Date: 2015-11-30
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 3279. the "Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act." a bill to amend titles 5 and 28 of the United States Code to direct the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) to prepare an annual report to Congress on fees and other expenses awarded to prevailing parties under the Equal Access to Justice Act. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. former municipal judge and staunch believer and advocate for equal justice. I support this bill because it will provide Congress with valuable insight and comprehensive data needed to assess the actual effectiveness of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Specifically. H.R. 3279 will amend the EAJA and the federal judicial code to require the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States to report to Congress annually on the amount of fees and other expenses awarded to prevailing parties other than the United States in certain administrative proceedings and civil action court cases (excluding tort cases) to which the United States is a party. including settlement agreements. Pursuant to the EAJA. these litigation fees include 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 partys case. and reasonable attorney or agent fees. If enacted. H.R. 3279 will require the ACUS to provide the number. nature. and amount of awards. the claims involved in the controversy. as well as any other relevant information that may assist Congress in assessing the scope and impact of such fees awarded. H.R. 3279 further directs that such information be made available by establishing an online searchable database including the name of the agency involved. the name of each party to whom the award was made. the amount of the award. and the basis for finding that the position of the agency concerned was not substantially justified. In collecting and providing this data. this bill addresses concerns about the implementation of EAJA and whether Congress needs to intervene and amend it. For more than three decades. however. the EAJA has served as an important vehicle to enhance parties ability to hold government agencies accountable for their actions and inactions. Simply speaking. the EAJA was designed to help the underdog or those with limited resources stand up against government transgressions. EAJA allows individuals. small businesses and nonprofits to recover critical litigation costs and attorney fees from the federal government in cases that may otherwise be financially intimidating or restrictive. The EAJA is used to vindicate a variety of federal rights. including access to Veterans Affairs and Social Security disability benefits. as well as to secure statutory environmental protections. The EAJA is an important tool that promotes public involvement in laws that have a significant impact on the public health and safety. such as the National Environmental Policy Act. Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. EAJA also helps deter government inaction or erroneous conduct and encourages all parties. not just those with resources to hire legal counsel. to assert their rights. Generally. it has been concluded by policy experts that EAJA has been costeffective. applies only to meritorious litigation and that existing legal safeguards and the independent discretion of federal judges will continue to ensure its prudent application. Nonetheless. the good intentions that brought the EAJA into law have been overshadowed by reoccurring accounts of misuse by a small percentage of large environmental groups. A 2011 GAO study (requested by House Republicans) of cases brought against EPA found: 1. most environment lawsuits (48%) were brought by trade associations and private companies. 2. attorney fees were awarded only about eight percent of the time. 3. among environmental plaintiffs. the majority of cases were brought by local groups rather than national groups. and 4. the average award under the EAJA was only about $100.000. Thus. while claims of misuse and abuse are largely misplaced. I urge my colleagues to support this request for further review and analysis. so that we may gain a better understanding and congressional clarity on the functional benefits and necessary workings of the EAJA.