To amend title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to help close the gaps in principal preparation and provide new principals with the support and tools they need to meet the complex challenges of school leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the H.R. 394, ``Federal Courts and Venue Clarification Act of 2011.'' As a Senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, I am pleased to say that H.R. 394 enjoys strong bipartisan support and completes important work that was commenced during the 111th Congress when we considered and passed this bill in its previous form under H.R. 4113. This legislation has been a priority for Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, Ranking Member John Conyers and the many members of this chamber who passed this H.R. 4113 in the 111th Congress. Though, we were able to pass H.R. 4113 in the 111th Congress, the Senate was unable to pass it before the end of the 111th Congress. So today, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to consider and pass H.R. 394 at an early stage in the 112th Congress and provide our Senate colleagues with ample time to pass it as well.

As an Attorney and former Judge, I cannot overemphasize the importance of providing our federal judges and members of the legal profession with clear guidelines regarding issues of jurisdiction and venue. Providing our federal courts with clear guidelines on what cases they can hear under their jurisdiction and the proper venue for hearing such cases is central to the fair and efficient administration of justice in our democratic nation which is squarely based upon the rule of law. To that end, H.R. 394, the ``Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2010'', is intended to clarify a number of uncertainties and technical flaws in statutory provisions governing federal court jurisdiction and venue that have come to light in recent years. The legislation addresses inefficient rules which judges themselves have identified. These rules have required judges to spend considerable time deliberating jurisdictional issues instead of focusing on analyzing the important facts and laws applicable to the cases before them. H.R. 394 provides guidance and a solution to this problem.

The legislation is based on studies undertaken within the judiciary, and with consultation from academicians and legal organizations, including the American Bar Association, Lawyers for Civil Justice, the Federal Bar Association, the American Association for Justice, and the Chamber of Commerce. Additionally, the Judicial Conference of the United States has endorsed this legislation.

In the 1990s, the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction began to identify recurring problems encountered by litigants and judges in applying certain jurisdictional and venue statutes. Following years of study, and consideration of the American Law Institute's Federal Judicial Code Revision Project (2004), the Committee carefully crafted solutions to these particular areas of confusion, in consultation with law professors. The Conference endorsed those solutions, which this legislation embodies. This Act is necessary to clarify important issues of jurisdiction and venue. The bill is intended to facilitate the administration of justice by bringing more clarity to the operation of jurisdictional and venue statutes, thereby helping to reduce wasteful litigation over certain issues.

Under its Jurisdictional provisions, this bill:

Eliminates the ``resident alien proviso'' and clarifies that district courts do not have diversity jurisdiction over a claim between a citizen of a state and a permanent resident alien domiciled in the same state;

More clearly defines ``citizenship'' for foreign corporations and domestic corporations doing business abroad, as well as for direct actions against insurance companies;

Ensures that when a federal question claim is removed along with state law claims that are not within the supplemental jurisdiction of the district court or are otherwise non-removable by statute, the federal question claim will proceed in federal court and such state law claims will be remanded to state court;

Separates the removal provisions governing civil cases and those governing criminal cases into two separate statutes, as well as grouped together removal provisions relating solely to actions based on diversity jurisdiction for ease of reference by litigants;

Codifies current practice that all defendants must join in or consent to removal in order for the action to be removed to federal court;

Clarifies the provisions governing timeliness of removal by giving each defendant 30 days after service to file a notice of removal, while allowing any earlier-served defendants to consent to the removal by the later-served defendant;

Permits removal of a case after one year if a plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action; and

Allows information learned through discovery indicating that a claim is worth more than the minimum amount in controversy for diversity to trigger a new 30-day period in which to remove.

Under its Venue & Transfer provisions, this bill:

Sets forth a definition of venue and codifies the scope of venue provisions;

Creates a unified approach to venue in both diversity and federal question cases, while maintaining current venue standards;

Eliminates the outdated ``local action'' rule, which restricts where certain actions involving real property can be brought;

Clarifies that a person is deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled;

Provides that unincorporated associations will be treated the same as incorporated associations for determining venue, so that they will also be regarded as residents of any district in which they are subject to personal jurisdiction;

Eliminates a venue defense for persons residing outside the United States and grants a venue defense to permanent resident aliens with a domicile in the United States;

Allows cases to be transferred, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, to any district or division to which all parties have consented; and

Clarifies that transfers of cases from United States district courts (Article III courts) to territorial district courts (Article IV courts) are not permissible.

This bill will finally address and resolve jurisdiction and venue issues that have wasted the time of our federal judiciary for years and will help bring about more efficient administration of justice. So, I ask my colleagues to stand with me today and vote in favor of the H.R. 394, ``Federal Courts and Venue Clarification Act of 2011.''

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 394) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 394, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank Ranking Member Conyers,

Courts Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, Courts Ranking Member Cohen, and former Courts Subcommittee Chairman Hank Johnson for cosponsoring the bill.

The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act brings more clarity to the operation of jurisdictional statutes and facilitates the identification of the appropriate State or Federal court where actions should be brought.

Judges believe the current rules force them to waste time determining jurisdictional issues at the expense of adjudicating underlying litigation. The contents of this bill are based on recommendations developed and approved by the United States Judicial Conference to address the judiciary's concerns.

This legislation contains a number of revisions to Federal jurisdictional and venue law. Among the changes, the bill clarifies the definition of citizenship for foreign corporations and domestic corporations doing business abroad; separates the removal provisions governing civil cases and those governing criminal cases into two statutes; and creates a general venue statute that unifies the approach to venue in diversity and Federal question cases, while maintaining current venue standards.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 394.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 394 is intended to clarify a number of uncertainties and technical flaws in statutory provisions governing Federal court jurisdiction and venue that have come to light in recent years.

The legislation addresses the inefficient rules which judges have identified. These rules have required judges to spend considerable time deliberating jurisdictional issues instead of analyzing the case's facts and applicable laws. In the 111th Congress, we passed similar legislation in the House on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to pass it before the end of the 111th Congress.

This legislation is based on studies within the judiciary and consultation from academics and legal organizations, including the American Bar Association, Lawyers for Civil Justice, the Federal Bar Association, the American Association for Justice, and the Chamber of Commerce. Additionally, the Judicial Conference of the United States has endorsed this legislation.

I want to thank my friend and sponsor of this bill, Chairman Lamar Smith for his continued efforts to strengthen the operations and efficiencies of our Federal judiciary. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.