PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 23, 2001
Merit Systems Protection Board Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 2001 - Amends Federal civil service law to authorize the Merit Systems Protection Board to provide Federal employees and agencies with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes to apply to personnel disputes involving removals, suspensions for more than 14 days, and other adverse actions and removals based on unacceptable employee performance. Allows ADR services only upon joint request of the employee and agency. Directs the Board to test and evaluate a variety of ADR techniques. Authorizes the Board to establish an early intervention ADR process, upon joint request of both parties, after an agency has issued a notice letter of proposed action to an employee but before an appeal is filed with the Board. Requires the Board to develop a training and credentialing program to ensure that program neutrals have a sufficient understanding of issues that arise during the ADR process.Requires the Board's Office of Policy and Evaluation to establish criteria for evaluating the ADR program and to prepare a report as to whether mandatory ADR is desirable, effective, and appropriate for cases decided by Federal agencies.Establishes within the Board the Administrative Judge Pay Schedule, with pay levels comparable to that of other Federal administrative law judges. Outlines provisions for advancement within the Pay Schedule, as well as transition provisions for current judges. Authorizes the Board Chairman to phase in such pay rates, under specified conditions and limitations.
People & committees
Rep. Gekas, George W. [R-PA-17] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Civil Service and Agency Organization.
Referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E900)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 19, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1965 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1965 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1965 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1965 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.