F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Multidistrict Trial Jurisdiction Act of 1999 at the behest of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (or ``AO''). The AO is concerned over a Supreme Court opinion, the so-called Lexecon case, pertaining to Section 1407 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code. This statute governs Federal multidistrict litigation. Under Section 1407, a Multidistrict Litigation Panel--a select group of seven Federal judges picked by the Chief Justice--helps to consolidate lawsuits which share common questions of fact filed in more than one judicial district nationwide. Typically, these suits involve mass torts--a plane crash, for example--in which the plaintiffs are from many different states. All things considered, the panel attempts to identify the one district court nationwide which is best adept at adjudicating pretrial matters. The panel then remands individual cases back to the districts where they were originally filed for trial unless they have been previously terminated. For approximately 30 years, however, the district court selected by the panel to hear pretrial matters (the ``transferee court'') often invoked Section 1404(a) of Title 28 to retain jurisdiction for trial over all of the suits. This is a general venue statute that allows a district court to transfer a civil action to any other district or division where it may have been brought; in effect, the court selected by the panel simply transferred all of the cases to itself. According to the AO, this process has worked well, since the transferee court was versed in the facts and law of the consolidated litigation. This is also the one court which could compel all parties to settle when appropriate. The Lexecon decision alters the Section 1407 landscape. This was a 1998 defamation case brought by a consulting entity (Lexecon) against a law firm that had represented a plaintiff class in the Lincoln Savings and Loan litigation in Arizona. Lexecon had been joined as a defendant to the class action, which the Multidistrict Litigation Panel transferred to the District of Arizona. Before the pretrial proceedings were concluded, Lexecon reached a ``resolution'' with the plaintiffs, and the claims against the consulting entity were dismissed. Lexecon then brought a defamation suit against the law firm in the Northern District for Illinois. The law firm moved under Section 1407 that the Multidistrict Litigation Panel empower the Arizona court which adjudicated the original S&L litigation to preside over the defamation suit. The panel agreed, and the Arizona transferee court subsequently invoked its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1404 to preside over a trial that the law firm eventually won. Lexecon appealed, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision. The Supreme Court reversed, however, holding that Section 1407 explicitly requires a transferee court to remand all cases for trial back to the respective jurisdictions from which they were originally referred. In his opinion, Justice Souter observed that ``the floor of Congress'' was the proper venue to determine whether the practice of self-assignment under these conditions should continue. Mr. Speaker, this legislation responds to Justice Souter's admonition. My bill would simply amend Section 1407 by explicitly allowing a transferee court to retain jurisdiction over referred cases for trial, or refer them to other districts, as it sees fit. This change makes sense in light of past judicial practice under the Multidistrict Litigation statute. It obviously promotes judicial administrative efficiency. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the Multidistrict Trial Jurisdiction Act of 1999.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1550, the U.S. Fire Administration Authorization Act of 1999 reauthorizes training, research, data collection and analysis, and public education programs at the United States Fire Administration, which includes the National Fire Academy. It was passed out of the Committee on Science by a voice vote on April 29, 1999. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Fire Prevention and Control Act establishing the Fire Administration. Since its formation in 1974, the Fire Administration has played an important role in reducing the loss of life and property from fire. These declines can be traced in part to research sponsored by the USFA that led to affordable smoke detectors and its work in promoting sprinkler systems. Recently, many in the fire-fighting community have begun questioning the value of a Fire Administration that appears to have lost its way. These concerns were raised in the recent Blue Ribbon Panel report that identified a number of deficiencies that have undermined the agency's effectiveness. The Committee on Science shares these concerns and is dedicated to assuring that the report's recommendation, which reflect the consensus of the fire-services community, are implemented in H.R. 1550. This is the first step to getting the Fire Administration back on track, especially in research. The bill provides a significant increase in funding, authorizing a total of $95.6 million over fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Of this amount, $5.2 million has been set aside for research, $500,000 for outsourcing of data analysis, and $14 million for antiterrorism training. The bill also requires the Fire Administration to certify that funds obligated in fiscal year 2001 are consistent with the strategic plan required in section 3 of the bill. The strategic plan provision of the bill matches closely the language's strategic plans in the Government Performance and Results Act. Additional elements of the plan include coordination with other Federal agencies, especially the Department of Defense; a plan for disseminating information and materials to State and local fire services; and an assessment of the use of the Internet in delivering training courses. In addition to the increased authorization for research funding, the bill also requires the Fire Administration to establish research priorities and to develop a plan for implementing a research agenda. The bill also directs the Fire Administration to make available the State and local fire and emergency services information on excess Federal equipment and on setting up cooperative agreements with Federal facilities, such as military bases; conduct an assessment on the need for additional counterterrorism training for emergency responders; review the content and delivery of the curriculum offered by the National Fire Academy; and to post abstracts of research grants it awards on its Internet homepage. In addition, H.R. 1550 repeals obsolete sections of the Fire Administration statute. It also repeals, as of 1 year after enactment, a provision in law that exempts Federally-funded housing built in New York City from sprinkler requirements. Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on Science, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), who is the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, for all their hard work in producing a balanced bill that will rejuvenate and strengthen the Fire Administration. It is a bill that deserves broad bipartisan support. I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1550) to authorize appropriations for the United States Fire Administration for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1550.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further questions for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1183) to amend the Fastener Quality Act to strengthen the protection against the sale of mismarked, misrepresented, and counterfeit fasteners and eliminate unnecessary requirements, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 1183.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technology.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 209) to improve the ability of Federal agencies to license federally owned inventions, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the past two decades, Congress, through legislation considered by the Committee on Science, has established a system to transfer and commercialize unclassified technology from our Federal laboratories to ensure that United States citizens receive the full benefit from our government's investment in research and development. To help further these goals, the Committee on Science first reported the Stephenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980. The committee expanded on that landmark legislation with the passage of the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, the National Competitive Technology Transfer Act of 1989, the American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991, and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, among others. As a result, the Committee on Science has strengthened and improved the process of technology transfer from our Federal labs. Technology transfer has resulted in products which are currently being used to enhance our quality of life. A few examples include biomedical products, such as the AIDS home testing kit; transportation innovations, such as the global positioning system; and new materials technology that make automobiles lighter and more fuel-efficient. H.R. 209 continues the Committee on Science's long and rich history of advancing technology transfer to help boost our Nation's standard of living. The bill improves and streamlines the ability of Federal agencies to license federally-owned inventions. Under the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act, Federal agencies would be provided with two important new tools for effectively commercializing on-the-shelf government-owned inventions. First, the bill's revised authorities of Section 209 of the Bayh-Dole Act; and second, the ability to license technology as part of a cooperative research and development agreement. Both mechanisms make Federal technology transfer programs much more attractive to American private industries that seek to form partnerships with the Federal labs. I congratulate the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technology, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for introducing H.R. 209, and for her very capable efforts in working cooperatively with members of the minority, the administration, and the other body to reach an agreement on this important bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 209 was reported by the committee without objection by voice vote and has been discharged by the Committee on the Judiciary, to which the bill was sequentially referred. I appreciate the cooperation of the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for their cooperation in expeditiously bringing this bill to the floor. H.R. 209 is yet another important step in refining our Nation's technology transfer laws to remove existing impediments to enhance government and industry collaboration, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 209.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1184, the bill just passed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set forth some of the history behind, as well as describe, the workings of the Private Calendar. I hope this might be of some value to the Members of this House, especially our newer colleagues. Of the five House Calendars, the Private Calendar is the one to which all private bills are referred. Private bills deal with specific individuals, corporations, institutions, and so forth, as distinguished from public bills which deal with classes only. Of the 108 laws approved by the First Congress, only 5 were private laws. But their number quickly grew as the wars of the new Republic produced veterans and veterans' widows seeking pensions and as more citizens came to have private claims and demands against the Federal Government. The 49th Congress, 1885 to 1887, the first Congress for which complete workload and output data is available, passed 1,031 private laws, as compared with 434 public laws. At the turn of the century the 56th Congress passed 1,498 private laws and 443 public laws, a better than three to one ratio. Private bills were referred to the Committee on the Whole House as far back as 1820, and a calendar of private bills was established in 1839. These bills were initially brought before the House by special orders, but the 62nd Congress changed this procedure by its rule XXIV, clause six which provided for the consideration of the Private Calendar in lieu of special orders. This rule was amended in 1932, and then adopted in its present form on March 22, 1935. A determined effort to reduce the private bill workload of the Congress was made in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Section 131 of that Act banned the introduction or the consideration of four types of private bills: first, those authorizing the payment of money for pensions; second, for personal or property damages for which suit may be brought under the Federal tort claims procedure; third, those authorizing the construction of a bridge across a navigable stream, or fourth, those authorizing the correction of a military or naval record. This ban afforded some temporary relief but was soon offset by the rising postwar and cold war flood for private immigration bills. The 82nd Congress passed 1,023 private laws, as compared with 594 public laws. The 88th Congress passed 360 Private Laws compared with 666 Public Laws. Under rule XXIV, clause six, the Private Calendar is called the first and third Tuesday of each month. The consideration of the Private Calendar bills on the first Tuesday is mandatory unless dispensed with by a two-thirds vote. On the third Tuesday, however, recognition for consideration of the Private Calendar is within the discretion of the Speaker and does not take precedence over other privileged business in the House. On the first Tuesday of each month, after disposition of business on the Speaker's table for reference only, the Speaker directs the call of the Private Calendar. It a bill called is objected to by two or more Members, it is automatically recommitted to the Committee reporting it. No reservation of objection is entertained. Bills unobjected to are considered in the House in the Committee of the Whole. On the third Tuesday of each month, the same procedure is followed with the exception that omnibus bills embodying bills previously rejected have preference and are in order regardless of objection. Such omnibus bills are read by paragraph, and no amendments are entertained except to strike out or reduce amounts or provide limitations. Matters so stricken out shall not be again included in an omnibus bill during that session. Debate is limited to motions allowable under the rule and does not admit motions to strike out the last word or reservation of objections. The rules prohibit the Speaker from recognizing Members for statements or for requests for unanimous consent for debate. Omnibus bills so passed are thereupon resolved in their component bills, which are engrossed separately and disposed of as if passed separately. Private Calendar bills unfinished on one Tuesday ago over to the next Tuesday on which such bills are in order and are considered before the call of bills subsequently on the calendar. Omnibus bills follow the same procedure and go over to the next Tuesday on which that class of business is again in order. When the previous question is ordered on a Private Calendar bill the bill comes up for disposition on the next legislative day. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to describe to the newer Members the Official Objectors system the House has established to deal with the great volume of private bills. The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader each appoint three Members to serve as Private Calendar Objectors during a Congress. The Objectors are on the Floor ready to object to any private bill which they feel is objectionable for any reason. Seated near them to provide technical assistance are the majority and minority legislative clerks. Should any Member have a doubt or questions about a particular private bill, he or she can get assistance from objectors, their clerks, or from the Member who introduced the bill. The great volume of private bill, and the desire to have an opportunity to study them carefully before they are called on the Private Calendar has caused the six objectors to agree upon certain ground rules. The rules limit consideration of bills placed on the Private Calendar only shortly before the calendar is called. With this agreement adopted on April 21, 1999, the Members of the Private Calendar Objectors Committee have agreed that during the 106th Congress, they will consider only those bills which have been on the Private Calendar for a period of seven (7) days, excluding the day the bill is reported and the day the calendar is called. Reports must be available to the Objectors for three (3) calendar days. It is agreed that the majority and minority clerks will not submit to the Objectors any bills which do not meet this requirement. This policy will be strictly enforced except during the closing days of a session when the House rules are suspended. This agreement was entered into by: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). I feel confident that I speak from my colleagues when I request all Members to enable us to give the necessary advance consideration to private bills by not asking that we depart from the above agreement unless absolutely necessary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I come before the House today to urge its support for H.R. 1184, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1999. Mr. Chairman, it is a common complaint that we cannot control the weather, neither can we control earthquakes, nor after years of effort can we even forecast them with any confidence. But we can prepare for them, and that is the main purpose of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, known as NEHRP. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, 39 States are subject to serious earthquake risk, and 75 million people live in urban areas with moderate to high earthquake risk. The Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates the annual loss resulting from earthquakes is $4.4 billion. The Northridge earthquake of 1994 alone resulted in damages of $40 billion. Still, to date we have been fortunate that an earthquake with the destructive force of the Tangshan, China event of 1976 or the Kobe, Japan event of 1995 has not struck a large U.S. city. But if history is any guide, the U.S. will be hit by violent shocks sometime in the not too distant future. Indeed, major earthquakes have been recorded throughout our Nation's history: in southern Missouri in 1811 and 1812, southern California in 1857, Hawaii in 1868, South Carolina in 1886, Alaska in 1899, and northern California in 1906. The same geologic processes that led to these cataclysmic events are still at work today. That we know. What we do not know is when and where these forces will be unleashed. Earthquakes may be inevitable, but catastrophic losses of life and property need not be if we use science to help communities prepare. The provisions in H.R. 1184 do just that. Four agencies participate in NEHRP: the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. For fiscal year 2000, H.R. 1184 authorizes $99.6 million for the base activities in these agencies, including specific authorizations for the U.S. Geological Survey for the Global Seismic Network, the Real-Time Seismic Warning System pilot program, external research, and an advisory committee. For fiscal year 2001, the bill authorizes $102.6 million for these base earthquake programs, an increase of 3 percent. In addition, H.R. 1184 includes multiyear authorizations for two new projects, each of which grew out of congressional direction in the last NEHRP bill. The Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System will update the Nation's existing seismic monitoring network, which is based on 30-year-old technology. The bill authorizes $170.8 million over 5 years for the U.S. Geological Survey for equipment, and a further $14.8 million over 2 years for the incremental costs of system operation. The Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation will link more than 30 earthquake engineering research facilities and upgrade and expand major earthquake testing facilities. H.R. 1184 provides the National Science Foundation with a 5-year authorization totaling $81.8 million for this program. Finally, the bill authorizes a Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee at the U.S. Geological Survey, requires greater interagency coordination in formulating the Program's budget, requests a report on how the Program meets the needs of at-risk populations, and repeals obsolete provisions of the statute. With earthquakes, it is not a question of if, but when the next one will strike. Through its emphasis on monitoring, research, and mitigation, H.R. 1184 will help the Nation prepare for the inevitable and save lives and property. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, for drafting such a fine bill; the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), the minority ranking member of the Committee on Science, for his continued support of the program; and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for her valued input in the consideration of this bill. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1184 represents the sensible, long-term investment that will pay for itself many times over and save lives and reduce property costs. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record: House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Washington, DC, April 20, 1999. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of April 16, regarding H.R. 1184, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1999. I understand that your waiver of Resources Committee jurisdiction should not be construed to affect any future referrals of bills dealing with the same subject matter. I also will support the Resources Committee request to be represented on any conference on H.R. 1184 or related bill. H.R. 1184 is scheduled for Floor consideration on April 21 and I will include this letter as part of the floor proceedings. I, as well as my staff, look forward to working with you if H.R. 1184 should go to conference and also, collaborating with you on any legislation on which we may share jurisdiction in the future. Sincerely, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance my time.