Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt594/html/CRPT-112hrpt594.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:06:10+00:00

Document:
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
This Act may be cited as the ``Government Litigation Savings Act''.
SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE PROVISIONS.
for the Chairman to comply with the requirements of this subsection.
The report shall be made available to the public online.
contrary to the national security of the United States.
to nondisclosure provisions in the settlement agreement.
``(1) The name of each party to whom the award was made.
party to whom the award was made.
agency to which the application for the award was made.
``(6) The amount of the award.
whose services the award was made under the application.
agency concerned was not substantially justified.
determined by the Secretary of Labor.''.
justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.
determined by the Secretary of Labor.
of which is contrary to the national security of the United States.
nondisclosure provisions in the settlement agreement.
``(iii) the statute under which the plaintiff filed suit.
``(A) The name of each party to whom the award was made.
``(C) The agency involved in the case.
agency involved in the case.
which the case was heard.
``(F) The amount of the award.
whose services the award was made.
the Chairman's responsibilities under this subsection.''.
States Code,'' and inserting ``of this section''.
audit and submit to the Congress a report on the results of the audit.
EAJA is serving all legitimate beneficiaries.
\1\See Alyeska Pipelines Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S.
\2\Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 5 (1973) (citations omitted).
\4\La Raza Unida v. Volpe, 57 F.R.D. 94, 98 (N.D. Cal. 1972).
\5\See 421 U.S. at 263.
Government Conduct: Notes on the Equal Access to Justice Act, 2004 Ark.
L. Notes 65, 65 (2004).
government policies and enforcement actions).
\9\99 P.L. 80, 99 Stat. 183 (Aug. 5, 1985).
\11\Comm'r v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990).
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.
\14\Kelley, note 6 supra, at 65.
\15\See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(b).
\16\See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(a); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d).
that could satisfy a reasonable person.'').
\18\5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(b)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(2)(B).
\20\5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(d); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(4).
Sec. 502(B) (Oct. 29, 1992).
\22\Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, 104 P.L.
66, Sec. 1091(b) (Dec. 21, 1995).
\23\Government Litigation Savings Act: Hearing before the Subcomm.
Judiciary, 112th Cong. (Oct. 11, 2011).
payments made in Social Security and veteran's benefits cases.
But no comprehensive, reliable data is available since FY1995.
could provide any data on EAJA payments for FY2000 to FY 2010.
shortcoming of the current EAJA regime.
of Justice of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong., at 73 (Apr.
\25\S. Rep. No. 96-253, note 7 supra, at 10.
Justice Act: Its Use in Selected Agencies, at 3 (GAO/HEHS-98-58-R Jan.
Attorney Fee Claims and Payments (GAO-12-417R Apr. 12, 2012).
63 (Testimony of Jennifer Ellis); 96 (Testimony of Brian Wolfman).
Sec. 232(b) (Mar. 29, 1996).
(Testimony of Jennifer Ellis); see also Ctr. for Food Safety v.
attorneys under EAJA's special factor exception).
\36\See Environmental Litigation, note 27 supra.
Wash. Examiner, Aug. 31, 2011, at 29.
Litigate?, 109 J. Forestry 352, 354-55 (2011).
\40\Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 08-cv-00484-JSW, Dkt. No.
\41\See Report and Recommendations, note 32 supra.
``closed'' between September 1, 2009, and August 31, 2010, Mr.
\43\See Government Litigation Savings Act, note 23 supra, at 49.
\44\See id. at 48 (Testimony of Lowell Baier).
always understood that people can push their agendas in court.
rollcall vote of 19 to 14, a quorum being present.
vote of 14 to 18.
markup. Ms. Jackson Lee appealed this ruling, and Mr.
Motion agreed to by vote of 19 to 13.
the base text for purposes of markup is not subject to appeal.
House. Motion agreed to by vote of 19 to 14.
Washington, DC, June 26, 2012.
Gnechten and Matthew Pickford, who can be reached at 226-2860.
H.R. 1996--Government Litigation Savings Act.
when they prevail in a case against the government.
Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS).
litigation against the Federal Government.
resources to pursue claims against the Federal Government.
only payments that are made from an agency's appropriation.
significant impact on caseload or awards of attorneys' fees.
would not be significant in any year.
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
needed reforms to the EAJA.
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.
Access to Justice Act, at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 504 and 28 U.S.C.
adjudication for lack of resources to pay an attorney.
\51\See id. at 61 (Testimony of Jennifer Ellis).
adjust the cap annually according to the Consumer Price Index.
of awards a party can receive.
\52\See id. at 91-92, 102.
a clerical amendment to the U.S. Code.
Section 2(b) makes analogous changes to 28 U.S.C.
concerning such a direct and personal interest.
should follow to make a policy or decision.
2(b) makes this limitation more explicit.
hourly cap on attorney's fees.
payments made during the ``blackout'' period.
commenced, aware of the provisions of this section.
title 28[, United States Code].
each party to whom the award was made.
is the subject of the application for the award.
(6) The amount of the award.
the agency concerned was not substantially justified.
Consumer Price Index, as determined by the Secretary of Labor.
resolution of the matter in controversy.
shall be made available to the public online.
to the national security of the United States.
(C) The agency involved in the case.
the agency involved in the case.
court in which the case was heard.
(F) The amount of the award.
witness for whose services the award was made.
which are currently eligible for fee recovery. Second, H.R.
various groups to obtain legal representation. In essence, H.R.
legal fees and expenses when they challenge government action.
became permanent in 1985. Pub. L. No. 99-80, 99 Stat. 183 (1985).
Environmental Law Center, and WildEarth Guardians oppose H.R.
\2\Letter Opposing the ``Government Litigation Savings Act'' (H.R.
\3\Pub. L. No. 96-481, Sec. 202(a), 94 Stat. 2325 (1980).
President Reagan expressed strong support for the legislation.
\6\See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988; 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(k).
487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988).
\9\5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(b)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(2)(A).
the adjudication or case by the hourly market rate. See Blum v.
\11\5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(a)(3); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(1)(C).
\12\5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(d); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(2)(A).
\13\5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(b)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(2)(B).
Oct. 1, 1993-Sept. 30, 1994 2 (1995) (citing 5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(e)).
\16\Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, Pub. L. No.
104-66, title III, Sec. 3003, 109 Stat. 734 (1995).
proceedings, and the parties involved in those controversies.
\17\H.R. 4717, 111th Cong. (2010).
predecessor. In addition to the reporting requirements, H.R.
are presently eligible could be barred.
reduce awards based on an unduly or unreasonable party.
being eligible to recover attorneys' fees under EAJA.
courts are interpreting very loosely.'').
\21\ACUS report, supra, note 15.
language mirrors the language proposed in Section 2(a)(1).
costs to plaintiffs who sue the government in court.
calendar year in which H.R. 1996 is enacted.
the facts are to the contrary.
threshold would seem to contain the prevalence of EAJA awards.
\23\5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(1)(A).
line is, there has been no government-wide accounting of EAJA payments.
ACUS report, supra, note 15.
country have been in the dark of the costs of EAJA, which is why [H.R.
Emeritus of the Boone and Crockett Club).
An audit and annual reporting of EAJA, as required in H.R.
awards of fees and expenses under EAJA cannot be understated.
information concerning agency payments predicated on the act.
on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law) (Oct. 11, 2011).
and policy-driven litigation against the Federal Government.'').
Use in Selected Agencies 4 (GAO/HEHS-98-58-R, Jan. 14, 1998).
we believe that the ATM card type use of the EAJA began.
change the substantive law of EAJA without having the data.
\36\Id. at 63 (written statement of Ellis).
\37\Id. at 94 (testimony of Wolfman).
H.R. 1996 clearly does put the cart before the horse.
profits to challenge government action.
\38\Id. at 92 (written statement of Wolfman).
\39\See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(2)(A).
\40\See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir.
\41\See Love v. Reilly, 924 F.2d 1492, 1496 (9th Cir. 1991).
\45\H.R. 1996, 112th Cong. Sec. 2(a)(2), 2(b)(3) (2011).
costs, for a good one right now, $400 an hour.'').
of the Committee on the Judiciary).
Member of the Committee on the Judiciary).
amendment was defeated 14 to 18.
their standard, as the amendment would seek to do.'').
\51\Id. at 29 (statement of Representative Hank Johnson).
\52\See id. at 33 (statement of Representative Nadler).
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.