[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[House]
[Page 9862]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the National 
Employment Dispute Resolution Act of 2000. This bill will build on H.R. 
3528, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, which we passed 
last Congress. The goal of this initiative is to establish alternative 
avenues for the resolution of disputes.
  The bill I introduced today will amend five current statutes, Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 
the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Civil Rights Act of 
1991.
  Essentially, the bill mandates mediation as an alternative to 
litigation of employee claim under these statutes.
  Alternative dispute resolution is commonly referred to as ADR. ADR 
includes a range of procedures, such as mediation, and it also includes 
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, 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 the civil relationship once people 
have confronted one another across a courtroom.''
  The National Employment Dispute Resolution Act of 2000 requires all 
Federal agencies and private employers to establish a volunteer 
alternative dispute resolution program.
  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 volunteer process in which a neutral party, a 
mediator, assists disputants in reaching a negotiated settlement of 
their differences.
  The process allows the principal parties to vent and diffuse 
feelings, clear 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 
the lasting relationship between disputants.
  A recent survey by the General 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 to avoid formal redress 
processes and litigation.''
  In a taped message during a recent Law Day Ceremony, 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. In 
1995, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission promulgated its 
policy on ADR which encourages the use of ADR in appropriate 
circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, thus the bill that I introduce today is but another step 
in the fabric we must weave to ease the burden on our courts and 
provide an expeditious response to disputants who wish to resolve their 
claims and differences.
  I urge all of my colleagues to take a close look at the National 
Employment Dispute Resolution Act of 2000.

                          ____________________

                              {time}  2045