PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.1609 / 103rd Congress

Department of Defense Set Aside Enforcement Act of 1993

Executive Comment Requested from DOD.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 1, 1993

Department of Defense Set Aside Enforcement Act of 1993 - Requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to award ten percent of its annual defense procurement contracts and subcontracts to historically Black colleges and universities and small disadvantaged and minority-owned businesses. (Currently, it is a goal of DOD to award five percent annually to such entities.) Authorizes the Secretary of Defense, beginning on October 1, 1993, and ending on September 30, 2000, to meet the ten percent requirement by awarding up to one half of the dollar amount of the contracts awarded to certain entities previously eligible for such contract award but no longer eligible by reason of size. Requires each entity that enters into a prime contract with DOD under the contract award program to spend at least five percent of the amount of the contract for subcontracts with certain covered entities meeting the requirements of small disadvantaged and minority-owned businesses. Requires prime contractor proof of the awarding of such subcontracts. Directs the Secretary to withhold five percent of the prime contract amount from the contract, which shall be used as direct payment to the subcontractors for work completed. Requires that, in a services contract awarded under such contracting procedures, at least 50 percent of the cost of contractor performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the covered entity. Provides alternative methods for meeting such 50 percent requirement. Outlines requirements for a small disadvantaged or minority-owned business for purposes of this Act. Directs the Secretary to require, as a condition for approval of a contract with DOD, that the potential contractor provide documentation that it is in compliance with the equal opportunity clause as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations. Requires identical certification by the subcontractors of such contractor.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Collins, Cardiss [D-IL-7] · D–IL

Committees

  • Armed Services Committee
20 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Executive Comment Requested from DOD.

  2. Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Acquisition.

  3. Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

  4. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E865)

  5. Introduced in House

  6. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.1609 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.1609 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.1609 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.1609 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources