[House Report 104-800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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redundant and should be repealed.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.