Version 48 · Conference report filed in House · Sep 25, 1996
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 - Amends the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) and other Federal law with regard to alternative means of dispute resolution (ADR) in the administrative process. (Sec. 2) Includes the use of ombuds and arbitration among ADR procedures, but excludes settlement negotiations. Repeals: (1) the current exclusion and permits parties to use ADR to resolve certain Federal employee-related disputes involving such matters as retirement, life or health insurance, and suspension or removal from duty, as well as prohibited personnel practices; and (2) a requirement that a procedure used be in lieu of an adjudication to come within the definition of ADR. (Sec. 3) Limits applicability of confidentiality requirements only to communications involved in the proceeding, and no longer, also, to any information concerning such communications. Provides that a dispute resolution communication generated by a neutral which may not be disclosed under such provisions is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. (Sec. 4) Makes certain amendments under ADRA and the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 to reflect the closure of the Administrative Conference of the United States. (Sec. 5) Authorizes a Federal agency to use the services and facilities of State, local, and tribal governments for ADR purposes. (Sec. 6) Amends the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 to: (1) require contractors using ADR procedures to resolve a claim against the Federal Government to comply with the same certification procedures applicable to any other claim subject to such Act; and (2) repeal its termination date. (Sec. 7) Provides for expedited hiring of neutrals in civilian and defense agency contracts for use in any part of an ADR process. Amends ADR law on neutrals to: (1) repeal requirements for the Government to establish professional standards for neutrals and maintain a roster of qualified neutrals; and (2) require the President to designate an agency or designate or establish an interagency committee to facilitate and encourage agency use of dispute resolution. Directs such agency or committee to encourage and facilitate agency use of ADR and develop procedures that permit agencies to obtain the services of neutrals on an expedited basis. (Sec. 8) Revises ADRA and other ADR law, with regard to judicial review of arbitration awards, to: (1) repeal the authority of Federal agency heads to vacate unilaterally any award issued pursuant to an arbitration proceeding; (2) require each arbitration agreement to specify a maximum award that may be issued by the arbitrator and allow it to specify other conditions limiting the range of possible outcomes; (3) prohibit an agency officer or employee from offering to use arbitration for the resolution of issues in controversy unless he or she has authority to enter into a settlement concerning the matter or is otherwise specifically authorized by the agency to consent to the use of arbitration; and (4) require the head of an agency, prior to using binding arbitration, to issue guidance on its appropriate use or when an agency officer or employee has authority to settle an issue in controversy through binding arbitration. (Sec. 9) Amends ADRA to repeal its termination date and provide for permanent authorization. (Sec. 10) Authorizes appropriations. (Sec. 11) Repeals the reauthorization for the Administrative Conference under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990. Directs the President to designate an agency or designate or establish an interagency committee to facilitate and encourage agency use of negotiated rulemaking. Modifies Federal provisions regarding defense agency contracts and Federal contracts to provide for expedited hiring of conveners and facilitators for negotiated rulemaking. Authorizes appropriations. Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to: (1) take action to expedite the establishment of negotiated rulemaking committees and committees established to resolve disputes under ADRA; and (2) submit recommendations to the Congress for any necessary legislative changes. (Sec. 12) Revises Federal judicial code provisions regarding the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Grants such court jurisdiction to review the agency's decision pursuant to specified standards.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.2977 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.2977 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.2977 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.2977 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.