three bills. 
I hope next year we can get this through. I hope we will be able to use 
some of the funding from the H-1B visa fee to propagate this and 
actually get at and solve the problem.
  The previous speaker referred to the effort after the Russians 
reached space first. I have given a number of speeches entitled, 
``Where is Sputnik when we need it,'' because we need another Sputnik 
now to reenergize our people, to reenergize our Congress, and get this 
in, address this problem.
  It can be addressed, and it is not all that expensive. We simply have 
to set our minds to it and do it, and do it right, so that we can 
produce a workforce that is technically trained, scientifically 
trained, and able to deal with the economy we have now, and keep this 
economic boom going so that we will all continue to enjoy a better life 
in the future.
  Mr. CONYERS. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker, I 
yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me. I did not appropriately thank him for his leadership, 
and the members of the committee; and also for having the passion and 
understanding that though this came through the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims, it is a Committee on the Judiciary issue, a 
full committee issue.
  I am delighted that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) talked 
about the reeducating of our youth. The point I wanted to focus on is 
that this is a continuing effort, this is not a one-time effort, as 
everyone has said.
  But this is a time to speak to my colleagues who would think that it 
is a narrow issue. The issue should be that we leave, and I have heard 
this said before, we leave no one behind. Right now, even though we can 
focus on those K through 12 students which we want to excite about math 
and science, to project them into the future, let me just remind my 
colleagues that we do have existing American workers who, with cross-
training, what we call incumbent worker training, engineers graduated 
from historically black colleges or Hispanic-serving institutions or 
individuals in rural America who are now ready to stand alongside of 
the immigrant visas we are giving.
  It must be said as much as we fought on the issue of helping 
immigrants, particularly trying to restructure the INS, making things 
less bureaucratic, we know this is not an attempt to discard the 
talents that they bring, but it is to recognize that there are existing 
workers today, Hispanics, African-Americans, people who live in rural 
communities, people who live in urban communities, who can benefit from 
the recruitment of the industry that we would like to see, from the 
collaboration and training in institutions that these individuals could 
get cross-training in, and as an engineer, be able to write software 
technology.
  That is why I was saddened at the opportunity we missed with this 
legislation. I am gratified that the fees are raised, so we know we are 
committed to training; gratified that those public schools that need 
teachers coming in from foreign countries to teach, because we have a 
teacher shortage, now do not have to pay the fee; gratified that we 
have the Kids 2000 technology aspect; but hope that my colleagues, in 
keeping with the comments of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
about an omnibus approach in the future, that we will be reminded of 
those underserved, underutilized communities, and underutilized 
American workers we have.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to take a moment to thank those involved in this bill, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has worked indefatigably on this 
issue, as has the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). We 
appreciate that. Her great leadership on the committee has been 
helpful.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has worked very, very hard 
on these issues. We appreciate his comments, and those of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), who just spoke 
eloquently. We appreciate her concerns and leadership on the issue.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us contains technical 
corrections and clarifications to the H1-B visa legislation which 
passed the House by voice vote on Wednesday and the Senate 96 to 1. 
This bill will increase the H1-B visa fee which will be used to train 
American workers in high tech jobs. It also goes further to protect 
non-profits affiliated with educational institutions, like teaching 
hospitals. This training money is a positive step. It is overwhelmingly 
supported by members in both bodies and on both sides of the aisle. I 
want to thank my colleague David Dreier for his leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman 
Dreier and Congressman Joe Moakley for including my bill into the H-1B 
visa bill. The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act 
of 1998 developed a new filing fee which must be paid by employers when 
they file H-1B petitions for ``aliens in specialty occupations'' before 
October 1, 2001. Certain employers are exempt from paying the filing 
fee, including institutions of higher education, nonprofit 
organizations or a Government research institute, it is my regret that 
this preferential treatment does not extend to grades K-12. With this 
in mind, elementary and secondary-level education institutions that 
qualify as nonprofit organizations under the appropriate sections of 
the Internal Revenue Code do not qualify as ``institutions of higher 
education,'' as defined by the ACWIA, and are thus not exempt.
  In response to this confusion, The Department of Labor has identified 
the need to clarify the definition of exemption provisions as they 
apply to elementary and secondary-level education institutions. We 
offered H.R. 1573 to ensure that the same policies and objectives 
served by the ACWIA be extended to include elementary and secondary-
level education providers.
  The fee was paid by our public schools from property tax dollars to 
I.N.S. This bill will save our public schools scarce property tax funds 
to use for education.
  I hope we can pass this legislation that would provide our elementary 
and secondary schools a chance to hire experts and teachers through the 
H1-B Visa program and save local tax dollars.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, because I support the bill, I withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 5362

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORITIES RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF FEES.

       Section 214(c)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1184(c)(9)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(excluding'' and all 
     that follows through ``2001)'' and inserting ``(excluding any 
     employer that is a primary or secondary education 
     institution, an institution of higher education, as defined 
     in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1001(a), a nonprofit entity related to or affiliated 
     with any such institution, a nonprofit entity which engages 
     in established curriculum-related clinical training of 
     students registered at any such institution, a nonprofit 
     research organization, or a governmental research 
     organization) filing before October 1, 2003''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$500'' and inserting 
     ``$1000''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendment made by section 1(2) shall apply only to 
     petitions that are filed on or after the date that is two 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act.

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________