[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 25, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   S. 1732, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE PILOT COURT-ANNEXED ARBITRATION FOR 
                              ANOTHER YEAR

                                 ______


                               speech of

                         HON. WILLIAM J. HUGHES

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 23, 1993

  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today is a stop-
gap provision to authorize pilot court-annexed arbitration for another 
year.
  The existing authorization for pilot court-annexed arbitration in the 
Federal System was enacted in 1988 and expired on November 19, 1993.
  The 1988 legislation identified 10 pilot districts for mandatory 
pilot programs and directed the judicial conference to identify 10 
other districts for voluntary programs.
  Our review of these pilot programs revealed that the pilot projects 
in the mandatory courts were working very well and meeting their goals 
of:
  First, providing options to litigants;
  Second, reducing costs and time of litigation; and
  Third, reducing the burdens on the courts.
  We also determined that the mandatory programs were far more 
successful than the voluntary programs, and that the dollar limit for 
mandatory programs should be raised.
  The House of Representatives' response to this situation was to 
expand the arbitrations programs nationwide through H.R. 1102.
  H.R. 1102, as passed by the House of Representatives on the 
Suspension Calendar on October 12, 1993, directs that all district 
courts provide, by local rule arbitration, programs of some form. It 
increases the maximum amount in controversy for mandatory referral to 
$150,000.
  The Committee on the Judiciary also strongly recommends in its report 
that all district courts select certain categories of cases for 
mandatory referral.
  In doing so, I would say that the mandatory designation for these 
programs is misleading because there is a great flexibility in this 
mandatory process. First of all, arbitration can be used only for cases 
with potential money damages of under $150,000. Also, many cases are 
exempt from referral under the existing law, and local courts are 
allowed to chose those categories of cases which are most suitable for 
referral. Finally, and most significantly, all cases are subject to 
trial de novo. Given this fact, mandatory arbitration might more 
accurately be called nonbinding arbitration.
  Our Federal courts are experiencing tremendous backlogs in their 
civil dockets. These backlogs are adding not only delay, but expense. 
It behooves us to make this modest adjustment in the civil process and 
allow for arbitration options designed at the local level. In fact, 
with the difficulty of getting civil cases to trial due to the great 
increase in criminal dockets in the Federal Court System, H.R. 1102 
might aptly be named the ``Access to Civil Justice Act.''
  The other body, however, believes it needs more time to study H.R. 
1102, so as an interim measure, they have passed S. 1732 to extend 
until December 31, 1994, the 20 pilot projects.
  In passing S. 1732 today, I would say that I look forward to working 
with Senator Heflin, Senator Grassley, and my ranking Member, 
Congressman Moorhead in the next session to refine H.R. 1102 so that it 
will provide meaningful and expedited access to civil justice.
  In the interim, I urge my colleagues to accept S. 1732.

                          ____________________