[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2066-H2069]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 1998

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 3528) to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the 
use of alternative dispute resolution processes in United States 
district courts, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3528

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Alternative Dispute 
     Resolution Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES TO BE 
                   AUTHORIZED IN ALL DISTRICT COURTS.

       Section 651 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 651. Authorization of alternative dispute resolution

       ``(a) Definition.--For purposes of this chapter, an 
     alternative dispute resolution process includes any process 
     or procedure, other than an adjudication by a presiding 
     judge, in which a neutral third party participates to assist 
     in the resolution of issues in controversy, through processes 
     such as early neutral evaluation, mediation, minitrial, and 
     arbitration as provided in sections 654 through 658.
       ``(b) Authority.--Each United States district court shall 
     authorize, by local rule adopted under section 2071(b), the 
     use of alternative dispute resolution processes in all civil 
     actions, including adversary proceedings in bankruptcy, in 
     accordance with this chapter, except that the use of 
     arbitration may be authorized only as provided in section 
     654. Each United States district court shall devise and 
     implement its own alternative dispute resolution program, by 
     local rule adopted under section 2071(b), to encourage and 
     promote the use of alternative dispute resolution in its 
     district.
       ``(c) Existing Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs.--In 
     those courts where an alternative dispute resolution program 
     is in place on the date of the enactment of the Alternative 
     Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, the court shall examine the 
     effectiveness of that program and adopt such improvements to 
     the program as are consistent with the provisions and 
     purposes of this chapter.
       ``(d) Administration of Alternative Dispute Resolution 
     Programs.--Each United States district court shall designate 
     an employee, or a judicial officer, who is knowledgeable in 
     alternative dispute resolution

[[Page H2067]]

     practices and processes to implement, administer, oversee, 
     and evaluate the court's alternative dispute resolution 
     program. Such person may also be responsible for recruiting, 
     screening, and training attorneys to serve as neutrals and 
     arbitrators in the court's alternative dispute resolution 
     program.
       ``(e) Title 9 Not Affected.--This chapter shall not affect 
     title 9.
       ``(f) Program Support.--The Federal Judicial Center and the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts are 
     authorized to assist the district courts in the establishment 
     and improvement of alternative dispute resolution programs by 
     identifying particular practices employed in successful 
     programs and providing additional assistance as needed and 
     appropriate.''.

     SEC. 3. JURISDICTION.

       Section 652 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 652. Jurisdiction

       ``(a) Consideration of Alternative Dispute Resolution in 
     Appropriate Cases.--Notwithstanding any provision of law to 
     the contrary and except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c), each district court shall, by local rule adopted under 
     section 2071(b), require that litigants in all civil cases 
     consider the use of an alternative dispute resolution process 
     at an appropriate stage in the litigation. Each district 
     court shall provide litigants in all civil cases with at 
     least one alternative dispute resolution process, including, 
     but not limited to, mediation, early neutral evaluation, 
     minitrial, and arbitration as authorized in sections 654 
     through 658. Any district court that elects to require the 
     use of alternative dispute resolution in certain cases may do 
     so only with respect to mediation, early neutral evaluation, 
     and, if the parties consent, arbitration.
       ``(b) Actions Exempted From Consideration of Alternative 
     Dispute Resolution.--Each district court may exempt from the 
     requirements of this section specific cases or categories of 
     cases in which use of alternative dispute resolution would 
     not be appropriate. In defining these exemptions, each 
     district court shall consult with members of the bar, 
     including the United States Attorney for that district.
       ``(c) Authority of the Attorney General.--Nothing in this 
     section shall alter or conflict with the authority of the 
     Attorney General to conduct litigation on behalf of the 
     United States, with the authority of any Federal agency 
     authorized to conduct litigation in the United States courts, 
     or with any delegation of litigation authority by the 
     Attorney General.
       ``(d) Confidentiality Provisions.--Until such time as rules 
     are adopted under chapter 131 of this title providing for the 
     confidentiality of alternative dispute resolution processes 
     under this chapter, each district court shall, by local rule 
     adopted under section 2071(b), provide for the 
     confidentiality of the alternative dispute resolution 
     processes and to prohibit disclosure of confidential dispute 
     resolution communications.''.

     SEC. 4. MEDIATORS AND NEUTRAL EVALUATORS.

       Section 653 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 653. Neutrals

       ``(a) Panel of Neutrals.--Each district court that 
     authorizes the use of alternative dispute resolution 
     processes shall adopt appropriate processes for making 
     neutrals available for use by the parties for each category 
     of process offered. Each district court shall promulgate its 
     own procedures and criteria for the selection of neutrals on 
     its panels.
       ``(b) Qualifications and Training.--Each person serving as 
     a neutral in an alternative dispute resolution process should 
     be qualified and trained to serve as a neutral in the 
     appropriate alternative dispute resolution process. For this 
     purpose, the district court may use, among others, magistrate 
     judges who have been trained to serve as neutrals in 
     alternative dispute resolution processes, professional 
     neutrals from the private sector, and persons who have been 
     trained to serve as neutrals in alternative dispute 
     resolution processes. Until such time as rules are adopted 
     under chapter 131 of this title relating to the 
     disqualification of neutrals, each district court shall issue 
     rules under section 2071(b) relating to the disqualification 
     of neutrals (including, where appropriate, disqualification 
     under section 455 of this title, other applicable law, and 
     professional responsibility standards).''.

     SEC. 5. ACTIONS REFERRED TO ARBITRATION.

       Section 654 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 654. Arbitration

       ``(a) Referral of Actions to Arbitration.--Notwithstanding 
     any provision of law to the contrary and except as provided 
     in subsections (b) and (c) of section 652 and subsection (d) 
     of this section, a district court may allow the referral to 
     arbitration of any civil action (including any adversary 
     proceeding in bankruptcy) pending before it, except that 
     referral to arbitration may not be made where--
       ``(1) the action is based on an alleged violation of a 
     right secured by the Constitution of the United States;
       ``(2) jurisdiction is based in whole or in part on section 
     1343 of this title; or
       ``(3) the relief sought consists of money damages in an 
     amount greater than $150,000.
       ``(b) Safeguards in Consent Cases.--Until such time as 
     rules are adopted under chapter 131 of this title relating to 
     procedures described in this subsection, the district court 
     shall, by local rule adopted under section 2071(b), establish 
     procedures to ensure that any civil action in which 
     arbitration by consent is allowed under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) consent to arbitration is freely and knowingly 
     obtained; and
       ``(2) no party or attorney is prejudiced for refusing to 
     participate in arbitration.
       ``(c) Presumptions.--For purposes of subsection (a)(3), a 
     district court may presume damages are not in excess of 
     $150,000 unless counsel certifies that damages exceed such 
     amount.
       ``(d) Existing Programs.--Nothing in this section is deemed 
     to affect any action in which arbitration is conducted 
     pursuant to section 906 of the Judicial Improvements and 
     Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-102), as in effect 
     prior to the date of its repeal.''.

     SEC. 6. ARBITRATORS.

       Section 655 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 655. Arbitrators

       ``(a) Powers of Arbitrators.--An arbitrator to whom an 
     action is referred under section 654 shall have the power, 
     within the judicial district of the district court which 
     referred the action to arbitration--
       ``(1) to conduct arbitration hearings;
       ``(2) to administer oaths and affirmations; and
       ``(3) to make awards.
       ``(b) Standards for Certification.--Each district court 
     that authorizes arbitration shall establish standards for the 
     certification of arbitrators and shall certify arbitrators to 
     perform services in accordance with such standards and this 
     chapter. The standards shall include provisions requiring 
     that any arbitrator--
       ``(1) shall take the oath or affirmation described in 
     section 453; and
       ``(2) shall be subject to the disqualification rules under 
     section 455.
       ``(c) Immunity.--All individuals serving as arbitrators in 
     an alternative dispute resolution program under this chapter 
     are performing quasi-judicial functions and are entitled to 
     the immunities and protections that the law accords to 
     persons serving in such capacity.''.

     SEC. 7. SUBPOENAS.

       Section 656 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 656. Subpoenas

       ``Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (relating 
     to subpoenas) applies to subpoenas for the attendance of 
     witnesses and the production of documentary evidence at an 
     arbitration hearing under this chapter.''.

     SEC. 8. ARBITRATION AWARD AND JUDGMENT.

       Section 657 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 657. Arbitration award and judgment

       ``(a) Filing and Effect of Arbitration Award.--An 
     arbitration award made by an arbitrator under this chapter, 
     along with proof of service of such award on the other party 
     by the prevailing party or by the plaintiff, shall be filed 
     promptly after the arbitration hearing is concluded with the 
     clerk of the district court that referred the case to 
     arbitration. Such award shall be entered as the judgment of 
     the court after the time has expired for requesting a trial 
     de novo. The judgment so entered shall be subject to the same 
     provisions of law and shall have the same force and effect as 
     a judgment of the court in a civil action, except that the 
     judgment shall not be subject to review in any other court by 
     appeal or otherwise.
       ``(b) Sealing of Arbitration Award.--The district court 
     shall provide, by local rule adopted under section 2071(b), 
     that the contents of any arbitration award made under this 
     chapter shall not be made known to any judge who might be 
     assigned to the case until the district court has entered 
     final judgment in the action or the action has otherwise 
     terminated.
       ``(c) Trial de Novo of Arbitration Awards.--
       ``(1) Time for filing demand.--Within 30 days after the 
     filing of an arbitration award with a district court under 
     subsection (a), any party may file a written demand for a 
     trial de novo in the district court.
       ``(2) Action restored to court docket.--Upon a demand for a 
     trial de novo, the action shall be restored to the docket of 
     the court and treated for all purposes as if it had not been 
     referred to arbitration.
       ``(3) Exclusion of evidence of arbitration.--The court 
     shall not admit at the trial de novo any evidence that there 
     has been an arbitration proceeding, the nature or amount of 
     any award, or any other matter concerning the conduct of the 
     arbitration proceeding, unless--
       ``(A) the evidence would otherwise be admissible in the 
     court under the Federal Rules of Evidence; or
       ``(B) the parties have otherwise stipulated.''.

     SEC. 9. COMPENSATION OF ARBITRATORS AND NEUTRALS.

       Section 658 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 658. Compensation of arbitrators and neutrals

       ``(a) Compensation.--The district court shall, subject to 
     regulations approved by the Judicial Conference of the United 
     States, establish the amount of compensation, if any, that 
     each arbitrator or neutral shall receive for services 
     rendered in each case under this chapter.
       ``(b) Transportation Allowances.--Under regulations 
     prescribed by the Director of the

[[Page H2068]]

     Administrative Office of the United States Courts, a district 
     court may reimburse arbitrators for actual transportation 
     expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of duties 
     under this chapter.''.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal 
     year such sums as may be necessary to carry out chapter 44 of 
     title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act.

     SEC. 11. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Limitation on Money Damages.--Section 901 of the 
     Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. 
     652 note) is amended by striking subsection (c).
       (b) Other Conforming Amendments.--(1) The chapter heading 
     for chapter 44 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

            ``CHAPTER 44--ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION''.

       (2) The table of contents for chapter 44 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec.
``651.  Authorization of alternative dispute resolution.
``652.  Jurisdiction.
``653.  Neutrals.
``654.  Arbitration.
``655.  Arbitrators.
``656.  Subpoenas.
``657.  Arbitration award and judgment.
``658.  Compensation of arbitrators and neutrals.''.
       (3) The item relating to chapter 44 in the table of 
     chapters for Part III of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:

``44. Alternative Dispute Resolution.............................651''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).


                             General Leave

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days 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 North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3528 is designed to address the problem of high 
case loads burdening the Federal courts. This legislation will provide 
a quicker, more efficient method by which to resolve some Federal cases 
when the parties or the courts so choose.
  H.R. 3528 directs each Federal trial court to establish some form of 
alternative dispute resolution, popularly referred to as ADR, which 
could include arbitration, mediation, mini trials, early neutral 
evaluation, or some combination of those for certain civil cases. The 
bill also provides for the confidentiality of the alternative dispute 
resolution process and prohibits the disclosure of such confidential 
communications. The version considered today furthermore includes 
several noncontroversial technical amendments which are supported by 
the Judicial Conference as well as the Department of Justice.
  This legislation will provide the Federal courts with the tools 
necessary to present quality alternatives to expensive Federal 
litigation. In sum, this is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, that will offer 
our citizens a reasonable and cost-effective alternative to expensive 
Federal litigation while still guaranteeing their right to have their 
day in court.
  I want to thank at this time, Mr. Speaker, the cooperation of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Barney Frank), the ranking member on 
the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
  And let me say this as well, Mr. Speaker: The high numbers reflected 
by the numerous backlogs represent far more than faceless statistics. 
They represent citizens, real people anxiously awaiting their day in 
court.
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to pass H.R. 3528.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble) for his leadership. These are extremely important 
issues, and I would like to rise on behalf of my Democratic colleagues 
and certainly our ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), on these issues, and particularly to emphasize that we in the 
Committee on the Judiciary should be at the highlight, if my colleagues 
will, of emphasizing or making sure that justice is facilitated.
  I rise in support of H.R. 3528, the Alternative Dispute Resolution 
Act of 1998. And as I stated, I commend the chairman, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), again of the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property of the House Committee on the Judiciary, for 
their work in getting this important legislation to the floor of the 
House today.
  Alternative dispute resolution, whether mediation, neutral 
evaluation, arbitration, mini trial, or any other fair procedure that 
the courts can oversee which makes litigation less burdensome to both 
the participants and the system, is in my view welcome and something 
that we should support.
  As a former municipal court judge, the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Coble), who was on the bench on that night court, if my colleagues 
have ever seen that, hours from 4 to 12 midnight with maybe 300 cases 
per docket, I am well aware of the importance, one, of justice even at 
the local municipal court level, but also the importance of ensuring 
that people find their way into the court system in a fair and honest 
manner.
  I am also very much in support of, as a former member and director of 
the State Bar of Texas, of the value of alternative dispute resolution. 
So I hope that my colleagues will take the words that I offer in 
addition to support of this legislation, and certainly might engage the 
chairman in his concern for these issues, as well.
  But I do believe that, as a member of the House Committee on the 
Judiciary, it is extremely important that we concern ourselves with the 
lack of the processing of appointments to the judiciary that we are 
facing in this Congress, this 105th Congress. It is extremely important 
in the State of Texas where the Fifth Circuit has remained vacant, the 
Southern District has a vacancy, and we are extremely backlogged. The 
kinds of, if I might say, shenanigans that are going on in the other 
body with respect to judicial appointments is something that we have a 
responsibility to address.
  Certainly the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 that has our 
overwhelming support will help to, if my colleagues will, bring some 
sort of calm and some sort of movement on cases, but I do believe we 
are long overdue in moving the log jam of appointments as offered by 
the White House.
  Let me proceed by saying that in doing this legislation I want to 
commend my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary for reporting 
out a bill that brings about the appropriate standards for Federal 
courts throughout the Nation to continue to develop workable 
alternative dispute resolution methods, and I am pleased that the 
members of the committee have worked with the Judicial Conference and 
the Department of Justice to craft legislation which is not objected to 
by those important institutions.
  Just a year ago we funeralized Judge Black in the Southern District. 
He was a strong supporter of alternative dispute resolution, which 
gives me certainly the comfort that we are doing the right thing in 
engaging the Judicial Conference and working with them.
  So I do support the legislation before us. I urge my colleagues to do 
the same so that I can and we can work together to continue to try to 
improve access to our nation's courts, lower the cost of litigation, 
and expedite the process for all. And in so doing, Mr. Speaker, I would 
certainly ask that we give due consideration to moving the unfortunate 
log jam that does not allow us to move the appointments so aptly 
appointed and judge-qualified to fill the many vacancies throughout 
this Nation. It certainly changes the course of justice without that.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3528, the Alternative Dispute 
Resolution Act of 1998, and commend Chairman Coble and ranking member 
Frank of the Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the House 
Judiciary Committee for their work in getting this important 
legislation to the floor of the House today.
  Alternative dispute resolution, whether mediation, neutral 
evaluation, arbitration, mini trial, or any other fair procedure that 
the courts can

[[Page H2069]]

oversee which make litigation less burdensome to both the participants 
and the system, is in my view welcome and something that we should 
support.
  I commend my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for reporting out 
a bill which provides the appropriate standards for Federal courts 
throughout the Nation to continue to develop workable alternative 
dispute resolution methods, and I am pleased that the members of the 
committee have worked with the Judicial Conference and the Department 
of Justice to craft legislation which is not objected to by those 
important institutions.
  I support the legislation before us. I urge my colleagues to do the 
same, so that we can work together to continue to try to improve access 
to our Nation's courts, lower the costs of litigation, and expedite the 
process for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, I failed to mention this earlier. 
About five or six days ago I received a detailed letter from my chief 
judge in the Middle District of North Carolina, and I will not read it 
in its entirety, but I will allude to what he said about ADR.
  He wrote to me: ``This has been a significant benefit to litigants 
and the public and has been met with approval by the bar. You 
indicate,'' referring to me, ``that you are a big supporter of ADR 
programs. We have had a very successful ADR program in this district 
for several years.''
  Now the Middle District of North Carolina of course does not have a 
corner on that market. Many districts have practiced the ADR exercise 
for some time, but this would just swing wide the gate and bring all 
districts in, and I know what Judge Bullock wrote to me would be echoed 
by district court judges across the land.
  Mr. Speaker, I said before it is a good bill, I urge its passage, and 
I ask the gentlewoman from Texas if she is prepared to yield back.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for 
yielding this time to me, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Coble), the chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), the ranking member, for their work on this bill.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3528, the Alternative Dispute 
Resolution Act of 1998. Because I have seen firsthand the successful 
use of alternative dispute resolution in my own County of San Diego, 
California, I am a diehard fan of ADR, as we often call it.
  Let me share with my colleagues the wildly successful example of the 
San Diego Mediation Center. This service has grown from humble 
beginnings in the community of Golden Hill in my congressional district 
to a county-wide service offering mediation, arbitration, facilitation, 
training, credentialing, internships and a speakers bureau to the 
citizens of San Diego County.
  Since 1983 the San Diego Mediation Center has provided a voluntary 
and peaceful process for resolving disputes. Alternative dispute 
resolution is available for neighbors, businesses, private citizens, 
courts, the legal community, municipalities, government agencies, 
schools, professional groups, homeowner associations, churches and 
families.
  With an agreement rate of 80 percent and a compliance rate of 85 
percent the agreements forged through the mediation process have 
promoted goodwill in the community, reduced the load on the courts, and 
in some cases prevented violence.
  More than 10,000 volunteer hours are donated to the service each year 
by the 200 volunteer mediators who receive intensive mediation training 
from the center. There is an extensive waiting list of potential 
volunteers who are hoping for the opportunity to receive training and 
to become mediators. Public trainings in dispute resolution are also 
given several times each year by the training staff of the mediation 
center.
  The work of the mediation center is well received and highly 
respected in San Diego. Recently recognized by the San Diego County 
Taxpayers Association with its Golden Watchdog Award, the mediation 
center has saved the taxpayers of San Diego $3.7 million by cutting 
direct costs to the San Diego Small Claims, Municipal and Superior 
Courts.
  Mr. Speaker, the work of the San Diego Mediation Center and hundreds 
of other alternative dispute resolution services throughout the country 
reduces judiciary case loads and offers disputants an inexpensive and 
more satisfying way to resolve disputes rather than litigation. For 
that reason, I applaud H.R. 3528, that will extend this option to 
litigants in district court civil cases.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I am prepared to yield back after I make one closing comment, and I 
do want this to be particularly acknowledged, I say to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), that I recognize the hard work that 
has been put into this bill.
  My plea is particularly parallel to this legislation. It certainly 
does not take away from my very strong support of this legislation. But 
again I raise up the very deep concern that I believe that the judicial 
appointments that proceed through the other body have been held 
hostage. I call to this body's attention a nominee by the name of Judge 
Massiah-Jackson. Several other nominees for the bench have been held in 
absolute and outrageous hostage situations.
  I believe that the alternative dispute resolution system is excellent 
and is needed in this legislation, is something of great importance to 
the Nation, but we will not do the job that we are supposed to do if we 
do not proceed filling the vacancies that are so crucial to the justice 
system in this country.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Coble), and I certainly applaud the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for their wisdom and vision on this 
legislation.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her generous comments and 
for her help on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3528, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________