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 binding or nonbinding arbitration among ADR procedures, but excludes settlement negotiations. Repeals 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. (Sec. 3) Limits applicability of confidentiality requirements only to communications involved in the proceeding (current law also applies such requirements to any information concerning such communications). Applies the disclosure prohibition to dispute communications generated by the neutral. Provides that a dispute resolution communication which is between a neutral and a party and which may not be disclosed under such provisions is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. (Sec. 4) Amends ADRA and the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 to require that each agency shall consult with the agency designated by, or the interagency committee established by, the President to facilitate and encourage agency use of alternative dispute resolution. (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. Requires 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 interagency committee, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies and professional organizations experienced in matters concerning dispute resolution, to encourage and facilitate agency use of ADR and develop procedures that permit agencies to obtain the services of neutrals on an expedited basis. Repeals the requirement for the Government to enter into a contract with an individual on a roster of qualified neutrals or a roster maintained by other public or private organizations or individual. (Sec. 8) Revises ADRA and other ADR law, with regard to judicial review of arbitration awards, to repeal the authority of Federal agency heads to vacate unilaterally any award issued pursuant to an arbitration proceeding. Requires that each arbitration agreement shall specify a maximum award that may be issued by the arbitrator and may specify other conditions limiting the range of possible outcomes. Revises provisions concerning authorization to use arbitration to prohibit an officer or employee of an agency from offering to use arbitration for the resolution of issues in controversy unless such officer or employee would otherwise have authority. (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 convenors and facilitators for negotiated rulemaking. Authorizes appropriations. Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to expedite the establishment of negotiated rulemaking committees and committees established to resolve disputes under ADRA.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection. (consideration: CR H12276-12277)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection.(consideration: CR H12276-12277)
Mr. Solomon asked unanimous consent that the House agree to the Senate amendment.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 5421 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 5421 proposed by Senator Grassley for Senator Cohen.
Measure laid before Senate. (consideration: CR S11848-11850)
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11446-11452)
Mr. Gekas moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Oct 15, 2021. 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.4194 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.4194 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.4194 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.4194 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.