Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-800
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                  REPEAL OF REDUNDANT VENUE PROVISION

                                _______
                                

 September 17, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 677]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
Act (S. 677) to repeal a redundant venue provision, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommend that the Act do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     1
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     1
Hearings.........................................................     2
Committee Consideration..........................................     2
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     2
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings............     2
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     2
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     2
Inflationary Impact Statement....................................     3
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     3
Changes in Existing Law..........................................     3

                          Purpose and Summary

    Based upon recent amendments in the law made to 28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1391(a)(1) and Sec. 1391(b)(1), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1392(a) is 
redundant and should be repealed.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    S. 677 implements a proposal made by the Judicial 
Conference of the U.S. to eliminate a redundant provision 
governing venue, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1392(a), which duplicates 
provisions of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990. This is a 
housekeeping provision to eliminate any confusion regarding 
venue in Title 28.

                                Hearings

    The Committee held no hearings on S. 677 because it viewed 
the bill as technical and noncontroversial, and it received 
broad bipartisan support.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 23, 1996, the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property met in open session and ordered reported 
the bill S. 677, by voice vote, a quorum being present. On 
September 11, 1996, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably the bill S. 677 by voice vote, a 
quorum being present.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI 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 and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(C)(3) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, S. 677, the following estimate 
and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 13, 1996.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed S. 677, an act to repeal a redundant venue provision, 
and for other purposes, as ordered reported by the House 
Committee on the Judiciary on September 11, 1996. CBO estimates 
that enacting this legislation would result in no cost to the 
federal government. Enactment of S. 677 would not affect direct 
spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
not apply.
    The bill contains no private-sector or intergovernmental 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4), and would have no effect on the budgets of 
state, local, or tribal governments.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that S. 677 
will have no significant inflationary impact on prices and 
costs in the national economy.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    Section 1. Repeal.--Section 1 repeals subsection (a) of 
section 1392 of title 28, United States Code.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 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 italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

              SECTION 1392 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 1392. Defendants or property in different districts in same State

    [(a) Any civil action, not of a local nature, against 
defendants residing in different districts in the same State, 
may be brought in any of such districts.]
    [(b)] Any civil action, of a local nature, involving 
property located in different districts in the same State, may 
be brought in any of such districts.