[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 142 (Saturday, October 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10457-H10459]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 1998

  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in 
the Senate amendments to 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.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Senate amendments:
       Page 2, after line 3, insert:

     ``SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.

       ``Congress finds that--
       ``(1) alternative dispute resolution, when supported by the 
     bench and bar, and utilizing properly trained neutrals in a 
     program adequately administered by the court, has the 
     potential to provide a variety of benefits, including greater 
     satisfaction of the parties, innovative methods of resolving 
     disputes, and greater efficiency in achieving settlements;
       ``(2) certain forms of alternative dispute resolution, 
     including mediation, early neutral evaluation, minitrials, 
     and voluntary arbitration, may have potential to reduce the 
     large backlog of cases now pending in some federal courts 
     throughout the United States, thereby allowing the courts to 
     process their remaining cases more efficiently; and
       ``(3) the continued growth of Federal appellate court-
     annexed mediation programs suggests that this form of 
     alternative dispute resolution can be equally effective in 
     resolving disputes in the federal trial courts; therefore, 
     the district courts should consider including mediation in 
     their local alternative dispute resolution programs.''
       Page 2, line 4, strike out ``SEC, 2'' and insert: ``SEC. 
     3''
       Page 2, line 21, strike out ``2071(b)'' and insert: 
     ``2071(a)''
       Page 3, line 1, strike out ``2071(b)'' and insert: 
     ``2071(a)''
       Page 4, line 5, strike out ``SEC. 3'' and insert: ``SEC. 
     4''
       Page 4, line 13, strike out ``2071(b)'' and insert: 
     ``2071(a)''
       Page 5, line 18, strike out ``2071(b)'' and insert: 
     ``2071(a)''
       Page 5, line 22, strike out ``SEC. 4'' and insert: ``SEC. 
     5''

[[Page H10458]]

       Page 6, line 21, strike out ``2071(b)'' and insert: 
     ``2071(a)''
       Page 7, line 1, strike out ``SEC. 5'' and insert: ``SEC. 
     6''
       Page 7, line 7, strike out ``subsections (b) and (c)'' and 
     insert: ``subsections (a), (b), and (c)''
       Page 7, line 11, after ``it'' insert: ``when the parties 
     consent''
       Page 7, line 24, strike out ``2071(b)'' and insert: 
     ``2071(a)''
       Page 8, line 9, strike out ``section'' and insert: 
     ``chapter''
       Page 8, line 10, strike out ``action'' and insert: 
     ``program''
       Page 8, line 11, strike out ``section 906'' and insert: 
     ``title IX''
       Page 8, line 12, strike out ``100-102'' and insert: ``100-
     702''
       Page 8, line 13, strike out ``as in effect prior to the 
     date of its repeal'' and insert: ``as amended by section 1 of 
     Public Law 105-53''
       Page 8, line 14, strike out ``SEC. 6'' and insert: ``SEC. 
     7''
       Page 9, line 16, strike out ``SEC. 7'' and insert: ``SEC. 
     8''
       Page 10, line 1, strike out ``SEC. 8'' and insert: ``SEC. 
     9''
       Page 10, line 21, strike out ``2071(b)'' and insert: 
     ``2071(a)''
       Page 11, line 22, strike out ``SEC. 9'' and insert: ``SEC. 
     10''
       Page 12, line 10, after ``arbitrators'' insert: ``and other 
     neutrals''
       Page 12, line 13, strike out ``SEC. 10'' and insert: ``SEC. 
     11''
       Page 12, line 18, strike out ``SEC. 11'' and insert: ``SEC 
     12''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).


                             General Leave

  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the bill H.R. 3528.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3528 is designed to address the problem of high 
caseloads 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 known as ADR, which could 
include arbitration, mediation, mini trials, or 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 is substantially the same as the one we 
passed under suspension in April, with minor Senate clarifications. The 
bill has no known opposition and is supported by the American Bar 
Association, the Judicial Conference and the Department of Justice.
  This legislation will provide the Federal courts with the tools 
necessary to present quality alternatives to intensive Federal 
litigation. In sum, this is a good bill that will offer our citizens a 
reasonable and cost-effective alternative to expensive Federal 
litigation, while at the same time still guaranteeing their right to 
have their day in court.
  I urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to pass H.R. 3528.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3528, the 
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998. As litigation increases, so 
do litigation costs. It is clear that we all agree Congress should do 
all it can to encourage opposing parties to try alternative dispute 
resolution.
  While I am concerned about the bill's provision making this process 
mandatory, since the overwhelming majority of Federal courts already 
have some form of alternative dispute resolution, the mandatory 
provision is a de jure insult but not so much de facto.
  As one who served in the Federal courts and in the State courts, I am 
mindful of the tremendous need for alternative dispute resolution.
  The Federal courts have been willing to implement alternative dispute 
resolution. This bill now says they must. I would prefer that the 
decision whether to adopt a particular court-annexed ADR program be 
left to the courts, but I think this bill has it both ways. It requires 
mandatory alternative dispute resolution but retains some flexibility 
for the courts to determine for themselves exactly what kind.
  The legislation has improved dramatically from what it reflected upon 
introduction. There is more flexibility for the courts to determine how 
to proceed once they set up an alternative dispute resolution program. 
I appreciate the positive changes that have been made and urge my 
colleagues to support this bill, and thank the sponsor and cosponsors, 
my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), for 
bringing this action for our consideration.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3528, the 
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998.
  This Bill passed the House in April, by a vote of 405 to 2, and it is 
here again, with Senate Amendments.
  Alternative Dispute Resolution is commonly referred to as ``ADR.''
  ADR includes a range of procedures, such as mediation, arbitration, 
peer panels and ombudsmen.
  Traditional dispute resolution in America almost always involves a 
Plaintiff and a Defendant, battling each other in a court, before a 
judge or jury, to prove that one is wrong and one is right.
  It is time consuming, and it is expensive, too expensive for most 
wage earners to afford, and often too time-consuming to be of much 
practical use.
  In addition, as one writer has observed, a process that has to 
pronounce ``winners and losers necessarily destroys almost any 
preexisting relationship between the people involved . . . [and] . . . 
it is virtually impossible to maintain a civil relationship once people 
have confronted one another across a courtroom.''
  The Bill before us requires all U.S. District Courts to establish a 
voluntary alternative dispute resolution program within the courts.
  The purpose of the Bill is to guarantee that all litigants have 
another way to resolve their differences, short of a full trial.
  Mediation is a voluntary process in which a neutral third party--a 
mediator--assists two or more disputants, to reach a negotiated 
settlement of their differences.
  The process allows the principal parties to vent and diffuse 
feelings, clear up misunderstandings, find areas of agreement, and 
incorporate these areas of agreement into solutions that the parties 
themselves construct.
  The process is quick, efficient and economical.
  It also facilitates lasting relationships between disputants.
  A recent survey by the Government Accounting Office showed that 
mediation is the ADR technique of choice among the five federal 
agencies and five private corporations that were surveyed.
  The Report stated, ``Most of the organizations we studied had data to 
show that their ADR processes, especially mediation, resolved a high 
proportion of disputes, thereby helping them avoid formal redress 
processes and litigation.''
  In a taped message on Law Day, May 1st, Attorney General Janet Reno 
said, ``Our lawyers are using mediation . . . to resolve . . . 
employment . . . cases. I have directed that all of our attorneys in 
civil practice receive training in mediation advocacy.''
  On that same day, President Clinton issued a memorandum, creating a 
federal interagency committee to promote the use of alternative dispute 
resolution methods within the federal government, pursuant to the 
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996.
  In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 encourages the use of 
mediation and other alternative means of resolving disputes that arise 
under the Act or provisions of federal laws amended by the title.
  And, in 1995, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission promulgated 
its policy on ADR which encourages the use of ADR in appropriate 
circumstances.
  ADR can provide faster, less expensive, less contentious and more 
productive results in eliminating disputes.
  In sum, ADR is effective and is legislatively and administratively 
encouraged.
  Mediation is the ADR method of choice.
  It is the wave of the future, an effective tool.
  In the next Congress, I intend to introduce legislation to further 
encourage the use of ADR.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3528, 
this important legislation relating to the Alternative Dispute

[[Page H10459]]

Resolution Act of 1998. Alternative Dispute Resolution, whether 
medication, neutral evaluation, arbitration, mini-trial or any other 
fair procedure that the courts can oversee, and which makes litigation 
less burdensome, is in my view welcome and something that we should all 
support.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I support reporting out this 
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 we 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. According to the Administrative 
Office of the U.S. Courts, the vast majority of the 94 federal district 
courts have established dispute resolution programs, in effect, simply 
because it works. It is efficient, less expensive and, it works for all 
parties involved. I hope my colleagues throughout Congress support this 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam 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 concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3528.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendments were 
concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________