[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 142 (Friday, October 4, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H12276-H12277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4194) to reauthorize alternative means 
of dispute resolution in the Federal administrative process, and for 
other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the 
Senate amendment.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Page 12, after line 5, insert:

     SEC. 12. JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL 
                   CLAIMS AND THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES: BID PROTESTS.

       (a) Bid Protests.--Section 1491 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
       (2) in subsection (a) by striking out paragraph (3); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a), the following new 
     subsection;
       ``(b)(1) Both the United States Court of Federal Claims and 
     the district courts of the United States shall have 
     jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested 
     party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for 
     bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a proposed 
     award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of 
     statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a 
     proposed procurement. Both the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims and the district courts of the United States shall 
     have jurisdiction to entertain such an action without regard 
     to whether suit is instituted before or after the contract is 
     awarded.
       ``(2) To afford relief in such an action, the courts may 
     award any relief that the court considers proper, including 
     declaratory and injunctive relief except that any monetary 
     relief shall be limited to bid preparation and proposal 
     costs.
       ``(3) In exercising jurisdiction under this subsection, the 
     courts shall give due regard to the interests of national 
     defense and national security and the need for expeditious 
     resolution of the action.
       ``(4) In any action under this subsection, the courts shall 
     review the agency's decision pursuant to the standards set 
     forth in section 706 of title 5.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on December 31, 1996 and 
     shall apply to all actions filed on or after that date.
       (c) Study.--No earlier than 2 years after the effective 
     date of this section, the United States General Accounting 
     Office shall undertake a study regarding the concurrent 
     jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States and 
     the Court of Federal Claims over bid protests to determine 
     whether concurrent jurisdiction is necessary. Such a study 
     shall be completed no later than December 31, 1999, and shall 
     specifically consider the effect of any proposed change on 
     the ability of small businesses to challenge violations of 
     Federal procurement law.
       (d) Sunset.--The jurisdiction of the district courts of the 
     United States over the actions described in section 
     1491(b)(1) of title 28, United States Code (as amended by 
     subsection (a) of this section) shall terminate on January 1, 
     2001 unless extended by Congress. The savings provisions in 
     subsection (e) shall apply if the bid protest jurisdiction of 
     the district courts of the United States terminates under 
     this subsection.
       (e) Savings Provisions.--
       (1) Orders.--A termination under subsection (d) shall not 
     terminate the effectiveness of orders that have been issued 
     by a court in connection with an action within the 
     jurisdiction of that court on or before December 31, 2000. 
     Such orders shall continue in effect according to their 
     terms until modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, 
     or revoked by a court of competent jurisdiction or by 
     operation of law.
       (2) Proceedings and applications.--(A) a termination under 
     subsection (d) shall not affect the jurisdiction of a court 
     of the United States to continue with any proceeding that is 
     pending before the court on December 31, 2000.
       (B) Orders may be issued in any such proceeding, appeals 
     may be taken therefrom, and payments may be made pursuant to 
     such orders, as if such termination had not occurred. An 
     order issued in any such proceeding shall continue in effect 
     until modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked 
     by a court of competent jurisdiction or by operation of law.
       (C) Nothing in this paragraph prohibits the discontinuance 
     or modification of any such proceeding under the same terms 
     and conditions and to the same extent that proceeding could 
     have been discontinued or modified absent such termination.
       (f) Nonexclusivity of GAO Remedies.--In the event that the 
     bid protest jurisdiction of the district courts of the United 
     States is terminated pursuant to subsection (d), then section 
     3556 of title 31, United States Code, shall be amended by 
     striking ``a court of the United States or'' in the first 
     sentence.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the reading). Without objection, the

[[Page H12277]]

Senate amendment is considered as read and printed in the Record.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request 
of the gentleman from New York?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would 
like to ask the gentleman from New York a question.
  I would like to ask the gentleman, am I correct that this bill does 
not authorize an agency to require a party to submit to binding 
arbitration as a condition of employment or to require a party to 
relinquish rights that they have under title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman, it is my 
understanding that she is correct, that H.R. 4194 does not change 
current law at this point at all.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for his response. Based upon 
that, I will not object. I thank the gentleman for bringing this up.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4194, the 
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, as amended by the other body. I 
would like to focus my remarks on section 12 of this bill, which was 
added by the Senate and concerns the so-called Scanwell jurisdiction. 
This section will be a great benefit to small businesses in New York, 
and across the Nation.
  The conference report on H.R. 2977, the Administrative Dispute 
Resolution Act, which was on the suspension calendar for floor action 
September 27, 1996, was pulled at the last minute--to the benefit of 
all our constituents. Provisions in that measure would have eliminated 
Federal district court jurisdiction for bid protests of Government 
contracts, leaving only two other possible forums, both located in 
Washington, DC.
  Federal district court jurisdiction, commonly known as Scanwell 
jurisdiction, has been an important safeguard to our constituents back 
home, ensuring that they have a local forum to appeal decisions on 
Government contracts. Eliminating Scanwell would have put burdens on 
our businesses, both large and small, to litigate their claims long-
distance. This provision was included in the bill, although no hearings 
on this subject were held in the House. A compromise was later reached 
that creates equal forums in the Federal district courts and in the 
Court of Federal Claims--and requires both courts to use the 
Administrative Procedure Act as the standard of review. The procedure 
will be in effect for 4 years.
  This makes sense. It gives our constituents the benefit of either 
forum for a full evidentiary hearing and allows a practical test of 
whether both forums are needed. Such common sense approaches are just 
good Government. This provision will enable actual experience over the 
next 4 years and a GAO study, after 2 years to provide the data 
necessary for Congress to make an informed decision regarding something 
as important as how far the courthouse door will be from home. I am 
certain that we would not allow the post offices to be closed in our 
towns and cities, so why should we close the Federal district 
courthouse door for claims concerning the $200 billion spent annually 
by the Government for goods and services. This bill protects our 
constituents, and I am happy that these good provisions will not be 
lost.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request 
of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________