19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–594 

GOVERNMENT LITIGATION SAVINGS ACT 

JULY 11, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1996] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1996) to amend titles 5 and 28, United States Code, with respect to the award of fees and other expenses in cases brought 

against agencies of the United States, to require the Administrative Conference of the United States to compile, and make publically available, certain data relating to the Equal Access to Justice Act, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that 

the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 4 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 4 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 9 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 10 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 10 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 13 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 13 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 13 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 16 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 16 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 16 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 19 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 25 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

The Amendment 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Government Litigation Savings Act’’. 

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE PROVISIONS. 

(a) AGENCY PROCEEDINGS.—Section 504 of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) in paragraph (1)—— 

(i) by inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘‘Fees and other 

expenses may be awarded under this subsection only to a prevailing 

party who has a direct and personal interest in the adversary adjudication because of medical costs, property damage, denial of benefits, unpaid disbursement, fees and other expenses incurred in defense of the 

adjudication, interest in a policy concerning such medical costs, property damage, denial of benefits, unpaid disbursement, or fees and other 

expenses, or otherwise.’’; and 

(ii) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The agency conducting the 

adversary adjudication shall make any party against whom the adjudication is brought, at the time the adjudication is commenced, aware 

of the provisions of this section.’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (3), in the first sentence— 

(i) by striking ‘‘may reduce’’ and inserting ‘‘shall reduce’’; and 

(ii) by striking ‘‘unduly and unreasonably’’ and inserting ‘‘unduly or 

unreasonably’’; 

(2) in subsection (b)(1)— 

(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ‘‘$125 per hour’’ and all that follows through the end and inserting ‘‘$200 per hour.);’’; and 

(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ‘‘; except that’’ and all that follows 

through ‘‘section 601;’’ and inserting ‘‘except that— 

‘‘(I) the net worth of a party (other than an individual or a unit of local 

government) shall include the net worth of any parent entity or subsidiary 

of that party; and 

‘‘(II) for purposes of subclause (I)— 

‘‘(aa) a ‘parent entity’ of a party is an entity that owns or controls 

the equity or other evidences of ownership in that party; and 

‘‘(bb) a ‘subsidiary’ of a party is an entity the equity or other evidences of ownership in which are owned or controlled by that party;’’; 

(3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ‘‘, United States Code’’; and 

(4) by striking subsections (e) and (f) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(e)(1) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States, after 

consultation with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, shall report annually to the Congress on the amount of fees and other expenses 

awarded during the preceding fiscal year pursuant to this section. The report shall 

describe the number, nature, and amount of the awards, the claims involved in the 

controversy, and any other relevant information that may aid the Congress in evaluating the scope and impact of such awards. Each agency shall provide the Chairman 

in a timely manner all information necessary for the Chairman to comply with the 

requirements of this subsection. The report shall be made available to the public 

online. 

‘‘(2)(A) The report required by paragraph (1) shall account for all payments of fees 

and other expenses awarded under this section that are made pursuant to a settlement agreement, regardless of whether the settlement agreement is sealed or otherwise subject to nondisclosure provisions, except that any version of the report made 

available to the public may not reveal any information the disclosure of which is 

contrary to the national security of the United States. 

‘‘(B) The disclosure of fees and other expenses required under subparagraph (A) 

does not affect any other information that is subject to nondisclosure provisions in 

the settlement agreement. 

‘‘(f) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall create and maintain online a searchable database containing the following information with respect to each 

award of fees and other expenses under this section: 

‘‘(1) The name of each party to whom the award was made. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

‘‘(2) The name of each counsel of record representing each party to whom the 

award was made. 

‘‘(3) The agency to which the application for the award was made. 

‘‘(4) The name of each counsel of record representing the agency to which the 

application for the award was made. 

‘‘(5) The name of each administrative law judge, and the name of any other 

agency employee serving in an adjudicative role, in the adversary adjudication 

that is the subject of the application for the award. 

‘‘(6) The amount of the award. 

‘‘(7) The names and hourly rates of each expert witness for whose services the 

award was made under the application. 

‘‘(8) The basis for the finding that the position of the agency concerned was 

not substantially justified. 

‘‘(g) The online searchable database described in subsection (f) may not reveal any 

information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law or court order, or the disclosure of which is contrary to the national security of the United States. 

‘‘(h) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall adjust the maximum hourly fee set forth in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii) for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2012, and for each fiscal year thereafter, to reflect changes in the Consumer 

Price Index, as determined by the Secretary of Labor.’’. 

(b) COURT CASES.—Section 2412(d) of title 28, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) by amending paragraph (1)(A) to read as follows: ‘‘(A) Except as otherwise 

specifically provided by statute, a court, in any civil action (other than cases 

sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, 

brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that 

action, shall award to a prevailing party (other than the United States) fees and 

other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by that party in the civil action, unless the court finds that the position 

of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances 

make an award unjust. Fees and other expenses may be awarded under this 

paragraph only to a prevailing party who has a direct and personal interest in 

the civil action because of medical costs, property damage, denial of benefits, 

unpaid disbursement, fees and other expenses incurred in defense of the civil 

action, interest in a policy concerning such medical costs, property damage, denial of benefits, unpaid disbursement, or fees and other expenses, or otherwise.’’; 

(2) in paragraph (1)(C)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘court, in its discretion, may’’ and inserting ‘‘court shall’’; 

and 

(B) by striking ‘‘unduly and unreasonably’’ and inserting ‘‘unduly or unreasonably’’; 

(3) in paragraph (2)— 

(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ‘‘$125’’ and all that follows 

through the end and inserting ‘‘$200 per hour.);’’; 

(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ‘‘; except that’’ and all that follows 

through ‘‘section 601 of title 5;’’ and inserting ‘‘except that— 

‘‘(I) the net worth of a party (other than an individual or a unit of local 

government) shall include the net worth of any parent entity or subsidiary 

of that party; and 

‘‘(II) for purposes of subclause (I)— 

‘‘(aa) a ‘parent entity’ of a party is an entity that owns or controls 

the equity or other evidences of ownership in that party; and 

‘‘(bb) a ‘subsidiary’ of a party is an entity the equity or other evidences of ownership in which are owned or controlled by that party;’’; 

and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(5) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall adjust the maximum hourly fee set forth in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2012, and for each fiscal year thereafter, to reflect changes in the Consumer 

Price Index, as determined by the Secretary of Labor. 

‘‘(6)(A) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States shall 

report annually to the Congress on the amount of fees and other expenses awarded 

during the preceding fiscal year pursuant to this subsection. The report shall describe the number, nature, and amount of the awards, the claims involved in each 

controversy, and any other relevant information which may aid the Congress in 

evaluating the scope and impact of such awards. Each agency shall provide the 

Chairman with such information as is necessary for the Chairman to comply with 

the requirements of this paragraph. The report shall be made available to the public 

online. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

‘‘(B)(i) The report required by subparagraph (A) shall account for all payments of 

fees and other expenses awarded under this subsection that are made pursuant to 

a settlement agreement, regardless of whether the settlement agreement is sealed 

or otherwise subject to nondisclosure provisions, except that any version of the report made available to the public may not reveal any information the disclosure of 

which is contrary to the national security of the United States. 

‘‘(ii) The disclosure of fees and other expenses required under clause (i) does not 

affect any other information that is subject to nondisclosure provisions in the settlement agreement. 

‘‘(C) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall include and clearly 

identify in the annual report under subparagraph (A), for each case in which an 

award of fees and other expenses is included in the report— 

‘‘(i) any amounts paid from section 1304 of title 31 for a judgment in the case; 

‘‘(ii) the amount of the award of fees and other expenses; and 

‘‘(iii) the statute under which the plaintiff filed suit. 

‘‘(7) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall create and maintain 

online a searchable database containing the following information with respect to 

each award of fees and other expenses under this subsection: 

‘‘(A) The name of each party to whom the award was made. 

‘‘(B) The name of each counsel of record representing each party to whom the 

award was made. 

‘‘(C) The agency involved in the case. 

‘‘(D) The name of each counsel of record representing the agency involved in 

the case. 

‘‘(E) The name of each judge in the case, and the court in which the case was 

heard. 

‘‘(F) The amount of the award. 

‘‘(G) The names and hourly rates of each expert witness for whose services 

the award was made. 

‘‘(H) The basis for the finding that the position of the agency concerned was 

not substantially justified. 

‘‘(8) The online searchable database described in paragraph (7) may not reveal any 

information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law or court order, or the disclosure of which is contrary to the national security of the United States. 

‘‘(9) The Attorney General of the United States shall provide to the Chairman of 

the Administrative Conference of the United States in a timely manner all information necessary for the Chairman to carry out the Chairman’s responsibilities under 

this subsection.’’. 

(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 2412(e) of title 28, United States Code, is 

amended by striking ‘‘of section 2412 of title 28, United States Code,’’ and inserting 

‘‘of this section’’. 

SEC. 3. GAO STUDY. 

Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 

General shall commence an audit of the implementation of the Equal Access to Justice Act for the years 1995 through the end of the calendar year in which this Act 

is enacted. The Comptroller General shall, to the extent practical, not later than 1 

year after the end of the calendar year in which this Act is enacted, complete such 

audit and submit to the Congress a report on the results of the audit. 

Purpose and Summary 

H.R. 1996, the ‘‘Government Litigation Savings Act,’’ revises provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act (‘‘the EAJA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) 

relating to the award of attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing parties in agency proceedings and civil actions against the Federal 

Government. The bill instaurates the Act’s annual reporting requirements, which have not been fulfilled since Fiscal Year 1994, 

and makes other needed reforms to protect taxpayer dollars while 

ensuring that the EAJA is serving all legitimate beneficiaries. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

A. The American Rule and Sovereign Immunity 

Absent a specific statute authorizing fee-shifting, in the United 

States a party prevailing in litigation typically is not entitled to reVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:26 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR594.XXX HR594

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

1See Alyeska Pipelines Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 247 (1975) (‘‘In the United 

States, the prevailing litigant typically is not entitled to collect a reasonable attorney’s fee from 

the loser.’’). 2 Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 5 (1973) (citations omitted). 3See, e.g., United States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 20 (1926). 4La Raza Unida v. Volpe, 57 F.R.D. 94, 98 (N.D. Cal. 1972). 5See 421 U.S. at 263. 6 Christopher R. Kelley, Attorney’s Fee Awards for Unreasonable Government Conduct: Notes 

on the Equal Access to Justice Act, 2004 ARK. L. NOTES 65, 65 (2004). 7See EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, S. REP. NO. 96–253, at 4 (1979) (citing statutes). 8 96 P.L. 481, 94 Stat. 2321 (Oct. 21, 1980). See generally Lowell E. Baier, Reforming the 

Equal Access to Justice Act, 38 J. LEGIS. 1 (2012) (thorough discussion of the EAJA’s legislative 

history and legislative suggestions to restore its original purpose of protecting ordinary citizens 

and small businesses from excessive or unreasonable government policies and enforcement actions). 9 99 P.L. 80, 99 Stat. 183 (Aug. 5, 1985). 

cover attorney’s fees from the losing party.1 This is known as the 

American Rule, in contrast with the English Rule, which routinely 

allows fee-shifting between litigants. There are limited common 

law exceptions to the American Rule, such as the bad faith doctrine, which holds that ‘‘a Federal court may award counsel fees to 

a successful party when his opponent has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’’ 2 Owing to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, however, these common law exceptions traditionally were inapplicable in litigation against the 

United States. Sovereign immunity prevents the United States 

from being sued or forced to pay out funds without its consent, 

which Congress can give in the form of a statute expressly waiving 

sovereign immunity for a particular purpose.3 Section 2412 of Title 

28, U.S. Code, formerly codified the rule that attorney’s fees and 

costs were not recoverable from the United States. 

The 1960’s and 1970’s witnessed a dramatic increase in ‘‘public 

interest law’’ and lawsuits filed by citizen activists challenging governmental decisions. Courts partly enabled this by developing the 

‘‘private attorney general doctrine,’’ which allowed a plaintiff to ‘‘be 

awarded attorneys’ fees when [through litigation] he has effectuated a strong Congressional policy which has benefited a large 

class of people, and where further the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award essential.’’ 4 The Supreme Court, however, cut back sharply on this trend 

in Alyeska Pipeline, holding that a specific statute authorizing feeshifting was required before a court could award attorney’s fees.5

Congress has waived the United States’ sovereign immunity for 

attorney’s fees in particular causes of action. ‘‘In about 200 statutes 

Congress has clearly put aside the American Rule and waived the 

Federal Government’s sovereign immunity to permit the award of 

attorney’s fees to prevailing parties other than the Federal Government.’’ 6 Examples include the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968; 

the Voting Rights Act of 1975; the Organized Crime Control Act; 

the Freedom of Information Act; the Consumer Product Safety Act; 

and, the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act of 1976.7

B. The Equal Access to Justice Act 

In October 1980, Congress passed and the President signed the 

EAJA 8 (originally entitled the ‘‘Small Business Equal Access to 

Justice Act,’’ and re-enacted permanently in 1985 9) as part of a 

broader small business assistance bill, ‘‘in response to widespread 

sentiment that administrative agencies were burdening small busiVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:26 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR594.XXX HR594

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

10 John W. Finley III, Unjust Access to the Equal Access to Justice Act: A Proposal to Close 

the Act’s Eligibility Loophole for Members of Trade Associations, 53 WASH. U. J. URB. &

CONTEMP. L. 243, 247 (Winter 1998). 11 Comm’r v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990). 12Kelley, note 6 supra, at 66 (quoting EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT AMENDMENTS, H.R. REP. NO. 99–120, at 4 (1985)). 

13 Battles Farm Co. v. Pierce, 806 F.2d 1098, 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1986). 14Kelley, note 6 supra, at 65. 15See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). 16See 5 U.S.C. § 504(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 17See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (‘‘We are of the view, therefore, that as 

between the two commonly used connotations of the word ‘substantially,’ the one most naturally 

conveyed by the phrase before us here is not ‘justified to a high degree,’ but rather ‘justified 

in substance or in the main’—that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.’’). 18 5 U.S.C. § 504(b)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B). 

nesses with excessive regulation.’’ 10 The Supreme Court has noted 

that the EAJA was adopted with the ‘‘specific purpose’’ of 

‘‘eliminat[ing] for the average person the financial disincentive to 

challenge unreasonable governmental actions.’’ 11

Civil litigation can become a war of attrition as parties strategically try to deplete one another’s resources to force a settlement. 

Fundamentally, the EAJA recognizes the enormous ‘‘disparity of resources between individuals, small businesses, and other organizations with limited resources and the Federal Government.’’ 12 Unlike any person or corporation, the Federal Government literally 

has thousands of attorneys at its immediate disposal, none of 

whom bills on an hourly basis. This could discourage a citizen from 

hiring counsel to challenge an abusive government policy or could 

induce a citizen to settle on unfavorable terms a capricious civil or 

administrative enforcement action. The EAJA ‘‘is meant to discourage the Federal Government from using its superior litigating resources unreasonably—it is in this respect an ‘anti-bully’ law.’’ 13

Consequently, the EAJA ‘‘probably is the most important’’ and also 

‘‘among the most litigated’’ of the Federal fee-shifting statutes.14

The EAJA is a one-way fee-shifting statute, allowing the recovery 

of attorney’s fees and costs from the United States in certain circumstances. First, the EAJA makes the United States liable for attorney’s fees to the same extent as any other party under a common law or statutory exception to the American Rule.15 Thus, for 

example, if the United States litigates a case in bad faith, then the 

bad faith exception could be used to require the United States to 

pay the prevailing party’s attorney’s fees and costs. Second, the 

EAJA allows certain parties who prevail against the United States 

in any administrative adjudication or in any civil litigation (not 

just on certain claims brought under particular statutes) to recover 

attorney’s fees if the position of the United States was not ‘‘substantially justified,’’ unless ‘‘special circumstances make an award 

unjust.’’ 16

The EAJA puts the burden on the government to show that its 

position was substantially justified, and the Supreme Court has interpreted the EAJA’s ‘‘substantially justified’’ standard as equivalent to reasonableness.17 Only individuals with a net worth of less than $2 million, or organizations worth less than $7 million (except 

for tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations and cooperative associations 

under the Agricultural Marketing Act) and with fewer than 500 

employees, can collect attorney’s fees from the Federal Government 

under the EAJA.18 Further, attorney’s fees are capped at $125 per 

hour, unless ‘‘a special factor, such as the limited availability of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

19 5 U.S.C. § 504(b)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A); see also Pierce, 487 U.S. at 572 (holding 

that the special factor exception in the EAJA ‘‘refers to attorneys having some distinctive knowledge or specialized skill needful for the litigation in question—as opposed to an extraordinary 

level of the general lawyerly knowledge and ability useful in all litigation. Examples of the 

former would be an identifiable practice specialty such as patent law, or knowledge of foreign 

law or language.’’). 20 5 U.S.C. § 504(d); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(4). 21Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, 102 P.L. 572, § 502(B) (Oct. 29, 1992). 22Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, 104 P.L. 66, § 1091(b) (Dec. 21, 1995). 23Government Litigation Savings Act: Hearing before the Subcomm. on Courts, Commercial 

and Administrative Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (Oct. 11, 2011). 24The Awarding of Attorneys’ Fees in Federal Courts: Hearings before the Subcomm. on 

Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th 

Cong., at 73 (Apr. 26, 1978) (Statement of Paul Nejelski, Deputy Assistant Attorney General). 25S. REP. NO. 96–253, note 7 supra, at 10. 26See United States General Accounting Office, Equal Access to Justice Act: Its Use in Selected 

Agencies, at 3 (GAO/HEHS–98–58–R Jan. 14, 1998). 

qualified attorneys or agents for the proceedings involved, justifies 

a higher fee.’’ 19 An award under the EAJA may be paid ‘‘from any 

funds made available to the agency by appropriation or otherwise.’’ 20

No reports have been made documenting EAJA payments government-wide since FY1994. The EAJA requires the Administrative Conference of the United States (‘‘ACUS’’ or ‘‘the Conference’’) 

to report annually to Congress regarding fees paid out in administrative actions under Section 504. But ACUS was defunded in 1995 

and lay dormant until it was re-appropriated in 2009. Its last report under Section 504 covered FY1994, although the Conference 

is now fully operational and is preparing a report for FY2010. The 

EAJA originally charged the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts, changed to the Attorney General in 1992,21 with filing a 

similar annual report under Section 2412, but that reporting requirement was repealed altogether in 1995.22

C. Necessary Reforms to the EAJA 

The Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative 

Law held a hearing on H.R. 1996, the ‘‘Government Litigation Savings Act,’’ on October 11, 2011.23 Testimony was received from 

Lowell Baier, President Emeritus of the Boone & Crockett Club 

and 2008 Field & Stream magazine Conservationist of the Year; 

Jeffrey Axelrad, Professorial Lecturer in Law at The George Washington University Law School and former Director of the U.S. Department of Justice Torts Branch (1978–2003); Jennifer Ellis, 

rancher and Chairman of the Western Legacy Alliance; and, Brian 

Wolfman, Visiting Professor at Georgetown University Law Center 

and Co-Director of the Institute for Public Representation. 

i. Increasing transparency 

To be sure, the EAJA has not lived up to initial cost projections, 

which were astronomical. The DOJ believed allowing the American 

Rule’s common law exceptions to apply against the Federal Government would cost $250 million per year.24 The CBO proffered the 

somewhat more modest estimate of $108 million in the first year, 

rising to $137 million by FY1982.25 From FY1982 to FY1994, the 

last year for which reliable data is available, GAO reported that 

$34 million was paid out under the EAJA to 6,200 applicants.26

The majority of these were small payments made in Social Security 

and veteran’s benefits cases. But no comprehensive, reliable data 

is available since FY1995. The GAO has published three reports reVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:26 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR594.XXX HR594

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

27See id.; United States Government Accountability Office, Environmental Litigation: Cases 

Against the EPA and Associated Costs over Time (GAO–11–650 Aug. 1, 2011); United States 

Government Accountability Office, Limited Data Available on USDA and Interior Attorney Fee 

Claims and Payments (GAO–12–417R Apr. 12, 2012). 28See Government Litigation Savings Act, note 23 supra, at 41–43 (Testimony of Jeffrey 

Axelrad); 50–51 (Testimony of Lowell Baier); 62–63 (Testimony of Jennifer Ellis); 96 (Testimony 

of Brian Wolfman). 29See id. at 34 (Testimony of Jeffrey Axelrad); 50 (Testimony of Lowell Baier); 60 (Testimony 

of Jennifer Ellis). Cf. id. at 91 (Testimony of Brian Wolfman). 30 Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, 104 P.L. 121, § 232(b) (Mar. 29, 1996). 31Government Litigation Savings Act, note 23 supra, at 77–78 (Testimony of Brian Wolfman). 32See id. at 39–40 (Testimony of Jeffrey Axelrad), 60–61 (Testimony of Jennifer Ellis); see also 

Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 08–cv–00484–JSW, Dkt. No. 648, Report and Recommendations 

re: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011) (approving hourly rates of 

$650, $385, $450, and $410 for environmental attorneys under EAJA’s special factor exception). 33See Government Litigation Savings Act, note 23 supra, at 101–02 (‘‘I think if we were at 

$250 an hour and we had a reasonable inflation adjuster . . . And if you had a mandatory inflation adjuster, I am with you on this.’’). 34 Id. at 86–91. 35 Id. at 92–95. 36See Environmental Litigation, note 27 supra. 37See Ron Arnold, ‘‘Fed pays Big Green to sue the government,’’ WASH. EXAMINER, Aug. 31, 

2011, at 29. 

garding EAJA payments made by particular agencies during this 

‘‘blackout’’ period, but none is government-wide.27 For its most recent report, only 10 of the 75 bureaus and agencies that GAO contacted within the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and the Interior 

could provide any data on EAJA payments for FY2000 to FY 2010. 

This ongoing, near-total lack of transparency is a glaring shortcoming of the current EAJA regime. 

ii. Accounting for inflation and protecting taxpayer dollars 

At the hearing, all witnesses (including Professor Wolfman) 

broadly agreed that the annual reporting requirement should be reinstated 28 and that the cap on attorney’s fees and costs should be 

raised.29 The $125 hourly cap was last increased in 1996, from 

$75;30 the inflation-adjusted 2011 equivalent would be around 

$180.31 The Subcommittee heard testimony that the ‘‘special factor’’ 

exception has overtaken the hourly cap and that courts regularly 

award attorney’s fees far in excess of the cap.32 The majority of 

witnesses urged eliminating the ‘‘special factor’’ exception altogether. Professor Wolfman allowed that if the cap were raised to 

$250 per hour, with an automatic mechanism to adjust it annually, 

then the special factor exception could be eliminated.33 At the hearing, Professor Wolfman objected to requiring courts to reduce attorney’s fees awarded under the EAJA ‘‘commensurate with pro bono 

hours,’’ 34 and to limiting EAJA awards to $200,000 per case or 

three cases annually. 35

iii. Clarifying eligibility 

Certain 501(c)(3) organizations routinely receive large awards 

under the EAJA. This is based on reliable (although, due to the annual reporting blackout since FY1994, not comprehensive) evidence, including the GAO’s August 2011 report.36 The GAO report 

revealed that EarthJustice received 32%—$4.6 million—of attorney’s fees paid by the EPA during the period of time studied. The 

Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club combined 

to take another 41%.37 Another recent study found that the U.S. 

Forest Service paid EAJA awards in 149 instances over a 7-year 

period (1999–2005), totaling over $6 million in attorney’s fees and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

38Michael J. Mortimer & Robert W. Malmsheimer, The Equal Access to Justice Act and US 

Forest Service Land Management: Incentives to Litigate?, 109 J. FORESTRY 352, 354–55 (2011). 39 Id. 40 Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 08–cv–00484–JSW, Dkt. No. 656, Order Adopting Report 

and Recommendations (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2011); see also id., appeal docketed, No. 12–15323 (9th 

Cir. Feb. 17, 2012). 41See Report and Recommendations, note 32 supra. 42 Id. at 14–18. 43See Government Litigation Savings Act, note 23 supra, at 49. 44See id. at 48 (Testimony of Lowell Baier). 45 Id. at 52. 46See id. at 49. 47See id. at 48–49 (Testimony of Lowell Baier); 59–61 (Testimony of Jennifer Ellis). 48 Id. at 55. 

costs.38 Eighty three of these involved environmental organizations, 

accounting for approximately 70% of the EAJA award dollars.39

For example, in Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, a case challenging the adequacy of an environmental review, the Center for 

Food Safety was awarded more than $2.6 million in attorney’s 

fees,40 with its lead counsel compensated at a rate of $650 per hour and assisting attorneys at $385 to $450 per hour.41 The court specifically cited the attorneys’ specialized knowledge in and experience with environmental issues as the ‘‘special factor’’ meriting fees 

in excess of the EAJA’s statutory rate.42

The Subcommittee heard extensive testimony on the issue of eligibility for EAJA awards. Mr. Baier testified that the EAJA’s legislative history shows it was meant to protect ‘‘private individuals 

and small businesses’’ from unreasonable regulatory and civil enforcement by the Federal Government. 43 Of the more than 200 

other fee-shifting statutes, the EAJA is the only one that makes a 

special exception for 501(c)(3) corporations.44 By reviewing court 

filings for cases marked ‘‘closed’’ between September 1, 2009, and 

August 31, 2010, Mr. Baier found that twenty environmental organizations collected $5.8 million in EAJA payments under Section 

2412 in this 1-year period alone.45 This figure does not include 

other EAJA payments that may have been made to such groups in 

administrative proceedings under Section 504. Mr. Baier specifically suggested that the law be improved so that ‘‘[i]n calculating 

the net worth of the litigant the net worth of all parent entities 

and wholly owned subsidiaries should be included, in order to prevent the use of small ephemeral or shell organizations to circumvent the net worth eligibility requirement.’’ 46

Mr. Baier and Ms. Ellis also argued that EAJA awards should 

be available only for cases challenging the substance of a governmental policy or decision, rather than challenges to the decisionmaking process.47 As Ms. Ellis put it, ‘‘I have always understood 

that people can push their agendas in court. I just disagree with 

using my tax dollars to do it.’’ 48

Hearings 

The Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative 

Law held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1996, the ‘‘Government Litigation Savings Act,’’ on October 11, 2011. Testimony was received 

from Lowell Baier, President Emeritus of the Boone & Crockett 

Club and 2008 Field & Stream magazine Conservationist of the 

Year; Jeffrey Axelrad, Professorial Lecturer in Law at The George 

Washington University Law School and former Director of the U.S. 

Department of Justice Torts Branch (1978–2003); Jennifer Ellis, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

rancher and Chairman of the Western Legacy Alliance; and, Brian 

Wolfman, Visiting Professor at Georgetown University Law Center 

and Co-Director of the Institute for Public Representation. 

Committee Consideration 

On November 17, 2011, the Committee met in open session and 

ordered the bill H.R. 1996 favorably reported, with an amendment 

in the nature of a substitute from Mr. Coble, by a rollcall vote of 

19 to 14, a quorum being present. 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

1996. 

1. Amendment #3, offered by Mr. Scott, to strike the attorney’s 

fee cap and instead provide for ‘‘reasonable’’ attorney’s fees; to preserve the net worth exemption for 501(c)(3) corporations; and to 

strike the requirement that a party’s net worth shall include the 

net worth of a parent entity or subsidiary of that party. Amendment not agreed to by vote of 14 to 18. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................... X 

Mr. Coble ............................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte ....................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .........................................................

Mr. Chabot ........................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ................................................................

Mr. Pence .............................................................

Mr. Forbes ............................................................ X 

Mr. King ............................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ............................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ............................................................ X 

Mr. Poe .................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin ............................................................ X 

Mr. Marino ........................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ............................................................

Mr. Ross ............................................................... X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................... X 

Mr. Quayle ............................................................ X 

Mr. Amodei ........................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member ...................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler ............................................................ X 

Mr. Scott .............................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................... X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................... X 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

49Despite the record vote occurring on the motion to table, the Committee notes that a ruling 

by the Chair that it is not in order to offer an amendment following a Committee’s adoption 

of an amendment in the nature of a substitute which by unanimous consent was considered the 

base text for purposes of markup is not subject to appeal. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................... X 

Ms. Waters ...........................................................

Mr. Cohen ............................................................ X 

Mr. Johnson .......................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ......................................................... X 

Mr. Quigley ........................................................... X 

Ms. Chu ............................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ......................................................... X 

(Vacant) ...............................................................

Total ................................................... 14 18 

2. Motion by Mr. Sensenbrenner to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair. The chairman ruled that it was not in order to 

consider further amendments following the committee’s adoption of 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute that by unanimous 

consent was considered the base text for purposes of markup. Ms. 

Jackson Lee appealed this ruling, and Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to 

table Ms. Jackson Lee’s motion.49 Motion agreed to by vote of 19 

to 13. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................... X 

Mr. Coble ............................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte ....................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .........................................................

Mr. Chabot ........................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ................................................................

Mr. Pence .............................................................

Mr. Forbes ............................................................ X 

Mr. King ............................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ............................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ............................................................ X 

Mr. Poe ................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin ............................................................ X 

Mr. Marino ........................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ............................................................

Mr. Ross ............................................................... X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................... X 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

ROLLCALL NO. 2—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Quayle ............................................................ X 

Mr. Amodei ........................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member ...................... X 

Mr. Berman ..........................................................

Mr. Nadler ............................................................ X 

Mr. Scott .............................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................... X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................... X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen ............................................................ X 

Mr. Johnson .......................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ......................................................... X 

Mr. Quigley ...........................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ......................................................... X 

(Vacant) ...............................................................

Total ................................................... 19 13 

3. Motion to report H.R. 1996, as amended, favorably to the 

House. Motion agreed to by vote of 19 to 14. 

ROLLCALL NO. 3 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................... X 

Mr. Coble ............................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte ....................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .........................................................

Mr. Chabot ........................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ................................................................

Mr. Pence .............................................................

Mr. Forbes ............................................................ X 

Mr. King ............................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ............................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ............................................................ X 

Mr. Poe ................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin ............................................................ X 

Mr. Marino ........................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ............................................................

Mr. Ross ............................................................... X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................... X 

Mr. Quayle ............................................................ X 

Mr. Amodei ........................................................... X 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

ROLLCALL NO. 3—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member ...................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler ............................................................ X 

Mr. Scott .............................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................... X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................... X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen ............................................................ X 

Mr. Johnson .......................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ......................................................... X 

Mr. Quigley ...........................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ......................................................... X 

(Vacant) ...............................................................

Total ................................................... 19 14 

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises 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. 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 1996, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, June 26, 2012. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, CHAIRMAN, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1996, the ‘‘Government 

Litigation Savings Act.’’ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Martin von Gnechten 

and Matthew Pickford, who can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 1996—Government Litigation Savings Act. 

As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 

on November 17, 2011. 

SUMMARY

H.R. 1996 would make several amendments to the Equal Access 

to Justice Act (EAJA), which allows plaintiffs to recover attorneys’ 

fees and other costs from the Federal Government when they prevail in a case against the government. Specifically, the legislation 

would increase the cap on hourly attorney rates, restrict who is eligible to receive EAJA awards, and impose new reporting requirements on the Administrative Conference of the United States 

(ACUS). 

Based on information from affected Federal agencies, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1996 would cost about $95 million 

over the 2013–2017 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the legislation also could affect direct 

spending by agencies not funded through annual appropriations; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net increase in spending by those agencies would not 

be significant. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

H.R. 1996 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of State, local, or tribal governments. 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1996 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 750 (administration of justice), 800 (general government), and 

all other budget functions from which EAJA claims are paid. 

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013– 

2017 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level 21 18 18 19 19 95 

Estimated Outlays 20 19 18 19 19 95 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1996 would cost $95 million over the 2013–2017 period. That amount includes increased 

payments to reimburse attorneys’ fees and the estimated costs of 

carrying out new reporting and auditing requirements by Federal 

agencies. For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted by the end of 2012, that the necessary amounts will be appropriated each year, and that spending will follow historical patterns 

for EAJA payments and litigation against the Federal Government. 

Increased Payments for Attorneys’ Fees 

Generally, in the United States, parties involved in litigation pay 

their own attorneys’ fees. However, under EAJA, parties that sue 

the Federal Government and prevail are entitled to repayment of 

attorneys’ fees, subject to certain conditions. In general, EAJA allows smaller groups with limited resources to pursue claims 

against the Federal Government. Based on information provided by 

the affected agencies, CBO estimates that payments of attorneys’ 

fees under EAJA from agencies’ appropriations have totaled around 

$40 million annually in recent years. 

Under EAJA, plaintiffs who successfully bring a civil action 

against the Federal Government through a statute that lacks what 

is known as a ‘‘fee-shifting provision’’ for attorneys’ fees are entitled to repayment of attorneys’ fees from the defendant agency’s 

appropriation. Fee-shifting provisions require that payments to 

plaintiffs be paid through the Treasury’s Judgment Fund. This legislation would affect only payments that are made from an agency’s 

appropriation. 

H.R. 1996 would make several changes that CBO estimates 

would increase discretionary spending for that subset of EAJA payments. Specifically, the bill would raise the cap for attorneys’ fees, 

payable from agency appropriations, from $125 per hour to $200 

per hour; it would prohibit reimbursements above the cap for special factors, such as cost-of-living adjustments as allowed under 

current law; and it would require the Office of Management and 

Budget to adjust the hourly cap to reflect changes in the Consumer 

Price Index. Based on information provided by the Departments of 

Justice (DOJ) and Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the Social Security Administration, and various privatesector entities, CBO estimates that those changes would have a net 

cost of about $17 million annually, predominantly from increasing 

the cap on attorneys’ fees for cases involving the Social Security 

Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

The bill also would restrict the class of parties eligible for repayment and require judges to reduce awards in specified situations. 

Based on information provided by the affected agencies, CBO 

projects that those provisions would not have a significant impact 

on caseload or awards of attorneys’ fees. The majority of cases that 

would be affected by the legislation currently meet the eligibility 

restrictions for plaintiffs required under the legislation. 

Auditing and Reporting Requirements 

The legislation also would require the ACUS to annually report 

EAJA fee payments made by all government agencies and to mainVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:26 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR594.XXX HR594

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

tain an online searchable database of such payments. In addition, 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would be required to 

audit all EAJA payments since 1995. CBO estimates that those 

provisions would cost about $10 million over the 2013–2017 period. 

PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct 

spending or revenues. Enacting H.R. 1996 could affect direct spending by agencies not funded through the appropriation process, but 

CBO estimates that such effects would not be significant in any 

year. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

H.R. 1996 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of 

State, local, or tribal governments. 

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: 

Federal Costs: Martin von Gnechten and Matthew Pickford 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove 

Delisle 

Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Theresa Gullo 

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis 

Performance Goals and Objectives 

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 1996 as amended will instaurate the annual reporting requirements of the Equal 

Access to Justice Act, and make other needed reforms to the EAJA. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 1996 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Section 1: Short Title. This section designates the bill as the 

‘‘Government Litigation Savings Act.’’ 

Section 2: Modification of Equal Access to Justice Provisions. This 

section makes several amendments to the Equal Access to Justice 

Act, at 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 

Section 2(a) amends 5 U.S.C. § 504 regarding EAJA payments 

made in administrative adjudications. Section 2(a)(1)(A)(i) requires 

EAJA filers to show a ‘‘direct and personal interest’’ in the action 

to be eligible for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Types of 

such a ‘‘direct and personal interest’’ are medical costs, property 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

50See Government Litigation Savings Act, note 23 supra, at 117–18. 51See id. at 61 (Testimony of Jennifer Ellis). 52See id. at 91–92, 102. 53 Id. at 126. 

damage, denial of benefits, unpaid disbursement, fees and costs incurred in defense of an adjudication, or a policy interest concerning 

such a direct and personal interest. In this respect the bill draws 

upon language suggested by the National Organization of Veterans’ 

Advocates to ensure that the EAJA continues to protect everyone 

whom it was meant to protect.50

Section 2(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agencies to apprise parties to an 

adjudication of the provisions of Section 504, to discourage someone 

without counsel from settling a vexatious adjudication for lack of 

resources to pay an attorney. Responding to concerns expressed at 

the legislative hearing that parties may increase their attorney’s 

fees by prolonging the litigation,51 Section 2(a)(1)(B) requires a reduction in the award if a party has ‘‘unduly or unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the matter in controversy.’’ 

Section 2(a)(2) raises the hourly cap to $200 and eliminates the 

special factor exception. Section 2(a)(4) requires the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget to adjust the cap annually according to the Consumer Price Index. Professor Wolfman specifically objected to giving the Director any discretion in this regard, 

and urged that the annual inflation adjustment should be mandatory.52 The bill directly addresses this point. Consistent with other 

of Professor Wolfman’s concerns expressed at the Subcommittee 

hearing, the bill does not require courts to discount pro bono hours 

from an EAJA award, or impose an annual limit on the number or 

amount of awards a party can receive. 

Section 2(a)(2)(B) of the bill would eliminate the net worth exemption for 501(c)(3)s and for farm co-ops. The National Council of 

Farmer Cooperatives has endorsed the Bill,53 and the Committee 

is unaware that any farm co-op has ever benefitted from this exemption. To close this loophole once and for all, at Section 

2(a)(2)(B) the bill specifies that a corporation’s net worth includes 

resources available to the corporation from a parent or subsidiary. 

Section 2(a)(3) makes a clerical amendment to the U.S. Code. 

Section 2(a)(4) expands the reporting requirement for the Administrative Conference of the United States under Section 504. The 

Conference is required to report to Congress annually, and a copy 

of the report will be published online. The public version of the report should redact information contrary to the national security of 

the United States, and should not reveal information that is sealed 

or subject to a nondisclosure agreement. The public, unredacted 

version of the report, however, should account for payments made 

in sealed cases. The Conference will maintain an online searchable 

database of payments made under this Section. The online database may not reveal any information the disclosure of which is contrary to the national security of the United States or the disclosure 

of which is prohibited by law or court order. Thus, the report will 

account for payments made in sealed cases without disclosing any 

other information from such sealed cases, but no information about 

sealed cases, including payments, should be available in the online 

database. The agencies must promptly provide the ACUS ChairVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:26 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR594.XXX HR594

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

man with all necessary information to fulfill this reporting requirement. 

Section 2(b) makes analogous changes to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, regarding EAJA payments made by agencies in civil lawsuits. Section 

2(b)(1) requires EAJA filers to show a ‘‘direct and personal interest’’ in the civil case to be eligible for an award of attorney’s fees 

and costs. Types of such a ‘‘direct and personal interest’’ are medical costs, property damage, denial of benefits, unpaid disbursement, fees and costs incurred in defense of a case, or a policy interest concerning such a direct and personal interest. 

This is consistent with the EAJA’s original purpose of awarding 

attorney’s fees and costs to private individuals and small businesses that have been personally and unreasonably wronged by the 

Federal Government. Fundamentally, a plaintiff’s eligibility for an 

EAJA award should be narrower than his or her standing to sue. 

Under the bill, to receive an EAJA award a party must have a particular kind of ‘‘direct and personal interest’’ in the case. An organization may be eligible for an award under the EAJA if the organization itself, as an entity, has a ‘‘direct and personal interest’’ of 

the type listed in the bill. Although an organization may have 

standing to sue on behalf of one of its members, an organization 

should not receive an EAJA award in such a case. Rather, one of 

the organization’s members who has standing and who has a ‘‘direct and personal interest’’ in the governmental policy or decision 

of the type described in the bill, would have to bring the suit to 

be eligible for an EAJA award. A ‘‘direct and personal interest’’ 

does not include a case predicated on an alleged failure in the government’s decision-making process, such as allegedly failing to follow the Administrative Procedure Act or an alleged deficiency in 

conducting a regulatory flexibility or environmental impact analysis. A party may receive an EAJA award only if the governmental 

policy or decision resulting from this decision-making process affects the party’s ‘‘direct and personal interest’’ of the type listed in 

the bill. This should limit EAJA awards to cases challenging the 

substance of a governmental policy or decision that directly and 

personally affects the party’s interest of the type listed in the bill, 

rather than challenges related to the procedure the government 

should follow to make a policy or decision. 

This is consistent with the plain language of Sections 504 and 

2412, which do not allow attorney’s fees to be awarded if the government’s ‘‘position’’ was ‘‘substantially justified.’’ This language 

was intended to limit all EAJA payments as a cost-control mechanism, and it indicates that awards should be made only in cases 

challenging an actual governmental decision, not an alleged flaw in 

the decision-making process. Section 2(b) makes this limitation 

more explicit. 

Section 2(b)(2) requires courts and agencies to reduce the award 

if a party has ‘‘unduly or unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the matter in controversy.’’ Section 2(b)(3) raises the hourly 

cap on attorney’s fees to $200 per hour; eliminates the ‘‘special faction’’ exception to the cap; and, removes the net worth exemptions 

for 501(c)(3)s and farm co-ops. As in Section 2(a)(2)(B), under Section 2(b)(3) all funds available to a corporation count toward its net 

worth, including funds of a parent or subsidiary. Section 2(b)(4) reVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:26 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR594.XXX HR594

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

quires the OMB Director annually to adjust for inflation the hourly 

cap on attorney’s fees. 

Like the Section 504 reporting requirements, Section 2(b)(4) 

charges ACUS with reporting annually to Congress regarding payments made under Section 2412, and requires agencies and the Attorney General to support ACUS in meeting this responsibility. 

(The Attorney General formerly was required to make this annual 

report, but that requirement was repealed in 1995.) The Attorney 

General also must make available to ACUS information about 

EAJA payments made from the Judgment Fund, and in its report 

ACUS should clearly identify all such payments as originating from 

the Judgment Fund. The Conference is willing and able to assume 

these responsibilities. Section 2(c) makes a clerical amendment to 

the U.S. Code. 

Section 3. GAO Study. Section 3 requires the GAO to audit EAJA 

payments over the last 15 years, when no annual reports regarding 

EAJA payments were conducted. Given that during this period of 

time EAJA payments were not documented systematically and 

many of the relevant files are not electronic, conducting a truly 

comprehensive audit would cause the GAO to incur tremendous expenses. The bill requires the GAO to provide Congress with as 

much information as practical regarding EAJA payments made 

during the ‘‘blackout’’ period. 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 

In compliance with clause 3(e) 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 italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—THE AGENCIES GENERALLY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 5—ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 504. Costs and fees of parties 

(a)(1) An agency that conducts an adversary adjudication shall 

award, to a prevailing party other than the United States, fees and 

other expenses incurred by that party in connection with that proceeding, unless the adjudicative officer of the agency finds that the 

position of the agency was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. Fees and other expenses may be 

awarded under this subsection only to a prevailing party who has 

a direct and personal interest in the adversary adjudication because 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

of medical costs, property damage, denial of benefits, unpaid disbursement, fees and other expenses incurred in defense of the adjudication, interest in a policy concerning such medical costs, property 

damage, denial of benefits, unpaid disbursement, or fees and other 

expenses, or otherwise. Whether or not the position of the agency 

was substantially justified shall be determined on the basis of the 

administrative record, as a whole, which is made in the adversary 

adjudication for which fees and other expenses are sought. The 

agency conducting the adversary adjudication shall make any party 

against whom the adjudication is brought, at the time the adjudication is commenced, aware of the provisions of this section. 

* * * * * * * 

(3) The adjudicative officer of the agency ømay reduce¿ shall 

reduce the amount to be awarded, or deny an award, to the extent 

that the party during the course of the proceedings engaged in conduct which øunduly and unreasonably¿ unduly or unreasonably 

protracted the final resolution of the matter in controversy. The decision of the adjudicative officer of the agency under this section 

shall be made a part of the record containing the final decision of 

the agency and shall include written findings and conclusions and 

the reason or basis therefor. The decision of the agency on the application for fees and other expenses shall be the final administrative decision under this section. 

(b)(1) For the purposes of this section— 

(A) ‘‘fees and other expenses’’ includes the reasonable expenses of expert witnesses, the reasonable cost of any study, 

analysis, engineering report, test, or project which is found by 

the agency to be necessary for the preparation of the party’s 

case, and reasonable attorney or agent fees (The amount of 

fees awarded under this section shall be based upon prevailing 

market rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished, 

except that (i) no expert witness shall be compensated at a rate 

in excess of the highest rate of compensation for expert witnesses paid by the agency involved, and (ii) attorney or agent 

fees shall not be awarded in excess of ø$125 per hour unless 

the agency determines by regulation that an increase in the 

cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability 

of qualified attorneys or agents for the proceedings involved, 

justifies a higher fee.);¿ $200 per hour.); 

(B) ‘‘party’’ means a party, as defined in section 551(3) of 

this title, who is (i) an individual whose net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the adversary adjudication was initiated, or (ii) any owner of an unincorporated business, or any 

partnership, corporation, association, unit of local government, 

or organization, the net worth of which did not exceed 

$7,000,000 at the time the adversary adjudication was initiated, and which had not more than 500 employees at the time 

the adversary adjudication was initiatedø; except that an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) exempt from taxation under 

section 501(a) of such Code, or a cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act (12 

U.S.C. 1141j(a)), may be a party regardless of the net worth of 

such organization or cooperative association or for purposes of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

subsection (a)(4), a small entity as defined in section 601;¿ except that— 

(I) the net worth of a party (other than an individual 

or a unit of local government) shall include the net worth 

of any parent entity or subsidiary of that party; and 

(II) for purposes of subclause (I)— 

(aa) a ‘‘parent entity’’ of a party is an entity that 

owns or controls the equity or other evidences of ownership in that party; and 

(bb) a ‘‘subsidiary’’ of a party is an entity the equity or other evidences of ownership in which are 

owned or controlled by that party; 

* * * * * * * 

(c)(1) After consultation with the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States, each agency shall by rule establish uniform procedures for the submission and consideration of 

applications for an award of fees and other expenses. If a court reviews the underlying decision of the adversary adjudication, an 

award for fees and other expenses may be made only pursuant to 

section 2412(d)(3) of title 28ø, United States Code¿. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(e) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the 

United States, after consultation with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, shall report annually to 

the Congress on the amount of fees and other expenses awarded 

during the preceding fiscal year pursuant to this section. The report shall describe the number, nature, and amount of the awards, 

the claims involved in the controversy, and any other relevant information which may aid the Congress in evaluating the scope and 

impact of such awards. Each agency shall provide the Chairman 

with such information as is necessary for the Chairman to comply 

with the requirements of this subsection. 

ø(f) No award may be made under this section for costs, fees, 

or other expenses which may be awarded under section 7430 of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986.¿ 

(e)(1) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the 

United States, after consultation with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, shall report annually to 

the Congress on the amount of fees and other expenses awarded 

during the preceding fiscal year pursuant to this section. The report 

shall describe the number, nature, and amount of the awards, the 

claims involved in the controversy, and any other relevant information that may aid the Congress in evaluating the scope and impact 

of such awards. Each agency shall provide the Chairman in a timely manner all information necessary for the Chairman to comply 

with the requirements of this subsection. The report shall be made 

available to the public online. 

(2)(A) The report required by paragraph (1) shall account for 

all payments of fees and other expenses awarded under this section 

that are made pursuant to a settlement agreement, regardless of 

whether the settlement agreement is sealed or otherwise subject to 

nondisclosure provisions, except that any version of the report made 

available to the public may not reveal any information the discloVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:26 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR594.XXX HR594

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

sure of which is contrary to the national security of the United 

States. 

(B) The disclosure of fees and other expenses required under 

subparagraph (A) does not affect any other information that is subject to nondisclosure provisions in the settlement agreement. 

(f) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall create 

and maintain online a searchable database containing the following 

information with respect to each award of fees and other expenses 

under this section: 

(1) The name of each party to whom the award was made. 

(2) The name of each counsel of record representing each 

party to whom the award was made. 

(3) The agency to which the application for the award was 

made. 

(4) The name of each counsel of record representing the 

agency to which the application for the award was made. 

(5) The name of each administrative law judge, and the 

name of any other agency employee serving in an adjudicative 

role, in the adversary adjudication that is the subject of the application for the award. 

(6) The amount of the award. 

(7) The names and hourly rates of each expert witness for 

whose services the award was made under the application. 

(8) The basis for the finding that the position of the agency 

concerned was not substantially justified. 

(g) The online searchable database described in subsection (f) 

may not reveal any information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law or court order, or the disclosure of which is contrary to 

the national security of the United States. 

(h) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 

adjust the maximum hourly fee set forth in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii) 

for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2012, and for each fiscal 

year thereafter, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, as 

determined by the Secretary of Labor. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 2412 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE 

§ 2412. Costs and fees 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d)(1)ø(A) Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, 

a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United 

States fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded 

pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for 

judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United 

States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the 

court finds that the position of the United States was substantially 

justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.¿ (A) 

Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court, in any 

civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:26 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR594.XXX HR594

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

ceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against 

the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, 

shall award to a prevailing party (other than the United States) fees 

and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to 

subsection (a), incurred by that party in the civil action, unless the 

court finds that the position of the United States was substantially 

justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. Fees 

and other expenses may be awarded under this paragraph only to 

a prevailing party who has a direct and personal interest in the 

civil action because of medical costs, property damage, denial of 

benefits, unpaid disbursement, fees and other expenses incurred in 

defense of the civil action, interest in a policy concerning such medical costs, property damage, denial of benefits, unpaid disbursement, or fees and other expenses, or otherwise. 

* * * * * * * 

(C) The øcourt, in its discretion, may ¿ court shall reduce the 

amount to be awarded pursuant to this subsection, or deny an 

award, to the extent that the prevailing party during the course of 

the proceedings engaged in conduct which øunduly and unreasonably¿ unduly or unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the 

matter in controversy. 

* * * * * * * 

(2) For the purposes of this subsection— 

(A) ‘‘fees and other expenses’’ includes the reasonable expenses of expert witnesses, the reasonable cost of any study, 

analysis, engineering report, test, or project which is found by 

the court to be necessary for the preparation of the party’s 

case, and reasonable attorney fees (The amount of fees awarded under this subsection shall be based upon prevailing market 

rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished, except 

that (i) no expert witness shall be compensated at a rate in excess of the highest rate of compensation for expert witnesses 

paid by the United States; and (ii) attorney fees shall not be 

awarded in excess of ø$125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, 

such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the 

proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.);¿ $200 per hour.); 

(B) ‘‘party’’ means (i) an individual whose net worth did 

not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed, or 

(ii) any owner of an unincorporated business, or any partnership, corporation, association, unit of local government, or organization, the net worth of which did not exceed $7,000,000 

at the time the civil action was filed, and which had not more 

than 500 employees at the time the civil action was filedø; except that an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) exempt 

from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code, or a cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) of the Agricultural 

Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1141j(a)), may be a party regardless 

of the net worth of such organization or cooperative association 

or for purposes of subsection (d)(1)(D), a small entity as defined 

in section 601 of Title 5;¿ except that— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

(I) the net worth of a party (other than an individual 

or a unit of local government) shall include the net worth 

of any parent entity or subsidiary of that party; and 

(II) for purposes of subclause (I)— 

(aa) a ‘‘parent entity’’ of a party is an entity that 

owns or controls the equity or other evidences of ownership in that party; and 

(bb) a ‘‘subsidiary’’ of a party is an entity the equity or other evidences of ownership in which are 

owned or controlled by that party; 

* * * * * * * 

(5) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 

adjust the maximum hourly fee set forth in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) for 

the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2012, and for each fiscal year 

thereafter, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, as determined by the Secretary of Labor. 

(6)(A) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the 

United States shall report annually to the Congress on the amount 

of fees and other expenses awarded during the preceding fiscal year 

pursuant to this subsection. The report shall describe the number, 

nature, and amount of the awards, the claims involved in each controversy, and any other relevant information which may aid the 

Congress in evaluating the scope and impact of such awards. Each 

agency shall provide the Chairman with such information as is necessary for the Chairman to comply with the requirements of this 

paragraph. The report shall be made available to the public online. 

(B)(i) The report required by subparagraph (A) shall account for 

all payments of fees and other expenses awarded under this subsection that are made pursuant to a settlement agreement, regardless of whether the settlement agreement is sealed or otherwise subject to nondisclosure provisions, except that any version of the report 

made available to the public may not reveal any information the 

disclosure of which is contrary to the national security of the United 

States. 

(ii) The disclosure of fees and other expenses required under 

clause (i) does not affect any other information that is subject to 

nondisclosure provisions in the settlement agreement. 

(C) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall include and clearly identify in the annual report under subparagraph 

(A), for each case in which an award of fees and other expenses is 

included in the report— 

(i) any amounts paid from section 1304 of title 31 for a 

judgment in the case; 

(ii) the amount of the award of fees and other expenses; and 

(iii) the statute under which the plaintiff filed suit. 

(7) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall create 

and maintain online a searchable database containing the following 

information with respect to each award of fees and other expenses 

under this subsection: 

(A) The name of each party to whom the award was made. 

(B) The name of each counsel of record representing each 

party to whom the award was made. 

(C) The agency involved in the case. 

(D) The name of each counsel of record representing the 

agency involved in the case. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

1Pub. L. No. 96–481, title II, 94 Stat. 2321, 2325 (1980) (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 

§ 504, 28 U.S.C. § 2412). EAJA became permanent in 1985. Pub. L. No. 99–80, 99 Stat. 183 

(1985). 

(E) The name of each judge in the case, and the court in 

which the case was heard. 

(F) The amount of the award. 

(G) The names and hourly rates of each expert witness for 

whose services the award was made. 

(H) The basis for the finding that the position of the agency 

concerned was not substantially justified. 

(8) The online searchable database described in paragraph (7) 

may not reveal any information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law or court order, or the disclosure of which is contrary to 

the national security of the United States. 

(9) The Attorney General of the United States shall provide to 

the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States 

in a timely manner all information necessary for the Chairman to 

carry out the Chairman’s responsibilities under this subsection. 

(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any costs, 

fees, and other expenses in connection with any proceeding to 

which section 7430 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 applies 

(determined without regard to subsections (b) and (f) of such section). Nothing in the preceding sentence shall prevent the awarding 

under subsection (a) øof section 2412 of title 28, United States 

Code,¿ of this section of costs enumerated in section 1920 of such 

title (as in effect on October 1, 1981). 

* * * * * * * 

Dissenting Views 

INTRODUCTION

H.R. 1996, the ‘‘Government Litigation Savings Act,’’ would prohibit certain groups and individuals seeking to protect important 

rights and interests threatened by governmental action from recovering attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA).1 The bill accomplishes this objective in several respects. 

First, the bill requires a plaintiff to have a direct and personal interest in his or her claim for relief, and thus would deny attorneys’ 

fees for some claims which are currently eligible for fee recovery. 

Second, H.R. 1996 would cap the attorneys’ fee rate at $200 per 

hour, a rate that may be inadequate to obtain legal representation 

in certain legal markets or for complex litigation. Third, the bill 

prevents fee recovery for many non-profit groups. Taken as a 

whole, these changes threaten to undermine the ability of various 

groups to obtain legal representation. In essence, H.R. 1996 has a 

single objective: to prevent access to justice for some individuals, 

small businesses, and non-profit organizations by eliminating their 

eligibility to recover their legal fees and expenses when they challenge government action. 

Citing these problems and other concerns presented by the bill, 

Access for All, Alliance for Justice, American Civil Liberties Union, 

American Association for Justice, Center for Biological Diversity, 

Center for Food Safety, Center for Law & Social Policy, Defenders 

of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Equal JusVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:26 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR594.XXX HR594

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

2Letter Opposing the ‘‘Government Litigation Savings Act’’ (H.R. 1996) (Nov. 16, 2011), available at http://democrats.judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/RnIGroups 

111116.pdf; Letter from Collen M. Kelley, National President of the National Treasury Employees Union to Representative Howard Coble, Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial 

and Administrative Law and Representative Steve Cohen, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law (Nov. 29, 2011), available at http:// 

democrats.judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/NTEU111129.pdf. 3Pub. L. No. 96–481, § 202(a), 94 Stat. 2325 (1980). 

4 H.R. Rep. No. 96–1418, reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4984, 4988–89 (1980) (emphasis 

added). 5President’s Statement on Signing the Bill Extending the Equal Access to Justice Act (Aug. 

5, 1985), available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=38973#axzz1a1eqZfZq. 6See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1988; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(k). 

tice Society, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Legal Aid Service of 

Broward County, Oregon Wild, People for the American Way, National Consumer Law Center, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Disability Rights Network, National Employment 

Lawyers Association, National Fair Housing Alliance, National 

Legal Aid & Defender Association, National Health Law Program, 

National Treasury Employees Union, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Oceana, Public Citizen, Rocky Mountain Wild, Sargent 

Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Sierra Club, Western Environmental Law Center, and WildEarth Guardians oppose H.R. 

1996.2

For these reasons, and those discussed below, we respectfully dissent and urge our colleagues to reject this unnecessary and flawed 

legislation. 

THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT

Enacted in 1980, EAJA provides for the award of fees and expenses to certain litigants who prevail against the United States in 

adversary adjudications or civil actions. Congress expressly found 

that EAJA was necessary because ‘‘certain individuals, partnerships, corporations, and labor and other organizations may be deterred from seeking review of, or defending against, unreasonable 

governmental action because of the expense involved in securing 

the vindication of their rights in civil actions and in administrative 

proceedings.’’ 3 Congress also wanted EAJA to be based on ‘‘the 

premise that a party who chooses to litigate an issue against the 

government is not only representing his or her own vested interest 

but is also refining and formulating public policy. . . . Where parties are serving a public purpose, it is unfair to ask them to finance 

through their tax dollars unreasonable government action and also 

bear the costs of vindicating their rights.’’ 4

When EAJA was reenacted on a permanent basis in 1985, President Reagan expressed strong support for the legislation. He said: 

I am pleased to be able to approve H.R. 2378, a bill to extend the Equal Access to Justice Act. I support this important program that helps small businesses and individual 

citizens fight faulty government actions by paying attorneys’ fees in court cases or adversarial agency proceedings 

where the small business or individual citizen has prevailed and where the government action or position in the 

litigation was not substantially justified.5

When no other fee-shifting statute applies, a party prevailing 

against the United States is entitled to an award of fees and expenses under EAJA. Unlike other fee shifting statutes,6 however, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

7 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The term ‘‘substantially justified’’ has been interpreted to mean ‘‘justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.’’ Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). 8The Government Litigation Savings Act: Hearing on H.R. 1996 Before the Subcomm. on Commercial and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 76 (2011) [hereinafter 

H.R. 1996 Hearing] (written statement of Brian Wolfman, Visiting Associate Professor of Law 

and Co-Director of the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law Center). 9 5 U.S.C. § 504(b)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). 

10Most attorneys’ fees awards under other statutes are calculated, for example, by multiplying 

the number of hours spent in the adjudication or case by the hourly market rate. See Blum v. 

Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). 11 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(C). 12 5 U.S.C. § 504(d); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). 13 5 U.S.C. § 504(b)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B). 14 Id. 15 Report of the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States on Agency 

Activity under the Equal Access to Justice Act, Oct. 1, 1993-Sept. 30, 1994 2 (1995) (citing 5 

U.S.C. § 504(e)). 16Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104–66, title III, § 3003, 

109 Stat. 734 (1995). 

EAJA does not automatically award fees and expenses. If the 

United States can show that its position was ‘‘substantially justified’’ or when special circumstances would make an award unjust, 

then fees and expenses are not awarded.7 ‘‘This is a powerful defense, and dozens upon dozens of cases (and many more unreported 

cases) deny winning plaintiffs EAJA fees on substantial-justification grounds.’’ 8

EAJA caps attorneys’ fees at $125 per hour, unless the court or 

administrative agency determines ‘‘that an increase in the cost of 

living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys [] for the [proceedings] involved, justifies a higher 

fee.’’ 9 Most other fee-shifting statutes award fees at market 

rates.10

A fee award may be reduced or denied when the party seeking 

it has caused undue delay.11 When fees and costs are awarded, the 

funds are paid ‘‘from any funds made available to the agency by 

appropriation or otherwise.’’ 12

An individual is eligible for an award if his or her net worth is 

not more than $2 million, while sole proprietors, corporations, partnerships, local governmental units, and public or private organizations with a net worth of not more than $7 million and having not 

more than 500 employees are eligible.13 Regardless of net worth, 

tax-exempt organizations under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) and agricultural cooperatives under 12 U.S.C. § 1141j(a) with not more than 

500 employees are also eligible.14

For a period of time, the Administrative Conference of the United 

States (ACUS) was directed to report annually to Congress on the 

amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded in agency adjudications under the Act to help Congress evaluate the scope and 

impact of EAJA. The report provided information about individual 

awards and the proceedings in which they were made.15 That directive ended in 1998,16 although by then, ACUS had ceased operations. 

DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND OF H.R. 1996

On May 25, 2011, Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) introduced H.R 1996. H.R. 1996 substantially expands a bill that RepVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:26 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR594.XXX HR594

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

17 H.R. 4717, 111th Cong. (2010). 18 H.R. 1996, § 2(a)(1)(A)(i). 19 H.R. 1996, § 2(a)(2). 

resentative Lummis introduced in the last Congress.17 This prior 

legislation, H.R. 4717, required ACUS and the Attorney General to 

issue annually online reports on the amount of fees and costs 

awarded under EAJA, the history of the proceedings, and the parties involved in those controversies. It also required a GAO audit 

of EAJA awards for the years since 1995. 

In contrast, H.R. 1996 is much more comprehensive than its 

predecessor. In addition to the reporting requirements, H.R. 1996 

includes several problematic provisions based on unsupported criticisms of EAJA. 

H.R. 1996 contains two principal provisions that could prevent 

access to justice for individuals, small businesses, and non-profit 

organizations. Those provisions include: 

• a requirement that claimants demonstrate a ‘‘direct and personal interest’’ in the action to be eligible to recoup attorneys’ fees and expenses.18 Under current law, EAJA does not 

include such limiting language. As a result of this amendment, the awarding of fees and expenses in challenges in 

which plaintiffs are presently eligible could be barred. 

• a cap on attorneys’ fees at $200 per hour.19 Under current 

law, a judge or adjudicator may adjust the attorneys’ fee rate 

under EAJA based on special circumstances, such as the 

complexity of the case. This amendment could hinder the 

ability of certain parties to obtain competent legal representation. 

Taken together, these two provisions will significantly impact the 

ability of individuals, small businesses, and non-profit organizations to recoup their legal fees and expenses when they are vindicating their rights against Federal governmental actions. A more 

detailed section-by-section analysis of the reported legislation follows: 

Section 1. Short Title. Section 1 sets forth the bill’s short title as 

the ‘‘Government Litigation Savings Act.’’ 

Section 2. Modification of Equal Access to Justice Provisions. Section 2(a)(1) amends 5 U.S.C. § 504, which governs the awarding of 

fees and costs in administrative adjudications. Section 2(a)(1) narrows the category of who is eligible to receive EAJA awards. As 

amended, section 504(a)(1) requires that a prevailing party, in 

order to receive an award of fees and expenses, must have a ‘‘direct 

and personal interest in the adversary adjudication because of 

medical costs, property damage, denial of benefits, unpaid disbursement, fees and other expenses incurred in defense of the adjudication, interest in a policy concerning such medical costs, property 

damage, denial of benefits, unpaid disbursement, or fees and other 

expenses, or otherwise.’’ This revision will disqualify currently eligible parties. This subsection also amends section 504(a)(3) to require, as opposed to the current law’s permissive standard, the adjudicator to reduce awards based on an unduly or unreasonable 

party. 

Section 2(a)(2) amends section 504(b)(1)(A) to increase the hourly fee award from $125 to $200, but it also prevents the awarding of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

20The Government Litigation Savings Act: Markup of H.R. 1996 Before the H. Comm. on the 

Judiciary, 112th Cong. 20 (2011) [hereinafter H.R. 1996 Markup] (statement of Representative 

Howard Coble, Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law of 

the Committee on the Judiciary) (‘‘The [manager’s] amendment raises the cap of hourly fees to 

$200 and eliminates the special factor exemption which the subcommittee learned courts are 

interpreting very loosely.’’). 21 ACUS report, supra, note 15. 22 H.R. 1996 Markup, supra, note 20 (statement of Subcommittee Chair Coble) (‘‘. . . the 

[manager’s] amendment replaces the word ‘may’ with the word ‘shall’ and requires the Director 

[of the OMB] to make this adjustment every year following the Consumer Price Index.’’) 

higher fees under certain circumstances.20 The cap may hinder a 

party’s ability to obtain legal representation in high cost legal markets or when complex litigation is expected. This subsection also requires in section 504(b)(1)(B) the adjudicator to determine the net 

worth of a party’s eligibility to meet the net worth exclusion, and 

to include in its calculation the net worth of subsidiaries and parent companies. This provision is intended to bar more groups from 

being eligible to recover attorneys’ fees under EAJA. 

Section 2(a)(4) requires ACUS to submit a detailed report to Congress, and publish an annual, publicly-available online report of the 

amount of fees and costs awarded under EAJA. The report is intended to provide a record that tracks how much the government 

pays in fees and costs to parties in adjudication against the government. The last substantial government report on EAJA fees was 

conducted in 1995.21 This subsection also requires the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to adjust annually the fee cap to 

reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.22

Section 2(b)(1) amends 28 U.S.C. § 2412, which governs the 

awarding of fees and costs when the United States Government is 

a party in a Federal court. The subsection narrows the category of 

who is eligible to receive EAJA awards by requiring that in section 

2412(d)(1)(A), for a prevailing party to receive an award of fees and 

expenses, the party must have a ‘‘direct and personal interest in 

the civil action because of medical costs, property damage, denial 

of benefits, unpaid disbursement, fees and other expenses incurred 

in defense of the civil action, interest in a policy concerning such 

medical costs, property damage, denial of benefits, unpaid disbursement, or fees and other expenses, or otherwise.’’ This language mirrors the language proposed in Section 2(a)(1). 

Section 2(b)(2) amends section 2412(d)(1)(C) to require, as opposed to the current law’s permissive standard, the court to reduce 

awards based on an unduly or unreasonable party. Section 2(b)(3) 

amends section 2412(d)(2)(A) and (B) in identical fashion as section 

2(a)(2) of the bill. Section 2(b)(4) amends 28 U.S.C. § 2412 to require the OMB to adjust annually the fee cap to reflect changes in 

the Consumer Price Index. Section 2(b)(4) also amends 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2412 to require ACUS to submit a detailed report to Congress, 

and publish an annual, publicly-available online report of the 

amount of fees and costs awarded under EAJA. The purpose of the 

report is to provide a record of how much the government pays in 

fees and costs to plaintiffs who sue the government in court. 

Section 3. GAO Study. Section 3 requires the Comptroller General to begin an audit of the implementation of the Equal Access 

to Justice Act since 1995 through the end of the calendar year in 

which H.R. 1996 is enacted. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

23 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). 24 H.R. 1996 Hearing, supra note 8, at 76 (written statement of Wolfman). 25 Id. at 2 (statement of Subcommittee Chair Coble) (‘‘The bottom line is, there has been no 

government-wide accounting of EAJA payments. . . . We don’t know how much money is going 

out the door, we don’t know if the EAJA is helping those for whom it was created to help. . . .’’) 

Although the GAO has published additional reports focusing on EAJA awards in certain agencies, see, e.g., U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, Equal Access to Justice Act: Its Use in Selected Agencies (GAO/HEHS–98–58–R, Jan. 14, 1998), there is no comprehensive data since the 1995 ACUS 

report, supra, note 15. 26 H.R. 1996 Hearing, supra note 8, at 23 (written statement of Representative Cynthia Lummis). ‘‘Since [1995], the Congress and the country have been in the dark of the costs of EAJA, 

which is why [H.R. 1996] reinstates the reporting requirement beginning with an audit of prior 

reported years.’’ Id. at 45 (testimony of Lowell Baier, President Emeritus of the Boone and 

Crockett Club). 27 Id. at 34 (testimony of George Washington University Law School Professor Jeffrey 

Axelrad). 28 Id. at 63 (written statement of Jennifer Ellis, Chair of the Western Legacy Alliance). 

CONCERNS WITH H.R. 1996

I. H.R. 1996 LACKS ANY EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT WARRANTING THE

AMENDMENT OF EAJA

H.R. 1996 amends EAJA to restrict eligibility for awards in the 

absence of any evidentiary support warranting such amendment. 

While supporters of H.R. 1996 contend that fees and expenses 

awarded under EAJA are astronomical and too common, the facts 

are to the contrary. 

First, EAJA has a very high threshold with respect to potential 

claimants. Under EAJA, a party may recover fees from the government only if the party is the prevailing party and the government 

cannot prove that its position was ‘‘substantially justified.’’ 23 This 

standard is not required in typical fee-shifting statutes and ensures 

that prevailing plaintiffs do not automatically recover legal costs.24

The threshold would seem to contain the prevalence of EAJA 

awards. 

Second, there is no official data on the total amount of fees and 

expenses awarded under EAJA. Since 1995, the Federal Government has not prepared a comprehensive report on such amounts.25

Neither has there been a report detailing to whom and in what 

types of challenges courts and adjudicators have awarded fees and 

expenses under EAJA since then. As Representative Lummis, the 

sponsor of the legislation, acknowledged for the Subcommittee’s 

legislative hearing, ‘‘it is this lack of transparency that [H.R. 1996] 

seeks in part to correct.’’ 26

An audit and annual reporting of EAJA, as required in H.R. 

1996, would help Congress determine how the Act has been implemented, and thus, whether there is any need for Congress to 

amend it. The value of Congress having concrete data on the 

awards of fees and expenses under EAJA cannot be understated. 

As one academic testified, ‘‘The ability of Congress to perform its 

oversight of EAJA depends on the availability of information concerning agency payments predicated on the act. Currently this information is largely unavailable.’’ 27 In fact, ‘‘[i]n order for Congress 

to evaluate the success or failure of [EAJA] historic data must be 

gathered.’’ 28

Still, proponents of H.R. 1996 urge Congress to substitute estimates of the amount of fees and expenses awarded under EAJA for 

actual data, presumably because they do not approve of some of the 

awards going to certain groups. Some assert that over the last decade, more than $37 million has been awarded under EAJA, which 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

29 Id. at 123 (letter from various groups supporting H.R. 1996 to Howard Coble, Chair of the 

Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, and Steve Cohen, Ranking 

Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law) (Oct. 11, 2011). 30Karen Budd-Falen, Americans for Prosperity—Oregon, Attorneys Fees Reform Passes the 

U.S. House Judiciary Committee, available at http://www.americansforprosperity.org/112111-attorneys-fees-reform-passes-us-house-judiciary-committee. 31See, e.g., Richard Pollock, Activist ‘Green’ Lawyers Billing U.S. Millions in Fraudulent Attorney Fees (Mar. 4, 2010), available at https://westernlegacyalliance.org/eaja-abuse-home-page/ 

activist-green-lawyers-billing-u-s-millions-in-fraudulent-attorney-fees. 32 H.R. 1996 Markup, supra, note 20, at 15 (statement of Representative Lamar Smith, Chair 

of the Committee on the Judiciary) (‘‘Certain frequent litigants . . . are financing their lawsuits 

with large awards of attorney’s fees paid under the act.’’); Id. at 20 (Statement of Subcommittee 

Chair Coble) (‘‘Certain ideologically oriented [groups] have used the act to finance ideological 

oftentimes and policy-driven litigation against the Federal Government.’’). 33 U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, Equal Access to Justice Act: Its Use in Selected Agencies 4 

(GAO/HEHS–98–58–R, Jan. 14, 1998). 34 H.R. 1996 Markup, supra, note 20, at 14 (statement of Committee Chair Smith) (‘‘The annual reports filed from 1980 to 1994 showed that most awards under the act were modest sums 

paid to veterans and Social Security recipients.’’). 35 H.R. 1996 Hearing, supra note 8, at 96–97 (written statement of Wolfman). 36 Id. at 63 (written statement of Ellis). 37 Id. at 94 (testimony of Wolfman). 

they acknowledge is an estimate.29 Another proponent contends 

that even though ‘‘there has been no accounting of this money . . . 

the smallest of estimates [places it] in the hundreds of millions of 

dollars.’’ 30 Others cite anecdotal evidence or informal research purportedly showing that millions of dollars were awarded under 

EAJA in support of lawsuits that a handful of environmental 

groups filed.31 Still others claim, without having any supportive 

data, that EAJA purportedly incentivizes and finances frequent 

and unnecessary environmental protection litigation.32 These estimates far exceed the $34.1 million that the General Accounting Office calculated had been awarded during the fiscal years 1982 to 

1994.33 And these assertions also do not reflect the typical types 

of recipients who had received awards from 1980 to 1994, which 

were mostly veterans and Social Security recipients.34 Congress 

can and should wait for more credible reports. 

Unfortunately, however, supporters of H.R. 1996 do not want 

Congress to wait for more credible information. Notwithstanding 

the lack of such evidence, proponents of H.R. 1996 want Congress 

first to substantively change EAJA, and then to collect concrete 

data,35 which they believe undoubtedly will support the changes. 

‘‘When reporting requirements were dropped we believe that the 

ATM card type use of the EAJA began. Without proof positive of 

this phenomenon, rhetoric and supposition will rule over the debate 

regarding reform. This critical component will lend undeniable 

proof for substantive and equitable reforms of EAJA.’’ 36 As one 

witness testified at the Subcommittee hearing, ‘‘I find it odd people 

are complaining about a paucity of data, but they are willing to 

change the substantive law of EAJA without having the data. That 

puts the cart before the horse.’’ 37

H.R. 1996 clearly does put the cart before the horse. Nevertheless, the Majority is determined to push legislation based on anecdotal evidence that will substantively undermine the ability of individuals, small businesses, and certain non-profits to challenge government action. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

38 Id. at 92 (written statement of Wolfman). 39See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). 40See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876–77 (9th Cir. 2005). 41See Love v. Reilly, 924 F.2d 1492, 1496 (9th Cir. 1991). 42 H.R. 1996 Hearing, supra note 8, at 76 (written statement of Wolfman). 43 Id. at 75. 44 Id. at 79. 45 H.R. 1996, 112th Cong. § 2(a)(2), 2(b)(3) (2011). 46 H.R. 1996 Hearing, supra note 8, at 98 (2011) (testimony of Ellis) (‘‘. . . I have to hire an 

intervening attorney that usually costs, for a good one right now, $400 an hour.’’). 47 Id. at 25 (statement of Representative Steve Cohen, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 

on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary). 48 Id. at 21 (written statement of John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the Committee on 

the Judiciary). 

II. H.R. 1996 WILL MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, 

INDIVIDUALS, AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO FIND LEGAL REPRESENTATION

H.R. 1996 will make it significantly more difficult for small businesses, individuals, and non-profits to secure competent legal representation in their challenges against the Federal Government. 

This legislation needlessly caps the fee rate at which parties may 

recoup their legal fees. Capping the fee rate ‘‘will make it difficult 

for plaintiffs to find lawyers willing to challenge unreasonable government actions in some instances.’’ 38

Under EAJA, plaintiffs can recover attorneys’ fees at a rate of 

$125 per hour if the government does not prove it was ‘‘substantially justified’’ in bringing or defending the action.39 While some 

courts have adjusted upward the cap for cost of living purposes, the 

rate is still less than half of the amount most private attorneys’ 

charge.40 In very limited circumstances, plaintiffs may recover attorneys’ fees in excess of the statutory rate if they show that the 

attorney possessed specialized knowledge and skills developed 

through a practice area, which were needed in the litigation and 

not available elsewhere at the statutory rate.41

As stated earlier, EAJA is unlike most other fee-shifting statutes 

for two reasons. Under EAJA, prevailing parties do not recover 

their attorneys’ fees at market rates.42 Further, EAJA awards are 

not automatic because the United States can still show that it was 

‘‘substantially justified’’ in bringing or defending the case.43 Because of these two differences, ‘‘in light of EAJA’s below-market 

rates, neither litigants nor lawyers would bring marginal cases’’ in 

the expectation of receiving EAJA fees.44

H.R. 1996 sets a new rate at $200 per hour, which is an increase 

of $75 from current law, but it eliminates the possibility of upward 

adjustment.45 Because even $200 would be insufficient to hire a 

‘‘good lawyer’’ in Idaho,46 capping the fee rate at $200 across the 

entire country may have the effect of ‘‘dissuading small businesses 

from having the opportunity to go to court and get their attorneys 

fees paid.’’ 47 Further, ‘‘[b]y eliminating the possibility of increased 

fees for specialization, [H.R. 1996] creates yet another hurdle that 

will make it more difficult to find competent legal representation 

to enforce complex environmental laws.’’ 48

Representatives Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Hank Johnson (D-GA) 

offered an amendment at the full committee markup to amend the 

attorneys’ fee rate in the bill from the arbitrary $200 per hour to 

a ‘‘reasonable attorneys’ fee’’ rate, which would mirror most other 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

49 H.R. 1996 Markup, supra, note 20, at 33 (statement of Representative Jerrold Nadler) (‘‘Of 

the 200-plus fee-shifting statutes, between 150 and 160 of them use reasonable attorney’s fees 

as their standard, as the amendment would seek to do.’’). 50 H.R. 1996 Markup, supra, note 20, at 27 (statement of Representative Bobby Scott). 51 Id. at 29 (statement of Representative Hank Johnson). 52See id. at 33 (statement of Representative Nadler). 

fee-shifting statutes.49 As Representative Scott noted, by imposing 

the arbitrary cap, for example, in a complex case, ‘‘you could have 

the anomaly of one side being able to afford an attorney at the 

going rate for that kind of case, and the other side is stuck with 

this arbitrary limit.’’ 50 Thus, the arbitrary cap ‘‘is not fair to our 

veterans and senior citizens who may not be able to bring an attorney willing to take their case with such a cap.’’ 51 The judge or adjudicator, who is more familiar with the complexity of the case and 

the local legal market, could better determine the appropriate attorneys’ fee rate. If the award is inappropriate, the appellate court 

can always revisit it.52 Unfortunately for our veterans, senior citizens, small businesses, and others who EAJA was intended to benefit, the amendment was defeated 14 to 18. 

By capping the rate at which parties may recoup their attorneys’ 

fees, H.R. 1996 will make it more difficult for many to obtain legal 

representation. 

CONCLUSION

H.R. 1996 is irresponsible legislation that will have a devastating 

impact on access to justice for individuals, small businesses, and 

non-profit organizations. It amends the Equal Access to Justice Act 

without definitive data that the Act needs or should be amended. 

For all of these reasons, we respectfully dissent. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

HOWARD L. BERMAN. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

ZOE LOFGREN. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

MAXINE WATERS. 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR. 

JUDY CHU. 

TED DEUTCH. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS