Date: 2013-11-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 3 minutes. I again thank the managers. Mr. HOLT and Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman. I again make the same comment about what I have heard on this floor from Members on both sides of the aisle: that they are proenergy policy. proenvironment. projobs. prosustainable environment. They simply want an opportunity to work on legislation to activate or to ensure that that occurs. There is a prohibition contained in section 1147 of this legislation with respect to the recovery of attorney fees and costs by a prevailing party pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. My amendment removes the prohibition. a prohibition that has been established law for a very long time. This amendment is needed to level the playing field and conform the bill to current law and practice. I think that if we listen to each other. it will be a simple answer of "yes" if we ask any citizen should they have a right to sue. and if they prevail under the Equal Access to Justice Act. that they are able to get attorney fees. I think the answer. when clear heads would respond. is not whether it is an energy bill or not. or who the defendant is. they would say. Why shouldnt this bill be subjected to the law that exists? The Equal Access to Justice Act allows individuals. small businesses. and nonprofits to recover attorney fees from the Federal Government. This act 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. Therefore. to eliminate that is again to cut intoto cut intothe very Bill of Rights of your right to petition. to the right to counsel. all of that. because it indicates that you have a right to prevail in attorney fees. It is a simple process that does not undermine. if you will. the question of the energy policy in the United States. If we look at the first poster. we will acknowledge the fact that. interestingly enough. the average amount of money under these cases was $1.8 million annually over the last 8 years. The EPA only paid out $280.000 annually over the last 5 years. I venture to say with the average payment of $100.000 this is not busting the bank. This is allowing citizens who prevail to be able to have attorney fees. I clearly believe that the legislation that we have warrants a fix. a fair fix. to be able to ensure that anyone that has a disagreement post the administrative process and goes into court can. in fact. utilize. This is one that shows that. in fact. local environmental groups and national environmental groups are no more than others. The largest amount goes to various State governments. individuals. various unions and workers that got a minimal amount or may not have even prevailed. So I think it is important to recognize that this is not one that is going to destroy this bill. it is going to enhance the bill. With that. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. my amendment removes the prohibition contained in Section 1147 with respect to the recovery of attorney fees and costs by a prevailing party pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (5 U.S.C. �504 and 28 U.S.C. �2412). This amendment is needed to level the playing field and conform the bill to current law and practice. For more than three decades. since its enactment in 1980. the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) has enhanced parties ability to hold government agencies accountable for their actions and inaction. EAJA allows individuals. small businesses and nonprofits to recover attorney fees from the federal government. 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.