ACCESS Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7887) to amend title 41, United States Code, to prohibit minimum experience or educational requirements for proposed contractor personnel in certain contract solicitations, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal contractor workforce is several times larger than the 2 million strong civilian workforce the Federal Government employs today. That is because so much government work is outsourced. That includes, for instance, much of the operation and maintenance of the Federal IT systems and the safeguarding of their cybersecurity.

It was disturbing for me to learn, in the course of my work this Congress as chair of the Oversight Committee's Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation, that many Federal contract solicitations bar qualified individuals from performing the work.

What are these barriers? Many Federal solicitations include unnecessary degree requirements mandating that individuals who perform various tasks hold specific education credentials such as a 4-year college degree, but training for many jobs in fields like IT and building construction is increasingly available through nondegree pathways like apprenticeships, boot camps, or certifications.

That is why a slew of major private-sector employees have pared back degree requirements in hiring in recent years. In fact, some of our biggest tech companies offer certification programs within their own companies to help their individuals be even more qualified for jobs that are available to them.

When it comes to cybersecurity, the public and private sectors together face

a shortage of roughly 700,000 workers. Clearly, the Federal Government cannot afford to erect unnecessary hurdles that prohibit those with the necessary technical skills and desire from doing such work simply because they lack a traditional degree.

The companies who employ them, those that offer apprenticeships and engage in skills-based hiring, should be encouraged to compete for government contracts and not be excluded from competition.

This bill helps ensure that Federal contractors are permitted to hire qualified professionals with the necessary knowledge, the necessary skills, and the necessary drive, even if they lack a traditional 4-year degree.

The bill does this by prohibiting contract officers from stipulating education requirements for contract employees without providing a written justification for doing so. That justification must show that education is necessary in order to perform the work and meet the needs of the agency.

To be clear, this bill in no way tells Federal contractors how to actually hire their staff. Rather, it removes an unnecessary restriction on their ability to hire qualified individuals.

The Federal Government shouldn't be barring from consideration for work qualified individuals who acquire their skills through alternative training. They deserve a chance at a job. They deserve a chance to compete.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this timely, necessary, and bipartisan bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to ensure that contract employees with the right skills can work for the Federal Government regardless if they have a traditional 4-year degree.

I thank Ranking Member Raskin and all of my colleagues on the Oversight Committee who voted this out of the committee for their bipartisan support. This doesn't hurt jobs. This helps people get jobs, even if they don't have a 4-year degree, whether they are joined to a labor union or not.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of Mr. Raskin, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 7887, the ACCESS Act, which is intended to address degree inflation, the growing trend of college graduates filling jobs that don't require college degrees. This can lead to reduced earnings for college degree holders, reduced employment opportunities for nondegree holders, and an overall drag on the economy in a time of very low unemployment, like ours, and of labor shortages.

Committee Democrats are supportive of efforts to eliminate minimum education and experience requirements for jobs that don't actually require such associated skills for successful performance, expanding opportunity for the more than 62 percent of the population, age 25 and older, who do not hold a bachelor's degree.

The ACCESS Act would prohibit Federal agencies from specifying minimum educational requirements for contractor personnel in solicitations, unless the solicitation also includes a written justification explaining why such requirements are actually necessary.

I had been concerned that this might create a blanket requirement that could be unnecessarily burdensome for Federal agencies in the instances in which minimum education or experience requirements are commonly and reasonably understood to be necessary, but changes made to the bill after our committee markup have alleviated those concerns.

There are certainly some jobs for which some minimum education or experience appears to be totally unnecessary. For example, approximately 39 percent of postings for construction managers require a college degree, as do 52 percent of web developer postings and 34 percent of distribution manager postings.

This suggests that these roles are frequently performed in the economy totally successfully without a college degree and that the requirement is more about the subjective preference or traditions of the employer than the actual demands of the job. It makes sense for agency contracting officers to have to provide a written justification for choosing to require that contractors hire only college degree holders for such jobs, as this bill would require.

However, there are also an array of jobs for which some minimum education or experience requirements are indeed necessary. For example, in 2022, the Federal Government spent almost $30 billion on medical services contracts and another $29 billion on engineering and technical support services contracts. We do not want our contracting officers to have to provide a written explanation every single time they put out a solicitation that requires healthcare and engineering professionals to have advanced higher education degrees, and the bill has been appropriately and gratefully refined to eliminate this unnecessary burden.

I understand that the North America's Building Trades Unions have expressed concerns about just this point, but in cases where highly trained and educated Federal contractors are required to perform technical, scientific, and professional services, nothing in the bill would prevent the hiring of such individuals.

I am happy to continue supporting this legislation as an important step to expand opportunity to more Americans and to welcome more talent in service to our country.

I thank Chairwoman Mace and Chairman Comer for working with us to improve the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 7887, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I had to miss yesterday's votes due to illness. During that time, I was unable to make Roll Call Votes No. 359 through No. 386. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

NO on Roll Call No. 359, H. Res. 1370 On Ordering the Previous Question;

NO on Roll Call No. 360, H. Res. 1370 On Agreeing to the Resolution;

YES on Roll Call No. 361, S. 3706 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass;

YES on Roll Call No. 362, S 227 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass;

NO on Roll Call No. 363, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 364, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 365, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 366, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 367, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 368, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 369, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 370, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 371, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 372, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 373, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 374, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 375, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 376, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 377, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 378, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 379, H.R. 8997 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 380, H.R. 7887 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended;

NO on Roll Call No 381, H.R. 8998 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 382, H.R. 8998 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 383, H.R. 8998 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 384, H.R. 8998 On Agreeing to the Amendment;

NO on Roll Call No. 385, H.R. 8998 On Agreeing to the Amendment; and

NO on Roll Call No. 386, H.R. 8998 On Agreeing to the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I regrettably missed 22 roll call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted:

Nay on Roll Call No. 359 on Ordering the Previous Question;

No on Roll Call No. 360 on Agreeing to H. Res. 1370;

YEA on Roll Call No. 361 on S. 3706;

YEA on Roll Call No. 362 on S. 227;

No on Roll Call No. 363 on Ogles 36;

No on Roll Call No. 364, Perry 42;

No on Roll Call No. 365, Perry 43;

No on Roll Call No. 366, Perry 44;

No on Roll Call No. 367, Perry 45;

No on Roll Call No. 368, Perry 46;

No on Roll Call No. 369, Perry 47;

No on Roll Call No. 370, Perry 48;

No on Roll Call No. 371, Perry 49;

No on Roll Call No. 372, Perry 50;

No on Roll Call No. 373, Perry 51;

No on Roll Call No. 374, Rosendale 53;

No on Roll Call No. 375, Roy 54;

No on Roll Call No. 376, Roy 56;

No on Roll Call No. 377, Van Drew 62;

No on Roll Call No. 378, Van Drew 63;

No on Roll Call No. 379, Van Drew 64; and No on Roll Call No. 380 on

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.