[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.
____________________