[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 24019-24022]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 
                                  2000

  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 3312) to clarify the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 
1996 to authorize the Merit Systems Protection Board to establish under 
such Act a 3-year pilot program that will provide a voluntary early 
intervention alternative dispute resolution process to assist Federal 
agencies and employees in resolving certain personnel actions and 
disputes in administrative programs, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3312

       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 ``Merit Systems Protection 
     Board Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Workplace disputes waste resources of the Federal 
     Government, take up too much time, and deflect managers and 
     employees from their primary job functions.
       (2) The Merit Systems Protection Board (hereafter in this 
     Act referred to as the ``Board'') has already taken steps to 
     encourage agency use of ADR before appeals are filed with the 
     Board, including extending the regulatory time limit for 
     filing appeals when the parties agree to try ADR, but high 
     levels of litigation continue.
       (3) The Board's administrative judges, who decide appeals 
     from personnel actions by Federal agencies, find that by the 
     time cases are formally filed with the Board, the positions 
     of the parties have hardened, communication between the 
     parties is difficult and often antagonistic, and the parties 
     are not amenable to open discussion of alternatives to 
     litigation.
       (4) Early intervention by an outside neutral, after the 
     first notice of a proposed action by an agency but before an 
     appeal is filed with the Board, will allow the parties to 
     explore settlement outside the adversarial context. However, 
     without the encouragement of a neutral provided without cost, 
     agencies are reluctant to support an early intervention ADR 
     program.
       (5) A short-term pilot program allowing the Board, upon the 
     joint request of the parties, to intervene early in a 
     personnel dispute is an effective means to test whether ADR 
     at that stage can resolve disputes, limit appeals to the 
     Board, and reduce time and money expended in such matters.
       (6) The Board is well equipped to conduct a voluntary early 
     intervention pilot program testing the efficacy of ADR at the 
     initial stages of a personnel dispute. The Board can provide 
     neutrals who are already well versed in both ADR techniques 
     and personnel law. The Board handles a diverse workload 
     including removals, suspensions for more than 14 days, and 
     other adverse actions, the resolution of which entails 
     complex legal and factual questions.

     SEC. 3. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE 
                   RESOLUTION PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Amendment to Chapter 5 of Title 5.--Chapter 5 of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by adding immediately after 
     section 584 the following:

     ``Sec. 585. Establishment of voluntary early intervention 
       alternative dispute resolution pilot program for Federal 
       personnel disputes

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) The Board is authorized under section 572 to 
     establish a 3-year pilot program to provide Federal employees 
     and agencies with voluntary early intervention alternative 
     dispute resolution (in this section referred to as `ADR') 
     processes to apply to certain personnel disputes. The Board 
     shall provide ADR services, upon joint request of the 
     parties, in matters involving removals, suspensions for more 
     than 14 days, other adverse actions under section 7512, and 
     removals and other actions based on unacceptable performance 
     under section 4303.
       ``(2) The Board shall test and evaluate a variety of ADR 
     techniques, which may include--
       ``(A) mediation conducted by private neutrals, Board staff, 
     or neutrals from appropriate Federal agencies other than the 
     Board;
       ``(B) mediation through use of neutrals agreed upon by the 
     parties and credentialed under subsection (c)(5); and
       ``(C) non-binding arbitration.
       ``(b) Early Intervention ADR.--
       ``(1) Authority.--The Board is authorized to establish an 
     early intervention ADR process, which the agency involved and 
     employee may jointly request, after an agency has issued a 
     notice letter of a proposed action to an employee under 
     section 4303 or 7513 but before an appeal is filed with the 
     Board.
       ``(2) Notice in personnel disputes.--During the term of the 
     pilot program, an agency shall, in the notice letter of a 
     proposed personnel action under section 4303 or 7513--
       ``(A) advise the employee that early intervention ADR is 
     available from the neutral Board, subject to the standards 
     developed pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A), and that the 
     agency and employee may jointly request it; and
       ``(B) provide a description of the program, including the 
     standards developed pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A).
       ``(3) Request.--Any agency and employee may seek early 
     intervention ADR from the Board by filing a joint request 
     with the Board pursuant to the program standards adopted 
     under subsection (c)(1)(A). All personnel dispute matters 
     appealable to the Board under section 4303 or 7513 shall be 
     eligible for early intervention ADR, upon joint request of 
     the parties, unless the Board determines that the matter is 
     not appropriate for the program subject to any applicable 
     collective bargaining agreement established under chapter 71.
       ``(4) Confidentiality and withdrawal.--The consent of an 
     agency or an employee with respect to an early intervention 
     ADR process is confidential and shall not be disclosed in any 
     subsequent proceeding. Either party may withdraw from the ADR 
     process at any time.
       ``(5) Ancillary matter.--In any personnel dispute accepted 
     by the Board for the ADR pilot program authorized by this 
     section, the Board may attempt to resolve any ancillary 
     matter which the Board would be authorized to decide if the 
     personnel action were effected under section 4303 or 7513, 
     including--
       ``(A) a claim of discrimination as described in section 
     7702(a)(1)(B);
       ``(B) a prohibited personnel practice claim as described in 
     section 2302(b); or
       ``(C) a claim that the agency's action is or would be, if 
     effected, not in accordance with law.
       ``(c) Implementation.--
       ``(1) Program duties.--In carrying out the program under 
     this section, the Board shall--
       ``(A) develop and prescribe standards for selecting and 
     handling cases in which ADR has been requested and is to be 
     used;
       ``(B) take such actions as may be necessary upon joint 
     request of the parties, including waiver of all statutory, 
     regulatory, or Board imposed adjudicatory time frames; and
       ``(C) establish a time target within which it intends to 
     complete the ADR process.
       ``(2) Extension.--The Board, upon the joint request of the 
     parties, may extend the time period as it finds appropriate.
       ``(3) Advocacy and outreach.--The Board shall conduct 
     briefings and other outreach,

[[Page 24020]]

     on a non-reimbursable basis, aimed at increasing awareness 
     and understanding of the ADR program on the part of the 
     Federal workforce--including executives, managers, and other 
     employees.
       ``(4) Recruitment.--The Chairman of the Board may contract 
     on a reimbursable basis with officials from other Federal 
     agencies and contract with other contractors or temporary 
     staff to carry out the provisions of this section.
       ``(5) Training and credentialling of neutrals.--The Board 
     shall develop a training and credentialing program to ensure 
     that all individuals selected by the Board to serve as 
     program neutrals have a sufficient understanding of the 
     issues that arise before the Board and are sufficiently 
     skilled in the practice of meditation or any other relevant 
     form of ADR.
       ``(6) Regulations.--The Board is authorized to prescribe 
     such regulations as may be necessary to implement the ADR 
     program established by this section.
       ``(d) Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Criteria.--The Board's Office of Policy and 
     Evaluation shall establish criteria for evaluating the ADR 
     pilot program and prepare a report containing findings and 
     recommendations as to whether voluntary early intervention 
     ADR is desirable, effective, and appropriate for cases 
     subject to section 4303 or 7513.
       ``(2) Report content.--The report, subject to subsection 
     (b)(4) and section 574, shall include--
       ``(A) the number of cases subject to the ADR program, the 
     agencies involved, the results, and the resources expended;
       ``(B) a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of the 
     program, including associated resource and time savings (if 
     any), and the effect on the Board's caseload and average case 
     processing time;
       ``(C) a survey of customer satisfaction; and
       ``(D) a recommendation regarding the desirability of 
     extending the ADR program beyond the prescribed expiration 
     date and any recommended changes.
     The recommendation under subparagraph (D) shall discuss the 
     relationship between the Board's pilot ADR program and those 
     workplace ADR programs conducted by other Federal agencies.
       ``(3) Report date.--The report shall be submitted to the 
     President and the Congress 180 days before the close of the 
     ADR pilot program.''.
       (b) Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--For the purpose of carrying out the ADR 
     pilot program established by this section, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     for each of the 3 fiscal years beginning after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) No reductions.--The authorization of appropriations by 
     paragraph (1) shall not have the effect of reducing any funds 
     appropriated for the Board for the purpose of carrying out 
     its statutory mission under section 1204.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect no later than the close of the 60th day 
     after the enactment of appropriations authorized by 
     subsection (b)(1) and shall remain in effect for 3 years from 
     the effective date.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter IV of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 584 the 
     following new item:

``585. Establishment of voluntary early intervention alternative 
              dispute resolution pilot program for Federal personnel 
              disputes.''.

     SEC. 4. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES.

       (a) Amendment to Chapter 53 of Title 5.--Chapter 53 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding immediately 
     after section 5372a the following:

     ``Sec. 5372b. Merit Systems Protection Board administrative 
       judges

       ``(a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `administrative judge (AJ)' means an 
     employee of the Merit Systems Protection Board appointed to 
     an administrative judge position and paid under the MSPB 
     Administrative Judge Schedule established by subsection (b); 
     and
       ``(2) the term `administrative judge (GS)' means an 
     employee of the Merit Systems Protection Board appointed to 
     an administrative judge position and paid under the General 
     Schedule described in section 5332 of this title.
       ``(b) In General.--There is established the MSPB 
     Administrative Judge Pay Schedule which shall have 4 levels 
     of pay, designated as AJ-1, AJ-2, AJ-3, and AJ-4. Each 
     administrative judge (AJ) shall be paid at one of those 
     levels in accordance with subsection (c).
       ``(c) Rates of Pay.--
       ``(1) Basic pay.--The rates of basic pay for the levels of 
     the MSPB Administrative Judge Pay Schedule established by 
     subsection (b) shall be as follows:
       ``(A) AJ-1: 70 percent of the next to highest rate of basic 
     pay for the Senior Executive Service.
       ``(B) AJ-2: 80 percent of the next to highest rate of basic 
     pay for the Senior Executive Service.
       ``(C) AJ-3: 90 percent of the next to highest rate of basic 
     pay for the Senior Executive Service.
       ``(D) AJ-4: 92 percent of the next to highest rate of basic 
     pay for the Senior Executive Service.
       ``(2) Locality pay.--Locality pay as provided by section 
     5304 shall be applied to the basic pay for administrative 
     judges (AJ) paid under the MSPB Administrative Judge Pay 
     Schedule.
       ``(d) Appointment and Advancement.--
       ``(1) Initial appointment.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (5), an initial appointment of an administrative judge (AJ) 
     to the AJ pay schedule shall be at the AJ-1 level.
       ``(2) Conversion to mspb administrative judge pay 
     schedule.--An administrative judge (GS) who is serving as of 
     the effective date of this section shall be eligible for 
     conversion to the MSPB Administrative Judge Pay Schedule and 
     appointment as an administrative judge (AJ) in accordance 
     with subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) below:
       ``(A) If the administrative judge (GS) occupies a position 
     at the grade 15 level of the General Schedule and has served 
     for 3 or more years as of the effective date of this section, 
     the judge shall be converted to the MSPB Administrative Judge 
     Pay Schedule and appointed as an administrative judge (AJ) on 
     the effective date of this section so long as the judge's 
     last 3 performance appraisals of record are at the `exceeds 
     fully successful' level or higher. An administrative judge 
     (AJ) so converted shall be placed in the appropriate pay 
     level prescribed in paragraph (3), based on the amount of 
     time the administrative judge (AJ) has served as an 
     administrative judge (GS).
       ``(B) If the administrative judge (GS) occupies a position 
     at the grade 15 level of the General Schedule and has served 
     for less than 3 years as of the effective date of this 
     section, the judge shall be converted to the MSPB 
     Administrative Judge Pay Schedule and appointed as an 
     administrative judge (AJ) on the date the judge completes 3 
     years of service at the grade 15 level so long as the judge's 
     overall performance appraisal ratings for the 3-year period 
     are at the `exceeds fully successful' level or higher.
       ``(C) If the administrative judge (GS) occupies a position 
     at a level below grade 15 of the General Schedule on the 
     effective date of this section and is subsequently advanced 
     to grade 15 of the General Schedule, the judge shall, after 
     serving for 3 years at the grade 15 level, be converted to 
     the MSPB Administrative Judge Pay Schedule and appointed as 
     an administrative judge (AJ) so long as the judge's overall 
     performance appraisal ratings for the 3-year period at the 
     grade 15 level are at the `exceeds fully successful' level or 
     higher.
       ``(3) Advancement.--An administrative judge (AJ) shall be 
     advanced to the AJ-2 pay level upon completion of 104 weeks 
     of service with an appraisal rating for such weeks at the 
     `exceeds fully successful' level or higher, to the AJ-3 pay 
     level upon completion of 104 weeks of service at the next 
     lower level with an appraisal rating for such weeks at the 
     `exceeds fully successful' level or higher, and to the AJ-4 
     pay level upon completion of 52 weeks of service at the next 
     lower level so long as the judge's overall performance 
     appraisal ratings for the period are at the `exceeds fully 
     successful' level or higher.
       ``(4) Review board.--If at any time the MSPB establishes a 
     pass-fail or other performance appraisal system that does not 
     include an overall performance appraisal rating of `exceeds 
     fully successful', upon completion of the applicable 
     qualifying time-in-service requirement and receipt of a 
     `pass' or equivalent performance appraisal rating for the 3 
     most recent rating periods, an administrative judge (AJ) 
     shall be eligible for consideration to advancement to the 
     next pay level subject to the approval of a review board made 
     up of senior MSPB officials, as designated by the Chairman.
       ``(5) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Chairman of the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board may provide for initial 
     appointment of an administrative judge (AJ) at a level higher 
     than AJ-1 under such circumstances as the Chairman may 
     determine appropriate.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the Chairman of the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board may, in exceptional cases, 
     provide for the conversion of an administrative judge (GS) to 
     the MSPB Administrative Judge Pay Schedule under such 
     circumstances as the Chairman may determine appropriate.''.
       (b) Transition Provisions.--
       (1) Limitation on pay increases.--Notwithstanding the rates 
     of basic pay prescribed under section 5372b(c) of title 5, 
     United States Code, as added by subsection (a), the Chairman 
     of the Merit Systems Protection Board may, on the effective 
     date of this section and each year for a period of 7 years 
     thereafter, limit the pay increase for each administrative 
     judge (AJ) to an adjustment equal to--
       (A) the percentage pay adjustment received by members of 
     the Senior Executive Service under section 5382(c) of this 
     title, if any;
       (B) locality pay under section 5304; and
       (C) an additional $3,000.

[[Page 24021]]

     The Senior Executive Service percentage pay adjustment, if 
     any, shall be included in basic pay. Annual adjustments in 
     pay after the effective date of this section will be made on 
     the first day of the first pay period of each calendar year. 
     The limitation on pay increases under this subsection may 
     continue during the time period prescribed by this subsection 
     until such time as the pay of each administrative judge (AJ) 
     reaches the appropriate rate of basic pay under section 
     5372b(c) of title 5, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a). The Chairman may waive any limitation on pay 
     under this subsection in the case of an administrative judge 
     (AJ) serving as a chief administrative judge.
       (2) Pay in relation to grade 15 of the general schedule.--
     In no case shall an administrative judge (AJ) who is 
     converted in accordance with section 5372b(d)(2) of title 5, 
     United States Code, or whose pay increase in any year is 
     limited under paragraph (1), be paid after the effective date 
     of this section at a rate that is less than the 
     administrative judge's (AJ) rate of pay would have been had 
     the administrative judge (AJ) remained as an administrative 
     judge (GS) occupying the grade 15 level of the General 
     Schedule.
       (3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (A) the term ``administrative judge (AJ)'' means an 
     employee of the Merit Systems Protection Board appointed to 
     an administrative judge position and paid under the MSPB 
     Administrative Judge Pay Schedule established by the 
     amendment made by subsection (a); and
       (B) the term ``administrative judge (GS)'' means an 
     employee of the Merit Systems Protection Board appointed to 
     an administrative judge position and paid under the General 
     Schedule described in section 5332 of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (c) Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as are necessary for the purpose of carrying out 
     this section.
       (2) No reduction.--The authorization of appropriations by 
     paragraph (1) shall not have the effect of reducing any funds 
     appropriated for the Board for the purpose of carrying out 
     its statutory mission under section 1204 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     first day of the first pay period of the calendar year 
     immediately following the date of enactment of appropriations 
     authorized by subsection (c)(1).
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter VII of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding after the item relating to section 5372a 
     the following new item:

``5372b. Merit Systems Protection Board administrative judges.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono).


                             General Leave

  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Committee on the Judiciary has reported H.R. 3312, a bill to 
establish a pilot, 3-year, early intervention alternative dispute 
resolution program at the Merit Systems Protection Board. Support for 
ADR enjoys a rare consensus among those knowledgeable with formal 
litigation and administrative dispute processes. Resulting savings 
redound to the benefit of those involved and are, more broadly, to the 
taxpayers at large.
  The MSPB is an independent adjudicatory body that hears appeals from 
Federal agency personnel disputes. MSPB judges hear a broad range of 
complex personnel cases that affect thousands of Federal employees and 
the agencies for which they work. Over the last decade, MSPB judges 
have seen their jurisdictions steadily increase without a corresponding 
increase in resources. Last year, the board handled nearly 8,000 cases 
with a staff of only 71 administrative judges. H.R. 3312, as amended, 
would help reduce this caseload by encouraging Federal agencies and 
employees to explore alternatives to costly litigation before the 
board.
  Until 1990, MSPB judges received compensation equivalent to that 
provided Immigration, Social Security and Administrative Law judges. 
Since 1990, however, the wage disparity between MSPB judges and other 
administrative judges has detrimentally affected the board's ability to 
attract and retain top judges. Over the last 4 years alone, the board 
has lost nearly 20 percent of its judges to other adjudicatory 
agencies.
  The conference report to the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act 
recognized the need to accord pay equity to MSPB, Immigration and 
Administrative Law judges. Last year, H.R. 2946 was introduced to 
address this inequality. Like H.R. 2946, H.R. 3312, as amended, 
restores a measure of fairness to MSPB judge compensation vis-a-vis 
Immigration, Social Security and Administrative Law judges. H.R. 3312, 
as amended, is notable for the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that 
has surrounded its consideration. It enjoys the support of the Merit 
Systems Protection Board, Department of Justice, Federal Mediation and 
Conciliation Service, and Federal employees. The Committee on the 
Judiciary and Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, which 
is chaired by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), unanimously 
reported the bill. Finally, the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Government Reform, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), to whose 
committee H.R. 3312 was referred, has waived jurisdiction and indicated 
there is no objection to either H.R. 3312 or the provisions of H.R. 
2946, also referred to the Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I enclose for the Record the letters of exchange 
concerning committee jurisdiction between the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Passage of H.R. 3312, as amended, will help combat debilitating MSPB 
attrition rates and further reduce costs to taxpayers by ensuring the 
retention of an experienced cadre of board judges to effectively 
implement the pilot program. Support for H.R. 3312, as amended, is 
broad and its advantages are clear. I urge support for this bill.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 2000.
     Hon. Dan Burton,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Committee on the Judiciary favorably 
     reported H.R. 3312 on September 20, 2000 and has requested to 
     have it considered under suspension of the rules before the 
     end of the session. The bill authorizes the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board (MSPB) to conduct an alternative dispute 
     resolution pilot program. Legislation (H.R. 2946) was earlier 
     introduced by Mr. Gekas, Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
     Commercial and Administrative Law, to establish such a 
     program, but his measure contained additional language 
     establishing an administrative judge pay schedule for 
     administrative judges employed by the MSPB. Because this 
     additional language contains a matter within the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of your committee, the bill was referred to the 
     Committee on Government Reform.
       As we understand it, there is no objection by your 
     committee to the matter proposed by that language, but action 
     on it cannot be expected because of the lateness of the 
     session. Recognizing your Rule X jurisdiction over the 
     matter, we would therefore request that you waive that 
     jurisdiction so that the matter can be considered by the 
     House together with H.R. 3312.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                 Washington, DC, October 17, 2000.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     3312, which the Committee on the Judiciary has ordered 
     reported, and H.R. 2946, legislation that would, among other 
     things, establish a new pay scale for administrative judges 
     at the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both of these measures 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government 
     Reform under House Rule X, and I appreciate the close 
     cooperation your staff has provided mine with respect to both 
     bills.
       We do not object to either the reported version of H.R. 
     3312. I understand that you wish to include in a manager's 
     amendment to H.R. 3312 the pay language that has been agreed 
     to by the Civil Service Subcommittee. We also have no 
     objection to that language. Accordingly, in order to expedite 
     floor consideration of this measure, we will not exercise our 
     jurisdiction over either H.R. 3312 or the pay provisions that 
     will be included in the manager's amendment.

[[Page 24022]]

       Our decision not to exercise our jurisdiction over this 
     measure is not intended or designed to waive or limit our 
     jurisdiction over any future consideration of related 
     matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Dan Burton,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Baird) be permitted to manage the time allocated 
to this side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3312, the Merit System 
Protection Board Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1999.

                              {time}  1515

  This bipartisan legislation would establish a 3-year alternative 
dispute resolution pilot program. Under the terms of the bill, Federal 
agencies and employees would be given assistance in voluntarily 
resolving personnel action and disputes in administrative agencies 
through mediation, arbitration and mini trials or combinations of these 
procedures.
  Although formal hearings and litigation are available to both Federal 
agencies and employees, these methods are often expensive and lengthy. 
By contrast, the voluntary dispute resolution process offers a 
potentially less costly alternative system that can encourage examine 
compromise and settlement. Under the legislation, matters such as 
removals, suspensions, reduction in pay and pay grade, furlough and 
performance actions may all be addressed outside the formal court 
system.
  This legislation would not replace litigation but simply offer a 
voluntary early intervention program. It is the intent of the 
legislation to provide ADR on a voluntary basis and not compromise or 
modify contractual or collective bargaining rights of Federal 
employees.
  This bipartisan bill is an excellent example of a method that will 
relieve the burdened legal system of matters that may be more easily 
and more effectively resolved using a nonadversarial approach.
  I would also note that, under the manager's amendment, administrative 
judges of the Merit Systems Protection Board will receive an increase 
in compensation to account for their expanded duties under this bill. 
This is designed to help ensure that we can recruit and retain these 
highly qualified judicial officials.
  I strongly support H.R. 3312 and urge my fellow Members to vote yes 
on this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of HR 
3312, the Merit Systems Protection Board Administrative Dispute 
Resolution Act of 2000. The bill rightly enjoys bipartisan support and 
my colleagues should be commended for reaching consensus on this issue.
  HR 3312 would authorize the Merits Systems Protection Board to 
establish a 3-year pilot program that provides voluntary early 
intervention alternative disputes resolution (ADR) to assist federal 
agencies and employees in resolving certain personnel actions and 
disputes. The bill represents an important step forward in identifying 
innovative ways to resolve disputes that would be better kept outside 
the domain of the courts.
  The Merit Systems Protection Board (``the Board'') is an independent 
adjudicatory agency established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 
1978. It has served the nation well. Since its inception, the Board has 
heard tens of thousands of cases while providing federal employees with 
an impartial forum for resolving their employment disputes with federal 
agencies.
  Nevertheless, the expanded responsibilities and heavy caseload of the 
Board is taking a toll. Congress has expanded the jurisdiction of the 
Board without a requisite level of judicial resources. In 1999, the 
Board's 71 administrative judges heard nearly 8,000 appeals, or 100 
decisions each.
  Alternative dispute resolution such as arbitration, facilitation, 
mini-trials are all used voluntarily to resolve significant issues in 
controversy. HR 3312 appropriately focuses on encouraging the agency 
and employee in a dispute to resolve disputes without litigation. The 
covered disputes include removal, a suspension of more than 14 days, a 
reduction in pay grade, a furlough of 30 days or less, and an action 
passed on unacceptable performance. According to the Findings and 
Purposes of HR 3312, ADR would be more successful if it were utilized 
earlier in the process. Voluntary early intervention is, of course, a 
sensible solution.
  I share my colleagues enthusiasm for the changes made during a 
subcommittee markup of the bill; I supported the bill once when it 
reached the full committee. I am pleased that the changes to HR 3312 
clarified the bill's voluntariness provisions. To accomplish this, the 
amendment makes absolutely clear that the parties in a dispute can only 
be subject to early intervention ADR by the Merit System Protection 
Board upon their joint request. As introduced, the bill required that 
the notice letter in personnel disputes advise the employees as the 
availability of ADR. The substitute supplements the bill's notice 
letter requirement to include a description of this pilot program and 
of standards the Board will use to select from among eligible cases. In 
addition, it is noteworthy that the amendment clarifies the bill's 
language regarding arbitration to make clear that it would be non-
binding.
  Indeed, to further emphasize the voluntary nature of the early 
intervention ADR offer by the Board under the bill, the substitute 
added the words ``upon joint request of parties'' or some variant. As a 
result of these changes, the only cases eligible for early intervention 
ADR by the Board are those which both agency and the employee request 
jointly.
  Additionally, the original version of H.R. 3312 compels an agency to 
advise an employee as the availability of early intervention ADR in the 
notice letter of proposed personnel action. The substitute expanded 
this requirement to include (a) a description of this program and (b) a 
description of the standards the Board must develop for selecting and 
handling cases. This will clarify the two step process a dispute must 
entertain before early intervention ADR. First, the parties jointly 
request ADR from the Board. Then, the Board determines whether or not 
the matter is ``appropriate for the program.'' These are welcome 
improvements to the ADR process.
  The bill further stipulates that the Board's acceptance of a case for 
ADR must be subject to any applicable collective bargaining agreement. 
We can never overestimate the importance of collective bargaining 
agreements--and the bill reinforces the importance of safeguarding this 
matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure to make the 
voluntary nature of the ADR process more accessible and perhaps more 
efficient to potential litigants.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3312, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read:

       ``A bill to clarify the Administrative Dispute Resolution 
     Act of 1996 to authorize the Merit Systems Protection Board 
     to establish under such Act a 3-year pilot program that will 
     provide a voluntary early intervention alternative dispute 
     resolution process to assist Federal agencies and employees 
     in resolving certain personnel actions.''

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________