I
105TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 3528
To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the use of alternative
dispute resolution processes in United States district courts, and for
other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 23, 1998
Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to
the use of alternative dispute resolution processes in
United States district courts, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Alternative Dispute
Resolution Act of 1998’’.
SEC. 2. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES
TO 
BE 
AUTHORIZED 
IN 
ALL 
DISTRICT
COURTS.
Section 651 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘§ 651. Authorization of alternative dispute resolu-
tion
‘‘(a) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this chapter, an
alternative dispute resolution process includes any process
or procedure, other than an adjudication by a presiding
judge, in which a neutral third party participates to assist
in the resolution of issues in controversy, through proc-
esses such as early neutral evaluation, mediation, mini-
trial, and arbitration as provided in sections 654 through
658.
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY.—Each United States district court
shall authorize, by local rule, the use of alternative dispute
resolution processes in all civil actions, including adversary
proceedings in bankruptcy, in accordance with this chap-
ter, except that the use of arbitration may be authorized
only as provided in section 654. Each United States dis-
trict court shall devise and implement its own alternative
dispute resolution program by local rule to encourage and
promote the use of alternative dispute resolution in its dis-
trict.
‘‘(c) EXISTING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
PROGRAMS.—In those courts where an alternative dispute
resolution program is in place on the date of the enact-
ment of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998,
the court shall examine the effectiveness of that program
and adopt such improvements to the program as are con-
sistent with the provisions and purposes of this chapter.
‘‘(d) ADMINISTRATION OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION PROGRAMS.—Each United States district
court shall retain or designate an existing employee knowl-
edgeable in alternative dispute resolution practices and
processes to implement, administer, oversee, and evaluate
the court’s alternative dispute resolution program. Such
person may also be responsible for recruiting, screening,
and training attorneys to serve as neutrals and arbitrators
in the court’s alternative dispute resolution program.
‘‘(e) TITLE 9 NOT AFFECTED.—This chapter shall
not affect title 9.
‘‘(f) PROGRAM SUPPORT.—The Federal Judicial Cen-
ter and the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts are authorized to assist the district courts in the
establishment and improvement of alternative dispute res-
olution programs by identifying particular practices em-
ployed in successful programs and providing additional as-
sistance as needed and appropriate.’’.
SEC. 3. JURISDICTION.
Section 652 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘§ 652. Jurisdiction
‘‘(a) CONSIDERATION
OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION IN APPROPRIATE CASES.—Notwithstanding
any provision of law to the contrary and except as pro-
vided in subsections (b) and (c), each district court shall,
by local rule, require that litigants in all civil cases con-
sider the use of an alternative dispute resolution process
at an appropriate stage in the litigation. Each district
court shall provide litigants in all civil cases with a choice
of alternative dispute resolution processes, including, but
not limited to, mediation, early neutral evaluation, mini-
trial, and arbitration as authorized in sections 654
through 658. Any district court that elects to require the
use of alternative dispute resolution in certain cases may
do so only with respect to mediation, early neutral evalua-
tion, and arbitration.
‘‘(b) ACTIONS EXEMPTED FROM CONSIDERATION OF
ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE
RESOLUTION.—Each district
court may exempt from the requirements of this section
specific cases or categories of cases in which use of alter-
native dispute resolution would not be appropriate. In de-
fining these exemptions, each district court shall consult
with members of the bar, including the United States At-
torney for that district.
‘‘(c) AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.—
Nothing in this section shall alter or conflict with the au-
thority of the Attorney General to conduct litigation on
behalf of the United States, with the authority of any Fed-
eral agency authorized to conduct litigation in the United
States courts, or with any delegation of litigation authority
by the Attorney General.
‘‘(d) CONFIDENTIALITY
PROVISIONS.—Until such
time as rules are adopted pursuant to chapter 131 of this
title providing for the confidentiality of alternative dispute
resolution processes under this chapter, each district court
shall by local rule provide for the confidentiality of the
alternative dispute resolution processes and to prohibit
disclosure of confidential dispute resolution communica-
tions.’’.
SEC. 4. MEDIATORS AND NEUTRAL EVALUATORS.
Section 653 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘§ 653. Neutrals
‘‘(a) PANEL OF NEUTRALS.—Each district court that
authorizes the use of alternative dispute resolution proc-
esses shall maintain a panel of neutrals available for use
by the parties for each category of process offered. Each