[House Report 106-181]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-181

======================================================================



 
 TO MAKE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 10 OF TITLE 9, UNITED STATES 
                                  CODE

                                _______


 June 10, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Gekas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 916]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 916) to make technical amendments to section 10 of 
title 9, United States Code, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that 
the bill do pass.

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                  

                                                                 Page
Purpose and Summary........................................           1
Background and Need for the Legislation....................           2
Hearings...................................................           2
Committee Consideration....................................           2
Committee Oversight Findings...............................           2
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings......           3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures..................           3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate..................           3
Constitutional Authority Statement.........................           4
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.................           4
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported......           4

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 916 makes technical corrections to subsection 10(a) of 
title 9 of the United States Code.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    On March 2, 1999, Representative George Gekas (R-Pa.) 
introduced H.R. 916 for the purpose of making certain technical 
amendments to subsection 10(a) of title 9 of the United States 
Code.
    Title 9 of the United States Code pertains to domestic and 
international arbitration law. Chapter 1 of title 9 contains 
the title's general provisions, including section 10. 
Subsection 10(a) enumerates the grounds for which a federal 
district court may vacate an arbitration award.\1\ It also 
authorizes the court to order a rehearing, under certain 
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For example, the court, under this provision, may vacate an 
arbitrator's award procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means. 9 
U.S.C. Sec.  10(a)(1). An arbitrator's award may also be vacated if 
there is evidence that the arbitrator was guilty of specified 
misconduct. 9 U.S.C. Sec.  10(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As drafted, subsection 10(a) consists of five paragraphs, 
four of which enumerate the grounds for vacating an arbitration 
award. The fifth paragraph, however, is clearly intended to be 
a separate provision of subsection 10(a) as it specifies the 
basis of the court's authority to direct a rehearing by the 
arbitrator.
    H.R. 916 simply corrects this drafting error, which has 
existed from the legislation's original enactment in 1925.\2\ 
The bill simply converts the fifth paragraph into a separate 
subsection of section 10, namely, subsection 10(b), and makes 
conforming grammatical and technical revisions to section 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Act of Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 213, Sec.  10, 43 Stat. 885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 916 is identical to H.R. 2440, which was introduced by 
Representative George W. Gekas on September 9, 1997 along with 
Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) as an original cosponsor. 
After the Committee reported H.R. 2440 on November 5, 1997,\3\ 
the House passed the bill under suspension of the rules by 
voice vote on November 12, 1997.\4\ On the last day of the 
105th Congress, the Senate passed H.R. 2440 with an unrelated 
amendment by unanimous consent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ H.R. Rep. No. 105-381 (1997).
    \4\ 143 Cong. Rec. H10663 (daily ed. Nov. 12, 1997).
    \5\ 144 Cong. Rec. S12942-43 (daily ed. Oct. 21, 1998). The 
amendment pertained to various provisions of the Missing Children's 
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  5771-80 (1994 & Supp. 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held on H.R. 916.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill, H.R. 916, without amendment by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. Thereafter, the Committee met in open 
session on May 4, 1999 and ordered favorably reported the bill, 
H.R. 916, without amendment by voice vote, a quorum being 
present.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform were received as referred to in clause 
3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 916, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 1999.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 916, a bill to 
make technical amendments to section 10 of title 9, United 
States Code.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
    Sincerely,
                                  Dan L. Crippen, Director.
H.R. 916.--A bill to make technical amendments to section 10 of title 
        9, United States Code.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 916 would not have any 
impact on the federal budget. Because enactment of H.R. 916 
would not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply. The bill does not contain any 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would have no effect on state, 
local, or tribal governments.
    H.R. 916 would correct punctuation errors and make other 
minor wording changes to section 10 of title 9, United States 
Code, which specifies the grounds under which a federal judge 
can vacate an arbitrator's award. Because these changes are 
technical and would make no substantive changes to the laws 
affecting arbitration, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 916 
would not have any budgetary impact.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz, 
who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by 
Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States 
Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    Section 1. Vacation of Awards. Section 1 of the bill 
redesignates paragraph (5) of subsection 10(a) as subsection 
10(b) and replaces the word ``Where'' with ``If'' in that 
provision. It also makes a conforming change by redesignating 
subsection (b) of section 10 as subsection (c). In addition, 
section 1 adjusts the indentation margins for paragraphs (1) 
through (4) of subsection (a); corrects punctuation and 
capitalization errors; and makes other minor conforming 
corrections.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of Rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

               SECTION 10 OF TITLE 9, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 10. Same; vacation; grounds; rehearing

    (a) In any of the following cases the United States court 
in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an 
order vacating the award upon the application of any party to 
the arbitration----
            (1) [Where] where the award was procured by 
        corruption, fraud, or undue means[.];
            (2) [Where] where there was evident partiality or 
        corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them[.];
            (3) [Where] where the arbitrators were guilty of 
        misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon 
        sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence 
        pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any 
        other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have 
        been prejudiced[.]; or
            (4) [Where] where the arbitrators exceeded their 
        powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, 
        final, and definite award upon the subject matter 
        submitted was not made.
    [(5) Where] (b) If an award is vacated and the time within 
which the agreement required the award to be made has not 
expired, the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing 
by the arbitrators.
    [(b)] (c) The United States district court for the district 
wherein an award was made that was issued pursuant to section 
580 of title 5 may make an order vacating the award upon the 
application of a person, other than a party to the arbitration, 
who is adversely affected or aggrieved by the award, if the use 
of arbitration or the award is clearly inconsistent with the 
factors set forth in section 572 of title 5.

                                  
