[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[House]
[Page 29791]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2112, MULTIDISTRICT, MULTIPARTY, 
               MULTIFORUM TRIAL JURISDICTION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
2112), to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow a judge to whom 
a case is transferred to retain jurisdiction over certain multidistrict 
litigation cases for trial, and to provide for Federal jurisdiction of 
certain multiparty, multiforum civil actions, with a Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to go to conference on 
the ``Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1999.'' 
I would like to begin by expressing thanks to Chairman Coble and 
Ranking Member Berman as well as Representative Sensenbrenner for their 
hard work and on this legislation which is being sought by the federal 
judiciary.
  The most important provision of the bill is section 2 which overturns 
the recent Supreme Court decision in Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss, which 
held that a transferee court assigned to hear pretrial matters must 
remand all cases back for trial to the districts which they were 
originally filed, regardless of the views of the parties. This decision 
conflicts with some 30 years of practice by which transferee courts 
were able to retain such jurisdiction under Title 28. The Judicial 
Conference has testified that the previous process has worked well and 
served the interest of efficiency and judicial expedience.
  There was a concern raised at the Subcommittee hearing that as 
originally drafted this provision would have gone far beyond simply 
permitting a transferee court to conduct a liability trial, but 
instead, allowed the court to also determine compensatory and punitive 
damages. This could be extremely inconvenient for harmed victims who 
would need to testify at the damages phase of the trial. As a result of 
discussions between the minority and majority, Rep. Berman successfully 
offered an amendment addressing this concern at the Full Committee 
markup.
  Section 3 of the bill also expands federal court jurisdiction for 
single accidents involving at least 25 people having damages in excess 
of $75,000 per claim and establishes new federal procedures in these 
limited cases for selection of venue, service of process, issuance of 
subpoenas and choice of law. The types of cases that would be included 
under this provision would be plane, train, bus, boat accidents and 
environmental spills, many of which are already brought in federal 
court. However, the provision would not apply to mass tort injuries 
that involve the same injury over and over again such as asbestos and 
breast implant cases.
  While I traditionally oppose having federal courts decide state tort 
issues, and disfavor the expansion of the jurisdiction of the already-
overloaded district courts, I have been willing to support this 
provision because it would only expand federal court jurisdiction in a 
very narrow class of actions and is being affirmatively sought for 
efficiency purposes by the federal courts. This is in stark contrast to 
the class action bill, which would completely federalize state law and 
was strongly opposed by the federal and state courts.
  Section 3 was not included in the Senate passed bill, so I am hopeful 
that we can reach an accommodation which satisfies all of the 
interested parties and allows the more important Lexecon provision to 
proceed. I would also note that the federal judiciary is also seeking 
to address a number of additional procedural matters, and I would hope 
that this body would take the time to enact these measures as well.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time. I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
motion.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The motion was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Hyde, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Conyers, and 
Berman.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________