[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 145 (Monday, September 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H9038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CLARIFYING RULES GOVERNING VENUE

  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 532) to clarify the rules governing venue, and for 
other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                 S. 532

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. VENUE.

       Paragraph (3) of section 1391(a) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``the defendants are'' and 
     inserting ``any defendant is''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Moorhead] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead].
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 532 which is a technical 
corrections bill that was introduced by Senator Hatch and passed the 
Senate on March 30, 1995, under a unanimous-consent request. It is 
based on a proposal by the Judicial Conference of the United States to 
correct a flaw in a venue provision, section 1391(a) of title 28 which 
governs venue in diversity cases. Section 1391(a) has a fallback 
provision--subsection (3)--that comes into play if neither of the other 
subsections confers venue in a particular case. Specifically, 
subsection (3) provides that venue lies in ``a judicial district in 
which the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction at the time 
the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action 
may otherwise be brought.''
  The defect in this fallback provision is that it may be read to mean 
that all defendants must be subject to personal jurisdiction in a 
district in order for venue to lie. Under this reading, there would be 
cases in which there would be no proper venue. S. 532 would eliminate 
this ambiguity and I urge its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has explained the purpose 
of this bill, a technical amendment to ensure that in multidefendant 
cases, there is at least one Federal district where venue is proper.
  The problem with the venue statute as it is currently written is that 
it is possible to read the language in such a way that there could be 
no Federal district court where venue is proper in some multidefendant 
cases. This bill resolves the ambiguity in that language, and ensures 
that venue requirements will not defeat the ability to bring a civil 
action in Federal court if subject matter and personal jurisdiction are 
available.
  The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on behalf of the Judicial 
Conference of the United States supporting this bill. Having identified 
the ambiguity in the current venue provisions, it is important that we 
amend the language to ensure that there is at least one Federal 
district court where venue is proper in multidefendant cases. S. 532 
achieves that end, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the Senate bill S. 532.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________