[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6274-6278]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               FEDERAL CONTRACTOR FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2000

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 3582) to restrict the use of mandatory minimum personnel 
experience and educational requirements in the procurement of 
information technology goods or services unless sufficiently justified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3582

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Contractor 
     Flexibility Act of 2000''.

[[Page 6275]]



     SEC. 2. APPROPRIATE USE OF PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE AND 
                   EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE PROCUREMENT OF 
                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY GOODS AND SERVICES.

       (a) Amendment of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.--Not 
     later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued in accordance 
     with sections 6 and 25 of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 405 and 421) shall be amended to 
     address the use of personnel experience and educational 
     requirements in the procurement of information technology 
     goods and services.
       (b) Content of Amendment.--The amendment issued pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall, at a minimum, provide that 
     solicitations for the procurement of information technology 
     goods or services shall not set forth any minimum experience 
     or educational requirement for proposed contractor personnel 
     in order for a bidder to be eligible for award of a contract 
     unless the contracting officer first--
       (1) determines that the needs of the agency cannot be met 
     without any such requirement; and
       (2) explains in writing the basis for that determination.
       (c) GAO Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which the regulations required by subsection (a) are 
     published in the Federal Register, the Comptroller General 
     shall submit to Congress an evaluation of--
       (1) executive agency compliance with the regulations; and
       (2) conformance of the regulations with existing law, 
     together with any recommendations that the Comptroller 
     General considers appropriate.
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this Act:
       (1) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 105 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Information technology.--The term ``information 
     technology'' has the meaning given that term in the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) to explain the legislation before 
us.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) yielding me this time.
  I rise today in support of a piece of legislation I think is very 
important, H.R. 3582, the Federal Flexibility Act of 2000, legislation 
which will address an ongoing problem in Federal information technology 
contracts.
  I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Horn), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information and Technology for his assistance in moving this important 
legislation forward.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3582 is necessary because Federal contracting 
officers frequently write into IT contracts minimum personnel 
requirements that hamper the ability of contractors to find qualified 
personnel to perform the contract. Oftentimes, this means government 
contractors cannot hire personnel who they believe can successfully 
perform the work, but instead they search for just simply qualified 
resumes. This is a burden on the information and technology industry, 
it is a burden on the American taxpayer, and it contributes to the 
chronic worker shortage faced by the technology industry because the 
Federal Government is the largest purchaser of IT products in the 
world, spending about $28 billion on goods and services each year.
  The Fed-Flex Act would require Federal agencies to justify the 
minimum personnel requirements frequently written into government 
contracts. Federal agencies have been experiencing something called 
``credential creep'' in the way they write contracts. The problem has 
become so significant that the Virginia Secretary of Technology, Don 
Upson, found in a report issued by his office this past September, that 
minimum personnel requirements are the second largest contributor to 
the IT workforce shortage in my home State of Virginia. This report was 
titled ``A Study of Virginia's Information Technology Workforce.'' It 
strongly recommended that both the government and private sector 
companies objectively evaluate alternative forms of training and focus 
on investments in training rather than on degrees or resumes. The 
nationwide shortage of IT workers is estimated at 364,000, and it is 
estimated at over 24,000 in the Northern Virginia region alone for the 
information technology worker shortage.
  Now, what these minimum personnel requirements mean for the 
government is that a Bill Gates or a Michael Dell cannot perform work 
with the government on most contracts. Since neither one of them holds 
a college degree, many Federal agencies would not allow them to perform 
IT work for the government. When Federal agencies write credential 
creep into contracts, they hinder the ability of Federal contractors to 
hire qualified personnel to get the job done, and they increase the 
total cost of the contract to the government and, therefore, the 
American taxpayer.
  In this era of serious labor shortages in nearly every sector of our 
economy, this practice drives up prices and it limits the flexibility 
of offers. The government will get better results if it issues 
performance-based statements of work and leaves it up to the offeror to 
propose how they will satisfy that requirement. The government should 
hold the winning offeror accountable for the quality of the cake, not 
dictate the ingredients that go into the recipe.
  Another recent workforce study released by the Information Technology 
Association of America found that U.S. companies anticipate a demand 
for 1.6 million IT workers in the next year. According to that study, 
about 50 percent of the applicants for these jobs would not have the 
skills required to perform the jobs, meaning that up to 850,000 of 
these slots go unfilled. The private sector knows it has to adapt to 
address this shortage and invest in the training that will allow them 
to get the job done. Let us make sure the Federal Government is not the 
stumbling block to reaching that goal. The Fed-Flex Act requires 
agencies to realize that key skills are what matters the most to 
mission accomplishment within the agencies, not how those skills are 
acquired.
  Recently, there has been ongoing debate about solving the labor 
shortage in the United States by lifting the cap on H1-B visas. I am a 
strong supporter of lifting this visa cap, and I am an original 
cosponsor of my colleague's, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), H.R. 3982, the HI-TECH Act, which raises the cap to 200,000 
for H1-Bs. But we all know this is a short-term solution. We need to 
recognize the new types of training employees receive and encourage 
American businesses to hire employees who have received less 
traditional methods of training. We also need to encourage our Federal 
Government to be a leader in solving the workplace shortage and not 
remain behind the curve as is so often the case.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3582 recognizes the investment that firms make in 
their employees every day. Many IT firms spend a significant amount of 
time and dollars training their employees to be up to speed on the 
latest products and services. The Fed-Flex Act would require agencies 
to justify the use of such minimum mandatory personnel requirements 
before imposing such requirements on a particular solicitation for IT 
services. The Fed-Flex Act would require agencies to justify the use of 
such minimum mandatory personnel requirements before imposing such 
requirements in a particular solicitation for IT services. Where the 
contracting officer determines that the agency's need cannot be met 
without such requirement, the legislation would not preclude such 
requirements. Moreover, the legislation would not preclude the agencies 
from evaluating the advantages that may be associated with a particular 
employee's experience or education, including participation in an in-
house training and certification program. This bill continues the many 
successes of recent procurement reforms and redirects government to 
focus on products, not process.
  Recently, a study released by the American Association of Community 
Colleges indicated that 20 percent of

[[Page 6276]]

community college attendees are pursuing degrees to work on technology 
issues. With the worker shortage we face in the Nation, it is of great 
concern to me that the Federal Government could prevent these highly 
motivated young people from pursuing a technology career. Credential 
creep is a Federal Government-wide problem. We have fallen behind in 
recruiting IT workers for the Federal workforce and training Federal 
workers to take part in the information technology revolution. Yet, the 
government demands a college degree for entry level positions that 
might be filled by individuals who have received another form of job 
training that may be superior. I believe that Federal flexibility is 
important to address the immediate need within the government, but I am 
also committed to working closely with my friends in the workforce 
community to look at credential creep problems as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point to the many organizations that 
support H.R. 3582. Fed-Flex is supported by ITAA, American Electronics 
Association, Contract Services Association, Professional Services 
Council, and CapNet. I would like to quote from a letter sent over by 
Harris Miller, the President of ITAA. ``The Federal Contractor 
Flexibility Act is a home run for practical, efficient, and effective 
government contracting.'' I would also like to submit a copy of the 
ITAA letter for the Record.

                                                      May 2, 2000.
     Rep. Tom Davis.
       Dear Congressman Davis: On behalf of the 26,000 direct and 
     affiliate members of the Information Technology Association 
     of America (ITAA), I write to urge quick passage of the 
     Federal Contractor Flexibility Act of 2000. We applaud you 
     for sponsoring this common sense bill. This is legislation 
     that recognizes a critical demand for appropriately skilled 
     high tech workers is one of the most vexing problems facing 
     employers today--both in and outside of government. At the 
     same time, it realizes that key skills--and not how they are 
     acquired--are what matters most to mission accomplishment 
     within agencies.
       A few weeks ago, ITAA released Bridging the Gap: IT Job 
     Skills for a New Millennium, a major national study on the 
     workforce issue. We found that U.S. companies anticipate a 
     demand for 1.6 million IT workers in the next 12 months. 
     Because roughly fifty percent of applicants will not have the 
     skills required to perform these jobs, over 850,000 IT 
     positions will go begging. Our study suggests that in the 
     private sector, this demand pressure has caused hiring 
     managers to revisit the issue of ``what it takes'' to get the 
     job done.
       At one time, the federal government's preference for 
     contractor staff with certain years of experience and a 
     college degree was understandable. Unfortunately, what made 
     sense five to ten years ago does not make sense in today's 
     environment. Indeed, so much has changed in information 
     technology that today's college graduates or those from 
     community colleges are very prepared to take on immediate 
     responsibilities at federal agencies. Talented people with 
     skills in database design, programming, web development and 
     other technical areas have invaluable skills that the federal 
     agencies need today, not three or more years from now.
       The agencies that do have specific needs should by all 
     means be able to request certain skills sets and experience, 
     but your legislation will eliminate the situation we find 
     today where old boilerplate language with outmoded 
     requirements is commonly used and reused in thousands of 
     contracts. As you have mentioned your comments, it is more 
     than ironic that some of the foremost leaders of the IT 
     industry, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Larry Ellison, would 
     be precluded from most Federal contracts since they did not 
     complete their four year degree!
       The Federal Contractor Flexibility Act is a homerun for 
     practical, efficient and effective government contracting. We 
     ask that all Members of Congress support its speedy passage 
     into law.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 Harris N. Miller,
                                                        President.

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3582 will help ensure that contracts are 
performance based rather than process driven. I am dismayed to hear 
that the administration is not ready to support the legislation at this 
time, and while I applaud OMB and my friend Dee Lee's commitment to 
performance-based contracting, I believe that the law does not need a 
clarification on these minimum personnel requirements. Additionally, 
the letter from OMB concerns me because it recognizes the problem but 
it does not support the legislative fix that gives it the authority it 
needs to ensure the problem is corrected.
  In my conversations with local Chambers of Commerce in Northern 
Virginia, and national procurement organizations, I have heard many 
instances where these personnel requirements have hampered companies' 
ability to work with government. I have also been presented with 
evidence that these minimum personnel requirements have been used at 
various government agencies to favor incumbent contractors rather than 
promoting open competition. I have even heard of an instance where the 
contract employees who unpack computers at some agencies are required 
to hold college degrees.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert the rest of my comments in the Record at 
this time. I just want to urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation. I want to thank my colleague next door, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) for his leadership on this issue in cosponsoring 
this, and my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for 
helping to bring this to the floor so expeditiously.
  Mr. Speaker, in the new economy, we are all learning new management 
techniques and the government can not be last to the table in this 
effort. Earlier this year, the Department of Labor issued two advisory 
opinions that threatened to harm the operation of the engine driving 
our economy, the technology sector. Many of you may be familiar with 
both the telecommuting and stock options decisions. While we should 
have those problems solved in the short-term through clarifying 
Congressional legislation that even the Labor Department has now 
recognized as necessary, we need to ensure that the government does not 
continue to impede the development of IT products and services through 
its own contracting and management processes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have also received contract examples from the 
Departments of Defense and Treasury, and the General Services 
Administration that include minimum personnel requirements. The Defense 
Department includes these cumbersome requirements for entry-level IT 
positions that include such basic tasks as data-entry, and they do not 
give contractors any opportunity to apply for a waiver. The Treasury 
contract includes these requirements but then says a company may apply 
for a waiver after contract award although the waiver requires a 
significant amount of paperwork to get approved. The GSA requirement is 
on an IDIQ contract that would affect several companies at the same 
time and drive-up costs of all of the competing bids.
  Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation. I know it will provide important relief to Virginia and 
government contractors across the nation. It will also provide a 
tremendous cost-savings to the government.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of the Federal Contractor Flexibility Act of 
2000 which was introduced by our friend, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis), and I want to commend the gentleman for his hard work on 
this bill. It is a very important piece of legislation, and he did a 
great job with it.

                              {time}  1445

  I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), his 
neighbor, who also was the primary Democratic sponsor of this 
legislation.
  As has been pointed out, this bill would restrict Federal departments 
and agencies from using mandatory minimum personnel and experience 
requirements for contractor personnel in the procurement of information 
technology goods and services, unless there is some justification for 
such a restriction.
  Currently, Federal information technology procurement officers can 
require contractors to use employees who, at a minimum, have a college 
degree. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) pointed out, Bill 
Gates and Michael Dell would not qualify under the current 
restrictions.
  It is obvious I think to all of us that the Federal agencies 
oftentimes dictate more stringent educational requirements than are 
necessary to do the job. H.R. 3582 would require Federal agencies to 
justify those minimum requirements, but it would not preclude them from 
including such requirements if the contracting officer determined that 
the agency's needs could not be met without the requirements.

[[Page 6277]]

  The legislation also would not preclude agencies from evaluating an 
employee's experience or education, including their participation in 
in-house training or other certification programs. But most 
importantly, this legislation will increase the number of information 
technology workers eligible to assume government contractor information 
technology jobs, and it would alleviate the current shortage of labor 
in this field.
  Today, we take the first step by eliminating these arbitrary 
experience and educational requirements for the private IT sector 
contractors. But I look forward to working with my colleagues so that 
we can eliminate these same requirements for our Federal employees.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan 
measure. Again, I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis); the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran); the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Horn), our subcommittee chairman; as well as the gentleman from Indiana 
(Chairman Burton); and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), our 
ranking member, for their work on this bill.
  I urge swift passage of H.R. 3582.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Horn) for yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 
3582, the Federal Contractor Flexibility Act of 2000.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the lead sponsor, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis), for introducing this bill. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of the legislation.
  It would require Federal agencies to justify the use of minimum 
education and experience requirements in their solicitations for 
information technology services, which have virtually no relation to 
whether the individual can perform the required work.
  Mr. Speaker, under current regulations, Bill Gates, as has been 
mentioned, would not be allowed to perform IT work for the Federal 
Government. That is right. The richest, and many would say one of the 
smartest, men in the world is not allowed to contract with the Federal 
Government under current law. Why? Because many Federal agencies 
currently put in place minimum education requirements in solicitations 
for IT services, and Mr. Gates does not hold a college degree.
  This can be blamed on the fact that many agencies are now writing 
``credential creep'' into contracts, hindering the ability of Federal 
contractors to hire qualified personnel who can get the job done. 
Frequently, these same agencies will require contractors to use 
employees who have a minimum of a college degree or even more stringent 
education requirements.
  Additionally, Federal agencies dictate to companies the amount of 
experience employees must have working on certain IT systems. In this 
era of serious labor shortages in the information technology 
marketplace, this practice drives up prices and limits the flexibility 
of offers.
  As a representative from Montgomery County, Maryland, which has many 
high-technology industries and research institutions, I understand the 
importance of skilled workers to our growing economy. However, I also 
understand that there currently exists a serious shortage of technology 
workers in not only the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area but 
throughout the Nation as well.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 3582 will enable the Government to get 
better results by issuing performance-based statements of work and 
leave it up to the job seeker to propose how he or she will get the job 
done. The Government's requirement should be on the merit and success 
of the job, not on dictating how the job is accomplished.
  Finally, H.R. 3582 recognizes the investment that firms make in their 
employees today by not precluding agencies from evaluating the 
advantages that may be associated with a particular employee's 
experience or education, including participation in in-house training 
and certification programs.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a common sense piece of legislation. I urge 
support of its passage.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), the primary Democratic cosponsor of the 
resolution.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank and 
acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for 
his Federal management reform efforts. He is doing a very fine job on 
the Committee on Government Reform, and I congratulate him. And also, 
certainly, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for their efforts. In many areas, this is 
a committee that can work together and this is certainly an example of 
good, bipartisan constructive legislation.
  I especially want to recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis) and his fine staff for their terrific work on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this ought to be a no-brainer. But it is designed to 
address something that for years has gone on. It is a classic example 
of the right hand not only not letting the left hand know what they 
were doing, but they were working at cross purposes. If we ask people 
working in the Federal Government, particularly in Labor or Commerce or 
HHS, they will say that one of the most serious problems today is the 
fallout from the new economy of people working in the old economy 
having their jobs replaced by automation or by competition from 
overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, while 80 percent of them get jobs, and better paying 
jobs, there are 20 percent of them who do not, who are left by the 
wayside of the new economy highway. And these people want to work hard, 
they have got the will and the ability, but they do not have the 
opportunity.
  In many cases, it is because they do not have a 4-year college 
degree. They do not have the preparation, the skills with computers. We 
are not providing sufficient opportunity for them. And then there are 
other people who cannot afford a 4-year college degree. They do not 
need a 4-year college degree.
  On the other hand, we have the Federal Government here saying that if 
one wants to bid for Federal contracts, they have to have a 4-year 
college degree on many of these information technology contracts.
  They do not have to. They do not need it. In fact, all this bill does 
is to say that if a contracting officer can justify these higher 
standards, then fine, go ahead with it. But if they cannot justify 
requiring these college degrees and these higher certifications, then 
do not require it. Allow companies to hire people that can perform the 
work. Put the emphasis on the quality product, not the process.
  In Virginia, we are recognizing that this is one of the prime causes 
of the technology shortage. We have a shortage of almost 30,000 
vacancies. We cannot fill them. Many of them are in Federal contract 
work. This is silly. We have the people, the warm bodies; but we do not 
have the preparation, and it does not make sense to require a 4-year 
degree.
  Mr. Speaker, in this period of unprecedented labor shortage, 
certainly we ought to take the initiative. I wish the executive branch 
had taken the initiative itself, but this bill is necessary. I am sure 
that they are going to enact it because the current practice drives up 
prices and limits the competition for Federal contracts. We do not want 
that. That does not serve anybody's purposes.
  It has already been said, and I do not want to beat up on Bill Gates, 
of all people. We keep talking about the fact that he does not have a 
college degree. Well, he does not; but he did not need it to be 
successful. He is a classic example. And there are any number of others 
as well. I think we made our case on that.
  The Department of Commerce recently reported that there are more than 
600,000 positions in the information technology field that have yet to 
be filled. And, in fact, they estimate that over the next 10 years we 
are

[[Page 6278]]

going to need more than 100,000 a year. I saw a figure today of 130,000 
a year. We do not have those people. We do not need to be sending those 
people through college. We need to be getting them into community 
colleges, junior colleges, computer training courses, whatever gives 
them the skills that are necessary.
  Now, we are going to get a whole lot of flack when we bring up the 
H(1)(b) bill. People are going to say we are bringing in laborers from 
overseas and taking our jobs and so on. My response is going to be, 
look, raising the cap on H(1)(b) visas is a short-term solution. We 
have vacancies and we need to fill them and fill them with qualified 
people, and bringing these people in that can go to work immediately 
with skills just pumps iron into our economic bloodstream. We need to 
do this. It makes a lot of sense. But that is not the long-term 
solution.
  Mr. Speaker, the long-term solution is to train people. And not with 
4 years; give them the specific training they need. Give them the 
opportunities; give them the access to these information technology 
jobs.
  If we do, we are going to enable our American workforce to realize 
its full potential. If we put these kinds of obstacles in the way, all 
we are doing is limiting our potential economically and socially.
  So I think I have made my point. This bill needs to be supported 
strongly and unanimously, and I trust it will be.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to first commend Melissa Wojciak for her 
excellent staff work on H.R. 3582, the Federal Contractor Flexibility 
Act of 2000. Melissa is a true professional and put a lot of her heart 
into this legislation. That is the kind of people we want on Capitol 
Hill.
  Let me just note a few things. I completely agree with the two 
gentlemen from Virginia, and if that ever makes this bipartisan, I do 
not know what does. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) certainly 
reflected the floor management's views of what is the essence of this 
particular legislation.
  The fact is, performance-based contracting is a method of acquiring 
services that focus on successful results or outcomes rather than 
dictating how the work is to be performed.
  Now, I also agree with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) about 
the need for education. I have been preaching that for the last 2 
years. The community colleges of this Nation, public institutions, and 
the State universities of this Nation should be working with Silicon 
Valley east, west, south, north, wherever it is, to get the latest 
generation of equipment on which they can train people. State budgets 
never have enough, and as a former university president in charge of a 
State university for 18 years, I can assure my colleagues that is a 
true statement across the Nation, that very little money is invested in 
the technology that these students need to be exposed to.
  They also need to be exposed to logic, to math, to science starting 
in the kindergarten. There ought to be concepts of science that a good 
public school system has, and that is exactly what is needed.
  These are $60,000-a-year jobs, and if that should not wake somebody 
up, I do not know what it does wake up. We need more of our own 
citizens, and those who have newly arrived here, from Cambodia, the 
Vietnamese, the Latin American; and what we need are opportunities for 
the children of immigrants as well as opportunities for our own 
citizens.
  So I completely agree with the gentleman from Virginia on this issue, 
and much more needs to be done on that. We cannot just have some fly-
by-night operation that does this for individuals; we need a long-term 
investment by the Silicon Valleys, the computer industry, and they need 
to quit depending on people from abroad. They need to educate our own 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, with those remarks, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Turner), who is the ranking member on the subcommittee, for all of 
his constructive comments during the hearings, during the markup, and 
now on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3582.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________