[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 159 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H10663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO SECTION 10 OF TITLE 9, UNITED STATES CODE

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 2440) to make technical amendments to section 10 of title 9, 
United States Code.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2440

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

     SECTION 1. VACATION OF AWARDS.

       Section 10 of title 9, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by indenting the margin of paragraphs (1) through (4) 
     of subsection (a) 2 ems;
       (2) by striking ``Where'' in such paragraphs and inserting 
     ``where'';
       (3) by striking the period at the end of paragraphs (1), 
     (2), and (3) of subsection (a) and inserting a semicolon and 
     by adding ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (4) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (5) in paragraph (5), by striking ``Where an award'' and 
     inserting ``If an award'', by inserting a comma after 
     ``expired'', and by redesignating the paragraph as subsection 
     (b).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].


                             General Leave

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a momentous piece of legislation. I hope the 
Speaker pays close attention to the content of our presentation.
  This bill is sponsored by myself and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Nadler], and there is no controversy associated with it except what I 
am going to make of it. But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2440 is truly a 
technical corrections bill, which the gentleman from New York and I 
have introduced, with the agreement of the Office of Law Revision 
Counsel.
  Section 10 of title 9, United States Code, has a typographical flaw 
which has evaded detection ever since its original enactment. That 
section enumerates the grounds for vacating an arbitrator's award with 
each new ground beginning with the word ``where.'' The fifth ground, 
however, is obviously not a ground for vacating an award but, rather, 
the beginning of a new sentence.
  The error was called to our attention by a law clerk for a justice of 
the State of New York Supreme Court, the Appellate Division, Mr. Peter 
Brokowski by name, who had occasion to refer to the statute. This, of 
course, is in itself heartening as an example of observant and 
conscientious citizens participating in and having an effect on their 
government. We want the record to show how much we worked on this piece 
of legislation. I urge adoption of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill, as the distinguished chairman 
said, is a momentous piece of legislation. We refer to it as the comma 
bill. It clears up the language in title 9 of the U.S. Code without 
making any substantive changes.
  Section 10(a) of the Code sets out four cases under which a court may 
vacate an arbitrator's award after application of one of the parties. 
However, section 10(a) contains what appears to be a fifth case in 
which an award may be vacated. In fact, it is clear from the context 
that section 10(a)(5) is intended to set out the circumstances under 
which the court may direct a rehearing by the arbitrators, and not a 
vacating of the arbitrator's award. It should therefore be placed into 
a separate subsection. The bill does this and clarifies the law, so I 
support this bill.
  I would only add that the chairman referred to the law clerk who 
brought it to our attention. He is the law clerk of the Appellate 
Division justice, the Honorable Richard Wallach, who is a constituent 
and longtime friend and associate of mine. I am glad that his office 
was on the ball and brought this to our attention.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that we have no more speakers on 
this subject, since I wanted a full debate, but I have no further 
requests for time, so I reluctantly yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2440.
  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.

                          ____________________