▶ 0:06:10To declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on abuse of the equal access to justice, or eaja, by environmental ngos under committee rule for any oral opening statement at the hearing are limited to the chairman and the ranking member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members statements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted in accordance with committee rule three zero. Without objection, so ordered.
▶ 0:06:39I ask the unanimous consent for the following members to be allowed to sit and participate in today's hearing. The gentleman from minnesota, Mr. stauber, the gentleman from wisconsin, Mr. tiffany, the gentlewoman from wyoming, miss hagerman, the gentleman from colorado, Mr. frank, the gentleman from montana. Mr. downey, without objection, so ordered. I now recognize myself for my opening statement. Good morning everyone. I want to thank our witnesses for being here, traveling at this time of year to washington, D.C.
▶ 0:07:06It's probably not everybody's dream dream position. We're here to talk about the abuses of the equal access to justice act by the environmental ngos, house committee on natural resources. Republicans have been working to root out fraud, waste and abuse in our federal agencies.
▶ 0:07:22This hearing today will examine the equal access to justice act, or eaja, a law congress enacted in 1980 to combat federal overreach by shifting the cost of litigation away from veterans, social security recipients, and small businesses. While well-intentioned, eaja has enabled well-funded, radical environmental nonprofits to engage in lawfare campaigns against federal agencies and to recoup some of their litigation costs from the government.
▶ 0:07:50Loopholes and exemptions in the law allow 501 c3 organizations to evade award caps for attorney's fees and incentivize them to turn weak procedural cases into fee award settlements without reform to eaja. These ngos will continue to function as law firms funded by taxpayer dollars, spending most of their time suing federal agencies, blocking and delaying federal actions.
▶ 0:08:13Between the fiscal years of 2019 and 2024, federal agencies, including the department of interior and energy and the forest service, paid out approximately $24.8 million in awards. About 76% of these awards, $18.8 million went to environmental nonprofits awards. In the vast majority of these lawsuits go to a handful of groups, including the center for biological diversity, the sierra club, and wildearth guardians.
▶ 0:08:38Their lawyers have been reimbursed at rates as high as $500 per hour, paid for by american taxpayers. Eaja considers plaintiffs who achieve a partial victory or procedural settlements on prevailing parties, making them eligible for fee awards. Additionally, the federal government can. Federal government can reduce litigation costs by simply. Perpetuating and incentivizing the cycle of endless sue and settle schemes.
▶ 0:09:04This committee has a responsibility to practice oversight over awards to radical environmental nonprofit groups, and to ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. In march 2019, congress passed the dingell act, which included new annual reporting requirements on eaja awards to provide more transparency and accountability to fulfill the reporting requirements, the administration administrative conference of the us publishes a database of eaja awards in
▶ 0:09:35Both adversarial adjudications and federal court cases. The same repeat offenders are being listed as plaintiffs in each of cases over and over and over again, indicating a capability for targeted lawfare by environmental ngos that violates the intent of ij's fee awards framework. As a result of many of the lawsuits, agencies must conduct secondary or repetitive environmental reviews and studies, costing them even more money, time, and resources.
▶ 0:10:02And that's just that should be spent managing our nation's natural resources instead. A 2024 study by the breakthrough institute, which reviewed nepa related litigation from 2013 to 2022, found that environmental reviews are rarely challenged changed as a result of these litigations.
▶ 0:10:20These lawsuits are effectively a delay tactic with no meaningful impact on environmental reviews, blocking essential forest management and energy development activities that promote responsible and effective use of our public lands. Despite current reporting requirements, the comprehensive budgetary impact of e.g.
▶ 0:10:37Awards payouts on agencies is unclear as the database does not always reflect all fees paid out to nonprofits by federal governments or more through more thorough transparency is required for congress and the american public to understand the full impacts of this lawfare. Now, while the dingell act was a great first step, it does not provide a full accounting of the funds currently being expended by land management agencies on these land lawsuits, nor the long term impacts.
▶ 0:11:05For example, one of the most dangerous effects of these losses is to lock up our forests from proper management. In my home state of arizona, I have seen firsthand how wildfires can grow in an area where eight federal agencies were prevented from conducting activities to improve wildlife, wildlife, wildfire resiliency and forest health by suing to block these essential activities. And ngo can effectively pave the way for the destruction of the public lands they claim to be preserving.
▶ 0:11:32Prominent, well-funded environmental ngos are taking advantage of the current framework. They have developed strategies to exploit the law, suing the government to block federal actions and then collecting attorney's fees when they prevail or settle in court. These groups are not acting in good faith, and it is ultimately the taxpayer as well as conservation and land management programs that will suffer. I hope our conversations today can highlight concerns related to the abuse of eaja, and amplify efforts to reform the law and hold abusers accountable. Thank you.
▶ 0:12:01And I now recognize ranking member dexter for her opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chair, and thank you to our witnesses for coming and testifying today. I'd like to extend special appreciation to the oregonians here, professor rolf and Mr. joseph, thank you both for coming.
▶ 0:12:16Um, it's always a lovely day to have oregonians and natural resources, the equal access to justice act, or as we have been talking about, promotes fairness in the court system by helping a single person or small group of people take on the federal government. Eaja helps ensure that regardless of income or power, the american people can hold the federal government accountable and in limited circumstances, be spared the financial burden of government error.
▶ 0:12:45These actions not only give americans a voice in the courtroom, they also deter future government misconduct and federal overreach. Stakeholders from across the political spectrum have used e.g. Veterans, social security recipients, individuals with disabilities, tribes, industry and yes, environmental groups have all recouped attorney's fees in cases where the government has acted illegally. Eaja corrects an imbalance of access to the american justice system.
▶ 0:13:14To get reimbursed under each, litigants must meet rigorous standards to even petition for an award, the number one being that they don't get paid if they don't win their case against the us government. That's why republican claims that the lawsuits are frivolous is frankly confusing. Cases that receive an award are, by definition, not frivolous.
▶ 0:13:34If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so concerned about the cost of the 11 eaja awards last year against the department of the interior and another 11 against the department of agriculture, I'm curious to hear what they think about the nearly 10,000 eaja awards against the social security administration, or the 6000 against veterans affairs. In addition to my role on this committee, I also sit on the veterans affairs committee.
▶ 0:14:02I am concerned that attacks on one smaller group could open the door to attacks on the ability of veterans to get their due from the government. It's not just me that's concerned. I request unanimous consent to enter into the record. A letter from vet league, a nonprofit group that represents veterans. They have won thousands of cases. I'm sorry. >> no objections. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 0:14:26They have won thousands of cases reinstated, reinstating benefits to those who have fought for our country. But that leg wouldn't be able to take many of these cases on without the help of eaja and recouping attorney's fees. My republican friends have complained that some environmental groups win their cases too much. Do they think that that leg also is too good at their jobs, and that they should be cut off from eaja?
▶ 0:14:53Under normal circumstances, I would think my colleagues would never consider such a thing. But we find ourselves in unprecedented times, which includes a wholesale attack by republicans on access to courts. If reforms to ige are on the table, let me be very clear. I'm only interested in good faith efforts to improve transparency or changes that would help small public interest litigants across the political spectrum get access to the courtroom.
▶ 0:15:21Any changes to eaja that would make it harder for rural or low income communities, individuals, small businesses, or organizations to access justice is a nonstarter. Reducing ige eligibility in that way would be a giveaway to large firms and industries. When it is specifically designed to give regular people the opportunity to hold powerful entities to account. Mr. chair, we should agree that working people should be able to challenge the federal government.
▶ 0:15:51Making eaja harder to access would essentially lock the underdogs out of the courtroom. If abuse of the judicial system is of interest, my colleagues, they could focus on slapp lawsuits, strategic lawsuits against public participation are frivolous lawsuits brought by people or companies with a lot of money to silence their opposition and drain their small bank accounts.
▶ 0:16:15In 2016, the standing rock sioux tried to stand up to a massive fossil fuel pipeline proposed to go across their sacred land and over their water supply. The eyes of the world turned to standing rock, one of the many groups and people that were there to support them was greenpeace. Energy transfer is now close to destroying greenpeace through slapp suit. I would be happy to provide the chairman with other actual and egregious examples of judicial abuse.
▶ 0:16:41Until then, I look forward to the conversation about protecting access to the courts for working families. Thank you, Mr. chair, I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. >> the chairman, for the full committee. Mr. westerman, is now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman gosar, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I do look forward to hearing your testimony and to see the real life abuses that are happening as a result of, uh, egypt being abused.
▶ 0:17:09And I know you, uh, traveled here to dc, and we're appreciative of you taking time out of your day jobs to be here. It's really interesting that we're talking about the equal access to justice act or egypt today is this is legislation that began as a response to the small business community in the 1960s. And 70s, as we've we've already heard. And it's as these small business communities were facing, uh, a new regulatory environment.
▶ 0:17:38And I mentioned this as a lot of the work we've been doing here at the committee over the last congress is looking back, really refining some of the major pieces of legislation from that era when the legislation that ultimately became eaja was introduced in 1980. It started out in the house committee on small business as the small business equal access to justice act.
▶ 0:18:02The aim of of the legislation was to address the concern that when an agency improperly found a small business, those businesses would not be bankrupted by having to pay their lawyers. Despite winning in court. Now, egypt states that the court shall award to a prevailing party other than other than the united states, its fees and expenses. Uh, quote.
▶ 0:18:22Unless the court finds that the person of the united or position of the united states was substantially justified, or that special circumstances make an award unjust, end quote. So the eligible parties are limited to individuals with a net worth below $2 million, or business organizations or units of local government with fewer than 500 employees and a net worth less than $7 million.
▶ 0:18:46Notably, 501 c3 organizations are not subject to this net worth limitation. The 501 c3 exemption within eaja has created an industry around these payments, where repeat offenders filed numerous suits against the us government, often for for small procedural issues, and this is no small industry.
▶ 0:19:08Between 2018 and 2024, doi, usda and commerce paid out a total of $19 million in awards to various environmental groups, which amounts to over 53% of all eaja awards paid out by those agencies over that time period.
▶ 0:19:25Now, I want to acknowledge that not all egypt payments in this space are remitted to environmental ngos, and there are groups across the political spectrum that have accepted payments from time to time, which I expect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to point out. The issue at hand is not egypt itself rather the abuse of this law, the abuse of egypt, specifically in the natural resources space, has created a cottage industry funding environmental ngos, essentially functioning as law firms.
▶ 0:19:55As we will hear from the witnesses today, this has created a financial incentive for environmental ngos to bring lawsuits that can result in injunctions or vacatur of forest plans, timber sales or development authorizations under statutes like nepa, esa and flpma, all on the taxpayer's dime. These groups have turned egypt into a tool to block the very forest management projects that communities and public lands desperately, desperately need.
▶ 0:20:25Even allowing technical or procedural victories to trigger awards that help sustain serial litigation against thinning fuel treatments and post-fire salvage projects. In some regions, significant portions of land management budgets are consumed by analysis and litigation rather than on the ground work, effectively sidelining other planned projects. Not only does the american taxpayer lose in this scenario, but so does the natural environment.
▶ 0:20:51Uh, we as congress must work towards a solution to return egypt to its original intent in order to allow the responsible management and development of federal lands. Again, I look forward to hearing the witness testimony today. I yield back to chair gosar. I yield back. >> thank the gentleman. The gentleman who's ranking member for the full committee, Mr. hoffman, is now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I have a unanimous consent request.
▶ 0:21:19Uh, this is a recent article from ap news. The headline is epa eliminates mention of fossil fuels in website on warming's causes. Scientists call it misleading. This is an article, Mr. chairman, um, about how the epa is removing all references to fossil fuels as the cause of climate change, despite the global scientific consensus that it's the main cause of climate change. So, um, very important, Mr.
▶ 0:21:48Chairman, I think that this committee acknowledged that, uh, our government right now is scrubbing this science from the record. This kind of erasure and cancel culture, uh, is not leadership. It's a disgrace. >> the objection so ordered. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, when the framers put pen to parchment and gave us the bill of rights, they made a promise about power in the united states that no person would have to stand alone against the full weight of their own government.
▶ 0:22:18And that promise was solidified in the sixth amendment right to counsel. The simple idea that justice should not be dependent on who you are, or how much money you have, or how powerful your opponent may be. And that is why congress passed the equal access to justice act in 1980 before e.g.
▶ 0:22:40Ordinary americans, people who did not have teams of government, lawyers or corporate war chests often had to defend themselves when the government violated their rights. It helped ensure that when the government does that, when they break the law, that the victims are not financially punished for exercising their rights in court. And in a better political moment, this hearing, uh, would be a celebration of that achievement.
▶ 0:23:08After all, the people all over the spectrum use this law to protect basic rights conservative groups, liberal groups, farmers, ranchers, indigenous people, small businesses. Most of all, though, veterans and social security recipients. That gets lost in the fog of all of these politics here, they make up 99% of all cases.
▶ 0:23:29And instead, republicans here would have you believe a different narrative, one that is contradicted by the actual evidence that environmental nonprofits and public interest groups are abusing eaja with frivolous lawsuits. And yet, if you just apply a little bit of scrutiny, uh, the entire basis of that phony narrative collapses. So let's get out of the maga echo chamber for a moment and visit reality first.
▶ 0:23:58Under the constitution, all plaintiffs, including environmental plaintiffs, have to satisfy article three standing, uh, to be in federal court. They've got to prove they've been harmed. Uh, and if they can't do that, there is no case and no award. Second, you got to win to get an award. Uh, that is not frivolous by definition. Third, attorneys who bring frivolous lawsuits can be fined by the court or even disbarred. You can ask your friend rudy giuliani about that.
▶ 0:24:28Fourth, eaja reimbursements can still be denied if the court denies. If the court finds that government action was reasonable, even if it was technically illegal. So there's another layer of safeguard. And then finally, courts can still deny an award if they decide that special circumstances would make it unjust.
▶ 0:24:49And so I would say, rather than a law that we need to scapegoat, that we need to set up as a straw man to attack environmental groups. Uh, these are the hallmarks of a carefully restrained and judicially supervised law. And what my colleagues seem to actually be upset about is not the use of eaja.
▶ 0:25:09It's the fact that environmental groups exist, and the fact that every day americans use this law to enforce environmental protection laws that they don't like, uh, including, uh, laws that go against their preferred industries and hold them accountable. That's what egis sometimes does, and that's what makes it such a target for my friends across the aisle. Hollowing out this law is not fixing abuse. It is building a liability shield for polluters.
▶ 0:25:41Because here's the thing if the federal government issues an unlawful permit, if they break the law, uh, and allow a company to clear cut a forest around you or dump poisonous mining waste into your river, or blast and drill next to your ranch or your sacred tribal lands, the court may be your community's last, best hope to stop that illegal action. The conservative mountain states legal foundation once put the the issue very plainly, and I will quote them.
▶ 0:26:10To wrap up, Mr. chairman, when fighting a court battle against the government in defense of their rights, many people run out of money to pay the high legal costs involved, or they simply run out of willpower and give up, end quote. That conservative group was right. We should listen to them, and we should have real hearings in this committee, including on the affordability of electricity, costs of which are skyrocketing. Because of this administration's wrongheaded policies, I yield back.
▶ 0:26:38>> well, first of all, to the gentleman, I want to clarify that we're not having a hearing on social security or veterans affairs. We're having over ej in regards to the nonprofit environmental groups. >> and, Mr. chairman, is it not the same law, though? >> same law. But I don't think I think you would agree with me that it needs some tweaks. >> so you're going to edit out some groups from being able to access the law. So what this is. >> about I don't think so. >> I think that's another political filter that. >> we're applying. Political filter.
▶ 0:27:07What I want to see is that if you take a dollar or a penny from the federal government and any type of restitution, you have to provide us where you're getting all your money from, I think we agree on that, don't you? >> uh, I think that is a recipe for abuse and intimidation that clearly you are wielding. >> wait a minute. >> no no no no no no. >> if you take money from the federal government, the federal government has a right. We as a government need to have the right to know where that money came from, whether it's from a foreign source, whatever. That brings us down to a clarity aspect. So let me.
▶ 0:27:37>> so, Mr. chairman, right now you are going on a bunch of fishing expeditions against environmental ngos because they've won lawsuits and they have opposed, for example, a mining project in the headwaters of the boundary waters. Uh, and you are making their life miserable by going into their finances, trying to open up their books, trying, uh, to go on this fishing expedition to find some tortured connection to some foreign money source. That's what you're talking about right now, right? >> well, you call it torture. I want, I want clarity.
▶ 0:28:06If everybody has to do it, then I think it's. Yeah. >> why don't you do that to fossil fuel companies? Well, because in the last congress, we presented smoking gun evidence that they were colluding with opec to jack up prices for american consumers. You were uninterested in that. So, um, there's a really strange disconnect here about what you're concerned about and what you're not. But I love this debate. I want to continue this debate if you want to.
▶ 0:28:32This is actually far more productive for the american people to see in here than the sham that you're about to take us through today. >> well, I disagree with the gentleman. I think, for his opinion. I've always regarded your opinion. >> thank you, Mr. >> chairman, and we'll let it go. Uh, I would like for them to submit to the record, uh, a letter from attorney general of kansas kris kobach, for talking about in regards to a case. Without objection, so ordered. Now, I'm going to reduce our first panel.
▶ 0:28:59We had some lively discussion, and I'm sure it will continue, I hope I hope, gentlemen, stays around. Our first is Mr. regina lennox, the senior litigation counsel, safari club international, washington, D.C. then we have Mr. todd wilkinson, south dakota, rancher, san diego, our south dakota. I'm going to turn to the ranking member to introduce the next two. >> thank you. And also we have professor rolf, uh, professor of law at lewis and clark law school in portland. Thank you for coming. And Mr.
▶ 0:29:27Travis joseph, president and ceo of american forest resource council, um, from eugene. So thank you. >> let me remind the witnesses that under the committee rules, you must limit your oral statements to five minutes, but your entire statement will be placed in the record to begin your testimony. You gotta make sure you push the button so you can hear you, uh, when it's green, you're doing fine. When you start seeing that yellow, you got a minute to kind of wrap it up. And when you see red, cut it out, okay? It's close as soon as you can.
▶ 0:29:55And then we'll come to questions. So. I'm going to now recognize miss lennox for your five minutes. >> good morning, chair gosar, ranking member dexter and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for having me here today. I am senior litigation counsel representing safari club international, a 500 1c4 nonprofit with over 100,000 members and advocates around the world.
▶ 0:30:19Our missions are protecting, hunting, uh, conserving wildlife and educating the public about hunting and its role in conservation. For 27 years, sdi's lawyers have regularly engaged in lawsuits in federal court against the same handful of organizations and their in-house attorneys, or nonprofit law firms opposed to hunting and responsible wildlife management.
▶ 0:30:43In many cases, these organizations have obtained attorneys fees under eaja, but we do not believe that the public interest was served by these fee awards. I will speak about his experience and potential solutions to problems with ij's implementation.
▶ 0:30:59First, eaja was enacted to benefit small businesses and thus limits the awards to entities with a net worth below $7 million, except for 501 c3 organizations, these organizations can and do have tax exempt net worths in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet they can and do obtain attorneys fees for litigation that generates little benefit for taxpayers. The tax exempt status of these organizations is being abused.
▶ 0:31:29Second, eaja allows for recovery of attorney's fees when several groups challenge the same government action. Indifferent and frequently coordinated lawsuits cci has defended multiple suits filed by multiple sets of plaintiffs challenging the same action and all eventually recovering some measure of attorney's fees for this duplicative work. Next, eaja allows for fees on fees, meaning if the government objects to a fee claim and loses it, it owes additional fees.
▶ 0:31:58This disincentivizes government attorneys from challenging fee claims and incentivizes them to settle most cases. Last. Egypt provides that attorney's fees should be reimbursed at $125 an hour, but allows for higher rates for a, quote, special factor. And courts routinely find that environmental law is specialized and award hourly rates well above the cap.
▶ 0:32:18As one example of these issues, cci defended the fish and wildlife service's 2017 decision to recognize the yellowstone grizzly bears have exceeded recovery metrics for over a decade, and thus remove these bears from the endangered species act, lists. Six sets of plaintiffs sued in a plaintiff friendly court. Despite losing most of their claims, the six sets of plaintiffs won on three issues and thus collectively sought over $1 million in attorney's fees under eaja.
▶ 0:32:48Yet several of them have net assets in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. As a second example, cci defended the 2023 suit by three organizations, claiming the service improperly withdrew proposed restrictions on lead ammunition on a certain national wildlife refuge, even though the service expressly stated it could revisit those restrictions in a future rulemaking.
▶ 0:33:12Plaintiffs did nothing more than file a complaint and engage in settlement negotiations requiring the service to do things it was already doing. Yet plaintiffs received $35,000 in attorney's fees and costs. While we acknowledge that is not a huge amount of money, sgi opposed the settlement, but the district court approved it just a few days after the motion was filed. These are examples of eaja not working as intended with respect to environmental organizations.
▶ 0:33:41Reforming the statute to its original purpose is necessary to protect taxpayer dollars and agency appropriations and preserve agency expertise. Five targeted amendments could resolve these issues. First, the same net worth cap should be applied to 500 and 1c3 nonprofit organizations as to every other business entity. Nonprofit is a tax status and should not be a license to have the government fund an organization's litigation.
▶ 0:34:07Second, additional safeguards should be adopted to ensure eaja is not abused. For example, congress could adopt limits on the number or amount of eaja awards per organization per year, limit the recovery of eaja awards when there are multiple suits challenging the same action, and disallow awards for merely procedural relief. This is not a new idea, but was last considered in the 2011 government litigation savings act. The time has come to make these reforms a reality.
▶ 0:34:38Third, the united states should be permitted to contest egypt fee claims without having to pay fees. If it loses that issue, government attorneys must be empowered to challenge unworthy eaja awards. Fourth, exceptions to the cap on attorney's hourly rate should be rescinded. Congress should be clear that the cap means a cap, a limit that cannot be exceeded. And last, congress should require courts to report each afi awards directly, which would help confirm the costs of eaja are fully recorded.
▶ 0:35:05In sum, the government should not subsidize wealthy, special special interest groups to sue itself. Thank you. >> I think the gentleman I now recognize, Mr. wilkerson for his five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. >> ranking member dexter and members of the subcommittee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on the abuse of equal access to justice act by environmental ngos.
▶ 0:35:31My name is todd wilkinson, and I'm a second generation rancher and live near de smet, south dakota, where I run a cow, calf and cattle backgrounding operation with my son. Additionally, I maintain a law practice assisting farmers and ranchers with other agricultural issues. I appreciate the opportunity to provide a perspective from farmers and ranchers who have borne the brunt of adversarial, radical environmental groups abuse of the equal access to justice act.
▶ 0:35:58Egypt was created with a noble intent to allow americans to address problems with government without undue financial burden. Like so many well-intentioned programs, though, when congress took their eye off the ball, exploitation and abuse became prevalent. When congress discontinued reporting requirements in 1995, we saw a spike in litigation targeting various land uses, including grazing.
▶ 0:36:25Over the last 30 years, radical environmental groups have become repeat litigants, making sweeping procedural claims to see what will stick, and in some cases, they hope to prevail in just one of their many wild claims. And in other cases, they sue with clear objective to force the agency into a settlement agreement to force policy change, which is usually to the disadvantage of the affected community. It took us a decade working with congress to restore basic transparency to egypt.
▶ 0:36:54What we've seen since 2020 is a clear need to make reforms. Egypt contains some limitations that must be expanded. The financial limits for individuals and businesses are appropriate and should be amended to include nonprofits. Groups like earthjustice, who have an annual excess revenue of 200 million, should not be able to collect millions in egypt, fees to pay hundreds of environmental attorneys. Their sole mission is to sue the federal government.
▶ 0:37:22Groups should not be able to continue to come back to egypt to fund frivolous cases. You can't talk about egypt reform without also talking about the profound liability facing the federal agencies. If they continue to participate in suit and settle posture. Egypt allows payments to be made to parties who prevail and those who enter into settlement or consent decree. This means radical environmental groups are able to both receive egypt fees and force the agency to change policy through settlement.
▶ 0:37:51The result is a cat is catastrophic for government efficiency. In 2013, the us chamber of commerce found that 71 suit and settle cases resulted in more than 100 new regulations and more than 100 million in new annual compliance costs for federal agencies. Since that time, costs have continued to skyrocket. For ranchers, it means that the blm, the forest service, us fish and wildlife service are always on their hind foot.
▶ 0:38:19In many administrations, they're afraid of being sued because these radical environmental groups will file three, four, five lawsuits in a short time frame in order to overwhelm the local office and attempt to force a settlement. That's not policy making. That's hostage taking. Congress can fix this problem. Keep egypt operable for those for whom it was designed, and eliminate the abuse.
▶ 0:38:41Congress, should one improve reporting requirements to distinguish between funds paid from the judgment fund and those originating from agencies budgets, to determine the real impact on agency service delivery? Two establish financial limitations on tax exempt organizations that meet that mere individual and business limitations. They should not be able to operate under separate rules.
▶ 0:39:07Three cap attorney's fees to eliminate exploitation of limited attorney expertise. Loophole. This can be done either by setting a consistent fee cap across all plaintiff types, or establishing an upper fee limit in legitimate cases of limited expertise. Four refine the definition of prevailing parties to plaintiffs who prevail on substantive elements of litigation rather than procedural.
▶ 0:39:34Five eliminate the ability of tax exempt entities to receive egypt funds if the result of the litigation, settlement, or consent decree results in new policy, abusing the system should not be allowed to double dip.
▶ 0:39:49Six establish a government policy of opposition to suit and settle seven conduct oversight of policies resulting from sue and settle activities in the past, including policies resulting from draft consent decrees that were never approved by a court. I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today, and I stand ready to answer questions. >> thank you, Mr. wilkerson. >> now, I recognize Mr. rolfe for his. I said, right, rolfe.
▶ 0:40:20Did I say that right? >> yes. >> five minutes. >> good morning, chair gonzales, ranking member dexter from the great state of oregon and members of the subcommittee, I'd like to address some of the myths and an affirmative point central to our discussion of egypt. Myth number one does double duty this morning as the title of the hearing abuse of the equal access to justice act by environmental ngos.
▶ 0:40:46When entities do not like certain legal requirements and cannot succeed in changing the law itself, they often seek to limit enforcement and implementation of the law. Attacks on eaja have little to do with abuse. Rather, they target environmental groups success enforcing federal agencies to comply with their legal responsibilities. But this service to the public by environmental ngos and their attorneys is, of course, exactly what congress intended.
▶ 0:41:18Myth number two is that many environmental cases leading to egypt fee awards involve merely trivial or technical issues, such as federal agencies, procedural errors or missed deadlines. My students would love this one. This time of year, they'd be delighted to just skip the deadlines for turning in their papers. But as that example shows, in the real world, deadlines and procedures are often crucial payments.
▶ 0:41:42And yes, papers are due on on a specific date, and there are penalties for missing those deadlines. So too, in environmental law, deadlines and procedures matter, for example, being listed in a timely manner as threatened or endangered may make the difference between a species survival and extinction.
▶ 0:42:01Yet the same people who would howl with protest if federal range managers delayed the turnout date of their cattle by even a day, deride lawsuits about deadlines and procedures as much ado about nothing. This position demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of environmental law. Myth number three settlements are bad.
▶ 0:42:22On the contrary, many cases set many cases, settling a dispute without protracted court proceedings benefits both sides as well as the public. When its lawyers advise a federal agency, that is, that it is likely to lose a lawsuit on the merits, a prudent client looks for ways to resolve the case in a manner in a manner that conserves the agency's time and resources, gives the agency an opportunity to craft the remedy, rather
▶ 0:42:53Than having one imposed by a judge, and limits the government's liability for plaintiffs attorneys fees. Moreover, other mechanisms protect the interests of affected parties and the public. A judge typically must approve settlements, including fee awards, and interveners can make their views clear to the court. Any substantive rule changes related to a settlement must go through normal public notice and comment procedures.
▶ 0:43:20Therefore, the proper response to critics derisive phrase sue and settle is therefore so what? Finally, myth number four we need to reform eaja. Suggestions for changes to this statute are solutions in search of a problem.
▶ 0:43:35Common reform ideas include capping the egf award $125 an hour, a figure congress set in salaries three decades ago. This might be a fine idea, but in reality it's fanciful. Additionally, some suggest that lawmakers should limit larger organizations ability to seek fees under eaja.
▶ 0:44:03However, large ngos can take action to stem harms to nationally significant resources, damage that may otherwise go unaddressed. Without an organization that has the resources and tools to recognize, publicize, and resolve those problems.
▶ 0:44:19But the possibility of reimbursement for legal fees when they prevail is still a key reason that even large environmental organizations can afford to play the role that congress explicitly invited citizens to play in enforcing the law. Finally, critics also call for a limit on the annual number of awards to an organization.
▶ 0:44:42This bad idea violates the maxim that a revered judge learned hand said many years ago, thou shalt not ration justice. To close, I'd like to put the discussion we're having today in the broader context of what's happening in this country. A firehose of executive orders and actions has systematically weakened environmental protections that congress established over decades.
▶ 0:45:09We've even seen shameful spectacles, such as a federal agency literally inviting industries to ignore deadlines to reduce deadly pollution by simply sending an email. In this context, citizen enforcement of environmental law by groups big and small becomes not merely useful, but essential. The equal access to justice act protects our system of democratic governance by facilitating meaningful judicial review of executive action.
▶ 0:45:40>> I think the gentleman. >> I now recognize, Mr. joseph for his five minutes. >> good morning. Chairman gosar, ranking member dexter, fellow oregonian members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify about. This is also a special honor for me because I used to work for this committee. For former ranking member peter defazio, who represented the fourth congressional district of oregon, now represented by congressman val hoyle. My name is travis joseph. I'm the president and ceo of the american forest resource council. Afc, fsc is a nonprofit trade association.
▶ 0:46:08We represent the forest products sector in the west. We work in montana, idaho, washington, oregon, california and nevada. We work on behalf of the mills, the loggers, the contractors, the truck drivers, the working family businesses, big and small, that help steward america's federal lands and make the wood products americans use every single day in their life. I'd ask you to look around this room and the beautiful wood products in this room. You know what made that possible? Logging. Logging made that possible.
▶ 0:46:36And even though that afc has received awards in the past, I'm here to strongly support much needed reform the natural resource, environmental litigation space. My written testimony provides details and references and offers bipartisan solutions for your consideration. But with my oral testimony, I want to give you a real world example. I don't want to talk about hypotheticals. I want to give you a real world example. And you tell me if this makes sense to you. Okay?
▶ 0:47:02Walton lake is an amazing place on the ochoco national forest in central oregon. The lake is the most heavily used recreation site on the forest, and for years the forest service warned that large trees were infected with root rot and they were at risk of falling without warning, posing a major risk to the public and potentially closing this high use recreation site.
▶ 0:47:28In 2015, under the obama administration to protect visitors, the forest service proposed a simple common sense project remove the diseased dying trees and replant with ponderosa pine, which is a more resilient species. That project area was 80 acres. Ochoco national forest, for context, is 850,000 acres. An anti-fascist group didn't like that project from the forest service, and they didn't trust the agency's expertise.
▶ 0:47:54They filed a lawsuit over a process technicality, and they got a judge to issue a preliminary injunction to stop all the work. Even though the project was focused on an immediate public safety risk. The group was awarded a $200,000 egypt fee that was paid by the taxpayer and the agency. The egypt payout. That award of attorney fees was higher than the cost of the service contract.
▶ 0:48:20To do the work on the ground that $200,000 award was based on a $425 per hour specialty rate for attorneys and work performed by law students and legal fellows at lewis and clark law school. They aren't lawyers, but the award provided $130 per hour for the student's work.
▶ 0:48:43Undeterred by the lawsuit and the loss, the initial loss, the forest service went back, did more paperwork, did more process and proposed the project again in 2020, they were sued again on the same project by the same group. This time the forest service won in the ninth circuit. Ninth circuit upheld the award that did not satisfy this group. They went to the supreme court. The petition was not taken up by the supreme court, so this project moved forward in 2023.
▶ 0:49:13It started under the biden administration as they were developing the national old growth amendment, and it was completed by the trump administration. Right. So this is not a partizan issue. It was proposed and planned by the obama administration. It was defended in court by the trump administration, department of justice. It was implemented by the biden administration on the ground and finished by the trump administration.
▶ 0:49:33So all of this a decade of work, years of litigation, hundreds of thousands of dollars to the taxpayer to protect the public from diseased and dying trees on a high use wreck site on 80 acres, 0.001% of the forest of one national forest. Meanwhile, this nonprofit made a small fortune to delay a project that was ultimately implemented just ten years after the fact.
▶ 0:50:02Do you think that's defensible? Is that defensible? This makes no sense. And taxpayers, regardless of party affiliation, would be outraged if they knew that that's how their money was being used. If we're going to address our wildfire enforced health crisis, if we're going to protect communities and we're going to responsibly steward our public lands at scale, we have to change the system. We have to look at the system.
▶ 0:50:27And congress should consider whether using taxpayer dollars are better spent supporting firefighters, recreation, land stewardship or windfall attorney fees supporting endless litigation. The good news is that congress can work together on common sense, bipartisan reforms. I look forward to answering your questions and discussing solutions. >> thank you. I thank the gentleman. I thank the panel for their testimony. Testimony, Mr. chairman. Yes. >> I have a unanimous consent request, if you would, please. Thank you very much, Mr.
▶ 0:50:57Chairman. This is, um, a facebook post from yesterday. Uh, unfortunately from from the republican witness today. Mr. wilkinson's from his senate campaign account. Uh, it is a post that is emblazoned with his campaign logo, uh, in which he is using his appearance at this committee hearing right now, uh, and the testimony that he has just offered where I think he said the words radical environmental group about 25 times, um, to promote his campaign for state senate. Mr.
▶ 0:51:28Chairman, I enter this in the record because at some point, I would hope this committee has more serious things to do than platform candidates for office. This is the third time now that we have had to bring this to your attention. Platforming of republican candidates seems to be more important than doing serious work. Unfortunately in this committee. >> without objection, so ordered the gentleman from colorado, Mr. crank is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I appreciate it.
▶ 0:51:55As I was looking through some of the memos, uh, for this, uh, I'm just going to read from the republican, uh, the majority memo here says the federal government also has an incentive to settle disputes rather than contest the fee award to reduce the overall attorney's fees that may accrue. This allows plaintiffs to prevail on process instead of substance.
▶ 0:52:21Worse yet, because the us often fails to adequately contest eaja fees, uh, and regularly concedes prevailing party status to ngos in settlement agreements, taxpayer dollars effectively fund these nonprofits, sue and settle tactics.
▶ 0:52:35Uh eaja caps reimbursable attorney fees at a rate of $125 per hour, unless the reviewing court or agency determines that, quote, an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limiting availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.
▶ 0:52:55The statute, however, does not sufficiently define special factor, allowing many environmental lawyers to avoid the $125 per hour fee cap by claiming that their expertise is specialized. Consequently, environmental ngos have been reimbursed for attorney's fees as a rate as high as $500 an hour. Now I sit here and I get lectured from other folks on the other side of the aisle about how they're for the little guy all the time.
▶ 0:53:23We're asking my mother in law, who's on a fixed income and pays taxes to pay her taxes to fund a $500 per hour attorney through this scam, and a $200 million environmental group. She's subsidizing them. That's the reality of this. That's a government approved shakedown. That's exactly what it is.
▶ 0:53:48Uh, eaja was originally designed to help ordinary citizens who successfully challenged government overreach recover their legal costs. It recognized that not every veteran or retiree has the resources to take on the federal government. We've heard about that. But radical environmental groups have exploited eaja and environmental laws to turn litigation into a business model for policy achievement.
▶ 0:54:16Specifically, they've exploited the nonprofit exemption in the egis statute to continuously launch frivolous lawsuits, regain attorneys fees, whether they win, whether they lose, or whether they settle. It's the inside lawyerly game that's played. These groups aren't held to the same rules. Everyone else has to follow. Environmental serial litigants can bypass the 500 employee cap and the $7 million in revenue limit because of the blanket nonprofit exemption.
▶ 0:54:45We've heard in today's testimony that these environmentalists aren't particularly successful on the merits. It's process that thereafter, their lawsuits function more as delay tactics against projects they oppose ideologically, rather than efforts to hold the federal government accountable for genuine actual failures. Mr. wilkinson, your testimony highlights another important issue these serial litigants use lawsuits to fuel fundraising. Mr.
▶ 0:55:14Wilkinson, how do ngos use these lawsuits to fundraise for policy efforts on the state level? >> thank you. You know, when you when you look at the facts behind the hyperbole that goes on, you can rapidly see where environmental ngos sit there and gin up their credibility based upon the fee awards and their repetitive lawsuits.
▶ 0:55:43And if that isn't to raise revenue, that's the very definition of it. And and I, I find your point, congressman, very well taken because we shouldn't be trying to promote a system that allows a organization that's exempt from the rest of the rules to be able to go out and continue with frivolous lawsuits. >> yeah, yeah.
▶ 0:56:09But look, the the war chest of these serial environmentalists are built off the lawsuits, has allowed them to wreak havoc in my home state of colorado. They pushed wolf reintroduction against the wishes of the colorado parks and wildlife. The actual wildlife managers, they're pushing for an end to coal power.
▶ 0:56:28And just recently, groups like the sierra club are pushing public utilities commission in colorado to kill natural gas for homes by 2050, again making my mother in law on a fixed income pay higher rates for utilities so that they can recover these fees. I mean, this thing's a scam. It's a scam. Uh, there's no doubt about it. Um, well, Mr.
▶ 0:56:53Chairman, I'd ask for unanimous consent to insert an article into the record for the from the colorado sun detailing the work of ngos that sue on the federal level to raise money to push for extreme actions on the state level. >> without objection. So ordered. >> thank you. That's. With that, I yield back. >> gentleman's time is. Done. I reckon. Look at who's going first. The gentleman for the ranking member for the full committee. Mr. hoffman, I hope you stick around, though, for the full end of this. >> are we going to have some more? >> uh oh, I think so. Oh.
▶ 0:57:25>> yes, I love it. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, I'd like to start off with professor ralph. Uh, thanks again for traveling so far. Um, you've written extensively, professor, about, uh, eaja and its design, how it is about, uh, giving people with limited means a fair chance to challenge unlawful government action.
▶ 0:57:44And from your experience, can you briefly describe the kinds of clients that typically bring, uh, cases that get eaja awards and what's at stake for those clients when the government breaks the law and just tramples on their rights and yet they lack the resources, um, to finance complex litigation on their own. >> sure.
▶ 0:58:09Egypt benefits a wide variety of plaintiffs that seek to challenge illegal actions by the federal government. And as this as, uh, members of this committee have pointed out, no one gets an igf award unless they prevail, and unless the position of the federal agencies arguing in court was not substantially justified.
▶ 0:58:37Um, the plaintiffs that bring enforcement cases against the illegal actions of federal agencies are wide ranging. And many of them, um, as you yourself pointed out, um, in fact, the 99% of those litigants are seeking their benefits, um, under social security and, um, their veterans benefits in the
▶ 0:59:08Environmental area. Um, plaintiffs range from larger national organizations dealing with larger national questions, um, impacts to the general environment are felt diffusely by everyone, and so no one is likely to bring a case to challenge those impacts to all of our resources unless they have the broad expertise, um, to both detect what's going on
▶ 0:59:40And come up with solutions to that. But oftentimes at a local level, very small environmental groups, um, use the ability to hire an attorney through eaja to go after egregious abuses in their own communities.
▶ 0:59:58For example, um, one of the the clients that our clinic has represented is a very small group based in oregon that has one employee, if you can even call her that.
▶ 1:00:13Um, her radical positions include, um, the notion that raw sewage should not be dumped into the river that flows through the city of portland, and she made arguments against permitting, um, the city to do that in federal court. Um, and fortunately, that was successful. And our river has been cleaned up.
▶ 1:00:38Um, but those are the sorts of radical positions that small groups like that advance in court. And fortunately, egypt provides for an opportunity for those organizations to find attorneys who are willing to take those cases to court. >> yeah. Um, and you raise, uh, I think a good point. Uh, let's go to the cap, the proposed cap that my friends across the aisle are talking about.
▶ 1:01:06I think that would take us to $125 an hour for counsel in these cases. Um, that's a 1996 standard. Um, look around here across the aisle. We're usually in the 17th and 18th century, so going to a 1996 standard feels like progress in some ways. But, um, I can't get a plumber for $125 an hour, let alone a good lawyer.
▶ 1:01:30And as you just alluded to, to have representation, um, you sometimes got to go out and find a firm sometimes that spec, that's it's been trivialized in this debate. The law is really complex. And others that use eaja, uh, we're talking about tribes. Uh, all kinds of complexities come up where good luck. You're not going to get a lawyer for $125. Am I missing something?
▶ 1:02:01>> no, not at all, representative. And in fact, I'd like to point out that specialty training in environmental law is crucial in these cases. And students from all over the country come to lewis and clark because we are well known, um, for our environmental and natural resources program. And in fact, I would, uh, hesitate a guess that Mr.
▶ 1:02:24Joseph's organization hired their general counsel specifically for her environmental expertise, which she gained at lewis and clark as one of my students. >> well, that's a high compliment, then. Um, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman? Uh, I. >> have a unanimous consent request. >> yes.
▶ 1:02:47>> uh, I ask unanimous consent to submit to the record a 2024 report from the breakthrough institute titled understanding nepa litigation a systematic review of recent nepa related appellate court cases that shows the agency's environmental reviews are seldom changed as a result of nepa litigation, predominantly instigated by environmental ngos. >> without objection. So ordered. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. >> I now recognize the gentleman from the chairman for the full committee, Mr. wasserman, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman.
▶ 1:03:16And again, thank you to the witnesses for being here. Mr. joseph, I know you're very, um, involved in forest policy out west and in your written testimony, you share examples of how. Nita, our nepa litigation has stalled, delayed or stopped forest project management projects on public lands. Uh, that said, do these, uh, environmental reviews often change results of nepa litigation?
▶ 1:03:46>> thank you, chairman, for the question. The answer is no. I think that's an assumption that's being made in this committee. That's really frustrating. And the forest management space, my lane and my expertise is winning. A lawsuit isn't leading to better conservation outcomes. It's leading to more process and costs to the agency and the taxpayer. But the result remains the same.
▶ 1:04:07>> so there's no environmental benefit for going through this process is would you say there's an environmental depredation from going through the process? >> we're wasting time and effort and money and doing additional paperwork instead of actually doing the work on the ground that results in better conservation and better outcomes for the american public. >> thank you. Miss lennox.
▶ 1:04:27You mentioned in your testimony the government litigation savings act of 2011, which proposed to limit the recovery to three such agency adjudications and three such civil cases in each calendar year, while also requiring a party to have direct and personal monetary interest in the adjudication due to personal injury, property damage, or unpaid agency disbursement. Do you think these reforms would be adequate enough to return egypt to its original intent?
▶ 1:04:58>> thank you, congressman, for the question. And yes, we do think those reforms would help to reduce some of the abuse by environmental organizations and protect the individual claimants. As the ranking member and, uh, congressman huffman mentioned, most claimants under eaja are individuals, and those people would be protected with those reforms.
▶ 1:05:19But organizations that use eaja to fund their litigation programs would have some of that, uh, some of that reduced, um, which would then in turn reduce some of the unnecessary litigation that we see. >> so are there other reforms that you would recommend along with those, or do you think those would be adequate? >> uh, certainly additional things. I don't know that anyone is suggesting that the hourly cap remain at $125 an hour.
▶ 1:05:47Um, but certainly we are encouraging a hard cap because there are, uh, egypt payments that range from $200 or $241 standard in the ninth circuit, up to $500 for some of the attorneys that qci regularly litigates against. Um, those attorneys, most of them are also in-house counsel, so they're not charging their their organizations $500 an hour. But that's what they're receiving as part of the egypt payment.
▶ 1:06:15So that would be another suggestion that we would make. Um, and then uh, certainly removing the fees on fees provision, making sure that the government can challenge an egf claim and even if it loses, not having to repay, uh, the motion practice for challenging that fee claim would be a significant victory, because it because it would incentivize government attorneys to fight eaja claims instead of just acquiescing to them.
▶ 1:06:44>> so let me make sure I understood what you said. These, um, lawyers that are using eaja are billing their rates at over $500 an hour, yet they don't build the ngos at those rates. >> many of the attorneys at qci regularly litigate against our in-house counsel for some of these organizations, the other attorneys are many of them are employed by earthjustice, which is a, quote, nonprofit law firm.
▶ 1:07:12Um, and so they they to my knowledge, they don't have set billing schedules the way that I did when I was in private practice in new york city. So these amounts are identified as as amounts that are within the lodestar is the legal term, but essentially the the average billing rate for someone with that type of experience. But it's not like a hard dollar figure like I would have given you when I worked for a law firm. >> so the taxpayers picking that up? >> yes, sir. >> uh, Mr.
▶ 1:07:41Wilkinson, every year, uh, we hear how or all the time we're hearing how every year agency budgets are being stretched further and further, and some basic program functions fall by the wayside for lack of funding. What does it mean for ranchers like you when a federal agency can't deliver on their mission?
▶ 1:08:01>> congressman, when when a farmer or rancher who is america's true environmentalist, uh, cannot graze their land or operate because the federal government or the federal agency involved can't make a decision because they're tied up in court. That affects their very livelihood. Farmers and ranchers don't have millions and millions of dollars in their pocket. They may have assets, but those assets are what keep them in operation.
▶ 1:08:29And when they're tangled up in court over procedural issues, they're they're effectively forced off the off the very ground that they need in order to exist. >> maybe you need to get you one of these high dollar lawyers to tie up the federal government some more. Just just kidding, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. The chair. I recognize the gentleman from minnesota, Mr. stall. Thank you very much, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:08:55Before I begin, I want to ask unanimous consent to submit to the record to edge awards granted to the earthwise law center in 2021 and 2022, totaling $408,000 of taxpayer money.
▶ 1:09:09I also want to ask unanimous consent to submit to the record an article titled taxpayers face a $20 million bill from sue and settle lawsuits since 2013, watchdog says from the national news desk, which highlights the cost of environmental litigation to the american taxpayer.
▶ 1:09:26My last one I want to ask unanimous, unanimous consent to, uh, to submit to the record the us forest service budget justifications for fiscal years 24, 25, and 26, which show the amount of program funds used for edge fee payment. Fpay fee payment in fiscal year 22 2324.
▶ 1:09:47It's a total of $3,720,329, for an average of $1.2 million annually, uh, paid for by the american taxpayer. >> without objection. So ordered. >> thank you. Chairman gosar, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. And for the record, I don't agree with the ranking member of the full committee who said this hearing is a sham. It is not a sham.
▶ 1:10:11The equal access to justice act was once a well intentioned law that helped the american people who have been wronged by the federal government veterans, for example, small business owners, social security recipients, and so on. Uh, when eaja was passed in congress in 1980, I think it is clear that congress did not intend to create a fund and a cottage industry of environmental ngos that exist purely to stop responsible development of our natural resources. This is what has led to this committee.
▶ 1:10:40Both republicans and democrats have made it a priority to address permitting reform. We talk about it every day, Mr. chairman. We all know well what one of the biggest issues with our permitting system is. It's the out of control litigation. And, you know, what is helping enable this death spiral of litigation? Eaja. Before I begin my questioning, I want to push back on something my colleagues on the other side of the aisle raised.
▶ 1:11:10Yes, I agree that can be used for good by veterans, small business owners, and social security recipients that have been wronged by the federal government. But it is clear that is being abused just because eaja is working as intended for some, does not mean that we should disregard the clear abuses that are occurring today. That's why we are here. It's absurd that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are objecting to the oversight we are conducting today, Mr. joseph.
▶ 1:11:44Did you work, uh, for a democrat prior to this? >> yes, sir. >> and who was it? >> congressman peter defazio from my hometown, the fourth congressional district of southwest oregon. >> he was a friend of mine and a good member. Mr. joseph, in your testimony, you discussed the secondary costs of eaja funded litigation, not just the fees paid to lawyers, but the burdens that frivolous litigation has on agency activity. Can you expand upon this?
▶ 1:12:10How does the death spiral of litigation impact agency operations, and how does it impact an agency's ability to address nepa reviews? Reviews under essa, etc. >> yeah, thanks for the question. I wish this committee would ask the agencies and the professionals that work for these agencies that do this extraordinary work and what it feels like to be litigated for your expertise. These people are doing incredibly complex jobs, trying to comply with incredibly complex laws and regulations, and then they're being sued over some technicality.
▶ 1:12:40You didn't analyze this. You didn't think about this. Go back and write more, go back and do more. It's not changing the outcomes. So so truly, I would ask members of this committee go talk to the agencies regardless of party who's in charge. These folks are impacted by these lawsuits in addition to just the practical effect. Right? I mean, this is money coming from the agency's budget that you're appropriating.
▶ 1:13:05So now they have to go back and instead of doing a ce, they have to do an environmental assessment instead of taking six months. Now it's taking three years to do things that the average american supports stewarding our public lands. >> uh, would you agree that it's safe to say that enables a cottage industry for frivolous litigators? >> I think there are examples of of organizations that take example of this structure to engage in endless litigation driven on, importantly importantly, ideology, not the law ideology.
▶ 1:13:36>> and again, this this cottage industry is funded by the american taxpayer. We see it time and time again. And, you know, this week we're going to be, uh, voting on the speed act, a very good piece of nepa reform that's led by chairman westerman, uh, and, uh, and representative golden on a main, it is something we need, and I am looking forward to support it. Thank you for what you do and your voice in this. And I yield back.
▶ 1:14:03>> I think the gentleman I now recognize, the gentleman from wisconsin, Mr. tiffany, for his five minutes. Yeah. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. Um, so, miss lennox, is it fair to say that this has become a profit center for some of these groups that are the subject of what we're talking about here? >> thank you, congressman, for the question. Yes. Some of these groups make significant amounts of money per year in egypt payments. And that's on top of the fundraising that they already do to support their litigation programs.
▶ 1:14:33>> you know, in a I have a document here before me lawsuit wound up, it says in every lawsuit we represent, we being earthjustice, we represent our clients free of charge because justice should not have a price tag. Um, so their clients get free of charge, but doesn't. There's never a free lunch, is there? Who's paying for this?
▶ 1:14:56>> a significant amount of egypt fees go to earth justice because they're the largest nonprofit law firm in this space. >> so they're the biggest litigants here. >> uh, so to be clear. Among them, the earth justice is frequently the attorneys who represent the litigants. And that's one of the the secret, um, side hustles of eaja often you'll have a nonprofit organization that actually falls below the $7 million small business cap, but earth justice are the attorneys.
▶ 1:15:26And so earth justice with $241 million in annual net in net worth. Excuse me, is the entity that actually receives the egypt payment, but the nonprofit plaintiff is the party that is eligible for the award. >> so these are the corporate hustlers that are out there taking advantage of the american people, the american taxpayer. >> I I'm going to. >> you don't. >> have to. >> you don't have to.
▶ 1:15:54>> I will just say, uh, they are certainly significant beneficiaries. >> I mean, this is I mean, I think back to senator proxmire from long ago in the state of wisconsin when he had his golden fleece awards. These people qualify for the golden fleece award, there's no doubt about it. Uh, Mr. wilkinson, um, when were you first introduced to the impact that these corporate green hustlers, um, go about?
▶ 1:16:19>> I've been involved in the cattle industry for decades, congressman, and unfortunately, over the last 20 years, uh, we have seen this, uh, become a greater and greater prevalence. And I, you know, the biggest problem that I have, congressman, is you put a 500 1c3 label on an organization, and somehow they don't operate under the same rules. So we can have a battery of 200 or 250 attorneys that can bill 500 bucks an hour.
▶ 1:16:47Yet the little guys have to operate under a different set of rules. That simply is not fair. >> and they're putting people like ranchers out of business. >> absolutely. Or delaying their livelihood. >> and delay. Is death correct 100% if you're not able to get permits, things like that. Delay is death. So, Mr.
▶ 1:17:05Joseph, when I was out to yosemite a couple years ago, I heard the story about how over 200 mills over the last 30 years have been closed across the sierras, in part because of stuff like this. What has been the impact of eaja in contributing to this loss of, um, of manufacturing businesses across the west? >> well, you said it eaja allows litigation. Litigation leads to delay.
▶ 1:17:34Delay leads to loss of infrastructure and business. That's what's going on. You don't even need to win the lawsuit to have an impact. In fact, most of the times these challenges are not successful. But it's the delay. As my in my oral testimony, I provide an example where one project to treat 80 acres took ten years. That's not if we're going to treat our forests at scale. We simply don't have the system, the management paradigm, and the laws that allow us to do that work, and the infrastructure.
▶ 1:18:03The people who steward our forest are being put at risk, and we're losing our ability to manage our forest because of it. >> so the buzzword these days is affordability, especially in regards to housing. And, uh, isn't this part of the impact on the high cost of housing when two by fours and things like that are no longer produced in the united states of america.
▶ 1:18:24>> federal lands provide about 3% of the fiber for our softwood lumber needs, and we're harvesting about 3 billion board feet nationally, our forests grow ten times that amount of wood. We're scratching the surface of what our federal lands are capable of doing in terms of providing affordable wood to make affordable housing for americans. >> yeah, you make a great point there, because we grow twice as much wood in the great lakes states up where I'm at as we harvest.
▶ 1:18:51And it's ultimately going to create a problem for us, just the under harvest that's going on. And that will not be good for the environment, will it? If we are not managing properly. >> people don't realize that the united states of america is the largest importer of wood in the in the world. In the world. >> crazy, crazy. I just want to. Mr. chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit to the record a 2022 policy brief from the property and environment research center titled does environmental review worsen the wildfire crisis? Uh.
▶ 1:19:19And secondly, I ask unanimous consent to submit to the record the center for biological diversity trump lawsuit tracker, which lists 323 filed lawsuits and asks for donations. >> without objection, so ordered. >> I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. The gentlewoman from wyoming, miss hagerman, is now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you.
▶ 1:19:44Uh, the ea was intended to combat federal overreach and wrongdoing, primarily by shifting the costs of litigation away from veterans, social security recipients, and small businesses. Due to the ea application to nonprofits and misapplication of the special factor exception to the fee cap, combined with environmental laws like nepa and esa, today it funds the lawfare of environmental ngos. We are now forcing the american taxpayer to fund its own demise.
▶ 1:20:14As these ngos lawsuits are stopping the construction of roads and other infrastructure, including energy projects, product projects, forestry and more, from fiscal year 19 to 24. Doi, us forest service, noaa, noaa and ferc paid 24.8 million in eaja awards. Approximately 76% of this amount of money went to environmental nonprofits.
▶ 1:20:42In fiscal year 24, 19 federal agencies reported 15,000 separate awards totaling $119 million and counting. The department of interior reported 11 awards, and the department of ag also reported 11 awards.
▶ 1:21:02When looking at the ea reporting over the last few years, social security and the va continue to report the highest payout, which makes sense because that's why the ea was created in the first place. But over the last several years, the departments of interior and agriculture are at the top of this list, and we're in the top five highest paying agencies over the last two years. Mr.
▶ 1:21:25Joseph, are we funding our own demise by allowing these wealthy environmental ngos to sue to block every project that contributes to the bettering of american lives? >> we're not helping. It's not a good allocation of taxpayer resources. >> well, and what I mean by that is not only the construction of infrastructure, infrastructure and power to meet our ever growing demands, but in your walton lake example, they actually targeted a public safety project, which is just stunning to me and tells you how morally and ethically corrupt these organizations are.
▶ 1:21:56Money is everything to them, and community is nothing. What cost? What what were the costs that this dilatory legal tactic ultimately add to the project for the agency? What were the additional costs associated with that law? >> it was at least $200,000 in the attorney fee to the nonprofit. And then there's the unknown cost. And this is what doesn't track, right. It doesn't track the cost to the department. It doesn't track the cost to the department of justice to defend the project.
▶ 1:22:25It doesn't tabulate the cost of the delay from proposing the project in 2015 to implementation in 2025. What is that cost to the taxpayer? We don't know. >> well, and these inflated ea awards granted at the lower carter court are never returned. In other words, even if the case is ultimately overturned on appeal, oftentimes these ngos are able to keep those fees, aren't they? >> they did in this case.
▶ 1:22:50And just to highlight a timeline that is curious to me, they received the edf in 2018. They challenged the project in 2020. They went to the supreme court in 2023. How do you pay for those expensive legal bills from a nonprofit organization and eastern oregon? >> well, I think that there are a lot of questions that should be asked about how this money is being paid and to what organizations.
▶ 1:23:14Um, this committee is also prioritizing judicial review, review reforms in laws such as nepa and the esa. Would closing loopholes that flood the courts with litigation from environmental ngos also help curb the scope of ea fines? >> yes it would. It would really force folks to look at litigation as the absolute last resort, not the first tool in the toolbox.
▶ 1:23:38>> one of the things that I found as a practicing attorney and as a water and natural resource attorney and other states, is that courts oftentimes will grant ea funds to one side of the aisle, but not the other. Uh, I won the wolf lawsuit in wyoming after 15 years of litigation, 15 years of litigation, filed the first time in 2002, ultimately won in the circuit court of appeals here in washington, dc in 2017. I did most of that work pro bono.
▶ 1:24:04I actually of $30 after 15 years. Yet in almost every single case where I was up against an environmental group or earthjustice, which is so terribly misnamed, uh, going up against those organizations, they received three and four and $500 an hour, not just costs, but three and four and five and $600 an hour for the work that they did.
▶ 1:24:31I think that the ea has been fundamentally abused for years, and I think that it has absolutely funded, uh, the demise of our ability to produce and create projects here in the united states. It has affected our ag industry, it's affected our logging industry. It has affected our oil and gas and other energy industries.
▶ 1:24:52It has been abused in a way that it is time that it needs to be either completely taken off the books or fundamentally reformed, so that it does not continue to cause the damage that it has. Thank you for being here to expose the corruption of the ea. >> I think the gentlewoman from wyoming, the gentlewoman from oregon, is Mr. diligently is now recognized for her time. >> thank you so much, Mr. chair. I honestly am not sure that we are talking about the same law here.
▶ 1:25:20Um, because I'm stunned that my republican colleagues want to limit people's ability to challenge our government to have access to justice if the government is breaking the law, failing to implement and enforce laws passed by congress, then it is our job to make sure we are the representatives, that people have access to that justice.
▶ 1:25:39So I also want to just point out that this rampant abuse that's being called out, accounted in fiscal year 2024 for 11 awards from the department of interior and 11 from usda, totaling $3.5 million ssa, 10,000 social security cases, 10,000 awards, $60 million to our social security recipients, and veterans receive 6000 awards.
▶ 1:26:11It is. We can't just choose to close off one part of the justice system and leave that open for others. It is absolutely mind blowing to me that we want to somehow change this law so that we can not allow folks to bring environmental cases and then close it for all others. I also want to just, um, underline that permitting and the delays.
▶ 1:26:39That is absolutely something that we are talking about and is a desire that is bipartisan for us to fix. But I will continue to assert that our understaffing of our agencies leads to a lot of the cases that we are going to talk about here. If we understaff agencies, put them under stress, and then we tell them that it's their fault, that they made a mistake and the government has to pay, that is on us.
▶ 1:27:07And so, professor rolf, I just I know that we've talked about this a little bit, but I'm hearing so much about the rampant abuse of environmental groups. Um, I'd like to understand what are the safeguards. And I know that we've highlighted these. So just briefly, what are, again, the safeguards built into eaja created by case law that protect against it being abused. >> there are several safeguards.
▶ 1:27:35First of all, as we've already discussed, eaja only allows for fee awards to prevailing parties. So if a party demonstrates in court with a high standard, um judges have to find that decisions by federal agencies are arbitrary and capricious. Um, only then can, uh, a plaintiff even seek um, fees under the equal access to justice act.
▶ 1:28:04At that point, the court still has to find that the position of the federal defendants was not substantially justified. So another standard, another hurdle. And over only after surmounting both of those, um, is a party eligible for a fee award. >> and I'm sorry to be redundant, but I think it's really important that these plaintiffs have to win. Um, meaning that they're not frivolous by definition.
▶ 1:28:33So, again, to professor rolf, chronic underfunding, as I was just talking about, um, at the department of interior and the us forest service results in mistakes and delays. Um, to what end? Or please describe for us, um, how many of these lawsuits tend to be generated by those deadlines being missed or delays being had and staffing being a challenge in my mind?
▶ 1:29:02Do you feel like staffing the agency's appropriately could mitigate the risk for these, um, lawsuits? >> absolutely. As I explained, deadlines and procedures are very important in environmental law. Um, one of the reasons that agencies chronically miss those deadlines and don't comply with those procedures is they simply do not have the funding and the personnel to do the jobs that congress has handed them.
▶ 1:29:31And the fact that today we're talking about figures like $24 million from two departments in the federal government, I mean, that is a drop in the bucket. If you look at what has happened to federal agencies just this year, their budgets have been decimated, their personnel have been decimated and laid off.
▶ 1:29:52Um, if if members of this committee really want work to be done in the federal agencies, that's the issue that they should be looking at. They should be looking at the trump administration and saying, what the heck is going on? We need people in these agencies. >> thank you. I couldn't agree more. Like for us to underfund them, cut their staffing and then point our fingers at them that they are failing is absolutely insane to me.
▶ 1:30:18Um, I also wanted to ask you, much of your litigation experience has been focused on defending community groups from environmental harms. I would say, um, it's not a secret side hustle or not changing outcomes. When we stop raw sewage from going into the willamette river. Um, I would like to understand, what barriers do local groups face when bringing complex litigation against the federal government, professor rolf.
▶ 1:30:46>> well, litigating in federal court against the department of justice is a very tall order, especially in complex statutory areas like environmental law. And, um, if a small group with few or limited resources goes out and says, I think I'll find an attorney who could handle a case like that, they could go to a law firm, and that law firm indeed would say, sure, we will represent you.
▶ 1:31:11And the hourly rate would be at least $500. Um, and so finding an attorney who will represent them for free is only possible with statutes like the equal access to justice act. >> thank you.
▶ 1:31:27And I also want to just highlight that this is pretty standard practice, that the legal fees are paid from the awards, and that is even true for our social security disability lawyers who take, on average, 25% of the back payments that are due to the recipients. So they only are taking money that the recipient didn't receive from the federal government in the first place.
▶ 1:31:57So we could say that the secret side hustle is our government failing to actually pay our recipients. Um, that that is the vast majority of the cases that are being brought to us. Again, I will assert that if we staff our agencies appropriately and avoid the mistakes in the first place, that all of us will save our taxpayers money, which I agree is an incentive that we all should be striving for. So thank you very much. My time has expired.
▶ 1:32:28>> next. So, you know, when we talk about the dingell act, it was a great start to this whole aspect. But transmission transparency remains difficult to track. Uh, part of the issue is that the. Reporting and and costs are very difficult to track, and these are likely some of the very issues.
▶ 1:32:47Now, this is what I was talking about earlier, and I had the discussion with the ranking member, miss lennox, to counter these claims that that these radicals or some of these groups are funded by ccp, would you agree that the easiest and fastest solution before the, uh, environmental ngos that receive any taxpayer funding, in any shape or form to disclose their tax deductibility, donations? >> um, I certainly think that's one way to address the issue.
▶ 1:33:16Congressman gosar, and I would just agree with you. The lack of transparency is a significant issue. We saw, uh, awards that we know we were awarded or excuse me, that we know were awarded not to safari club, but to other groups that didn't appear in the database. >> well, I bring this up because I have a bill to put in the trust and transparency act that does just that. Now, the safari club international is a great example of where conservation meets a multiple use needs of the earth's lands.
▶ 1:33:42You're actually responsible for increasing, uh, populations around the world, are you not? >> certainly. Hunting is one of the most significant protectors of habitat. And when you secure habitat, you see significant increases in species. Hunting also generates significant funding that then also helps prevent poaching and ensure communities are invested in wildlife conservation. All of those things that help increase populations. >> so this is really lawfare against multiple use doctrine of flpma.
▶ 1:34:13>> uh, certainly we would agree with that, congressman. And we would say in the cases that we deal with, there aren't payments being made to these two, to the plaintiff, what we're seeing is lawsuits that stop things like the de-listing of species or lawsuits that that challenge decisions by the agencies and reverse them. Um, but those were science based decisions that now are preventing things like responsible management of certain species, like wolves and grizzly bears. And that's a significant problem, that that's not the attorney's fees.
▶ 1:34:43They are also coming from, uh, the treasury, excuse me, the taxpayer dollars and the agency appropriations, and not from any sort of award that's being made. >> gotcha. Mr. joseph, the other side of the aisle loves to talk about not giving federal agencies enough funding. We just heard about it, but not about the funding wasted on frivolous lawsuits. Time is money, right? >> time is money. These awards oftentimes come from agency budgets.
▶ 1:35:09And I would direct you to my written testimony where region one of the forest service actually had to articulate and point out the cost to individual national forests of these awards. >> so describe a little bit better for everybody that how these lawsuits will actually drain the agency's resources. >> because lawsuits are incredibly expensive and time I mean it takes a lot of time.
▶ 1:35:33Again referring you to my written report in the breakthrough institute report, litigation and egypt, which helps fuel litigation, oftentimes leads to an additional 3.7 years of environmental analysis for forest management. Project 3.7 years is added to the process just because of the challenges, and they're not leading to different results or outcomes on the ground.
▶ 1:36:00>> well, you know, I can agree, but three, uh, three plus years is very insignificant amount when you compare it to some of these mining claims that are over 30 years old and trying to get something where they have never produced a penny of copper. Um, so tracking these ngos, I think it's, you know, I my bill, we actually were putting this bill together and we found out that the irs actually tracks it. Okay. Uh, above a certain, uh, numeration of dollars, but I'm not entitled to see it.
▶ 1:36:29Do you find that very contradictory? >> no. >> so let me ask you a question. So oversight. You can't do oversight properly unless you're following the dollars. Right. So I'm going to bring up something very different. Are you familiar with the tab board? >> I'm not. >> okay. And when I came here, it's about, uh. Patents.
▶ 1:36:49So we went from in our constitutional amendment basically said that, uh, the the discoverer gets this past, you know, because we want to protect him. The small guy. Well, then we were told that we got a problem with this patent process. So we go to the tab. So we go from first to discover to first to file. Guess what happened. No more patent problems.
▶ 1:37:14Because all these big first file people have all these tons of insurers, lawyers and little guy can't stay in, just can't stay in. So there's something to this now in my bill, I actually say, listen, if you get a penny from the federal government, you should have to report where you got all the rest of your dollars. Number two is if you get a foreign donation, you should have to report that. Do you agree, miss lennox?
▶ 1:37:45>> we can agree with that. >> how about you, Mr. um, wilkinson? >> yes, congressman. >> um, how about you, uh, Mr. wolf? Mr. uh, joseph. >> yes, sir. I fully support transparency, professor. >> why wouldn't that be something that is, uh, lauded? >> uh, pardon me, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:38:13I'm not sure I understood the question. >> well, the question was, was that if, uh, a donation is given from a foreign entity, a foreign country, and then a federal dollars are spent in that case, and they're being spent here, why wouldn't there be transparency? Be a bad word? >> transparency. Um. >> you're following the dollars, and you're asking us to do proper oversight. So we gotta follow the dollars.
▶ 1:38:44>> so you're going to ask who pays what lawyers you're going to inquire into, um, all the finances of any litigant in federal court. It sounds like a fishing expedition to me. Hmm. >> well, that's where you and I disagree, because I think if you take if you don't take federal dollar, we have no business unless there's some justification for a warrant. But once you take a federal dollar, that's my jurisdiction, and I gotta follow it.
▶ 1:39:11So I spent the better part of this morning discussing with the republicans. We need to bring big insurers in front of in front of congress. So we have accountability for all the dollars. The 4.5 to $7.3 trillion spent during covid. So accountability is everything. Now I go back, my last question to each one of you is, is each one of you what was the question you most wanted to have asked and what's the answer? Just let us start with you.
▶ 1:39:38>> um, that's a great question and I wish I'd prepared an answer to that faster. But, um, certainly I think the question, uh, I'd like to continue on the transparency point. One of the things we suggest is that courts and, and agencies have to do a better job of reporting who receives eaja funds. Um, and so a question I would have liked is, well, how would that work?
▶ 1:40:06Well, the it wouldn't be that difficult to create some sort of reporting form that a law clerk could easily type in. Here's the awards that we made. And then we would see a much greater or much more accurate and consistent reporting of who's actually receiving eaja awards and what those amounts are for. >> we were surprised when I told you that the irs already does this, and I can't see it surprised me too. Okay, Mr. wilkerson, you're up.
▶ 1:40:32>> congressman, the the question I would have liked to have heard asked is, why do environmental ngos get a pass? Why are they exempt from the rules that the rest of us operate under? You know, I heard that 24 million is a drop in the bucket. Well, where I come from in south dakota, 24 million is a real dollars. And it the issue isn't the amount necessarily that's awarded. That's just the tip of the spear.
▶ 1:40:59It's all of the money that's spent fighting these lawsuits that maybe don't even get an award. So I just don't understand why environmental ngos that are classified as 501, c three can hire these law firms, and they can get awards, and they're exempt when the rest of us have to play by the same rules. Okay. >> professor ralph.
▶ 1:41:24>> I guess I would like to have been asked by this committee, why isn't this committee totaled up the total cost of all the high priced lawyers? Um, when we're talking about environmental disputes in general involving the federal government, why isn't this committee looked at the total lawyers that represent industry and those that have environmental impacts?
▶ 1:41:49Um, armies and armies of very high priced lawyers that are paid very well by industry and compared that against the attorneys who represent the public's interest in protecting and managing the environment.
▶ 1:42:08And let's put that on a scale, and you'll find that even the largest, um, environmental group that represents the public interest, earthjustice is a very, very modest in comparison. So I'd love to have the committee ask me about that. >> well, my question would back to you would be you brought up the comment of a cost to paying attorneys. If you didn't like it so much, why don't you go back and amend it?
▶ 1:42:38So it sounds like to me that opening up the access would benefit that, would it not, for your side. >> opening up? Sure. Because, um, we should modify the attorney fee rate that was set in 1996 and make that more modern. And look at something like miss lennox's, uh, fees that she charged as a private attorney in new york city and maybe make the rates a little closer to that.
▶ 1:43:07>> well, there's a little difference between you and miss lennox. You're a public company. You're a republican attorney or attorneys are working on behalf of the american people. Hers are private. So actually, there's a little bit of difference there, Mr. roth. Now. Mr. Mr. rolf, you're up. No, Mr. lewis. Sorry, joseph. Joseph. Lewis. Mr. joseph, you're up. >> I wish someone would ask me what the greatest risk of public lands is. And my answer to that would be eaja is a part of litigation as a part of nepa. Nfma, flpma apa.
▶ 1:43:37All of these statutes and well-meaning laws are critical. They were passed in the 60s and 70s and 80s. They were tackling 20th century issues. We're in the 21st century, so if you care about forest health and resiliency, you care about smoke in the air. That is killing americans, 50,000 americans every single year. If you care about wildlife habitat and clean water and clean air, we have built a management paradigm of our public lands that's based on 20th century concepts.
▶ 1:44:04It has not been updated by science, by common sense, and we need to take a holistic approach of the systems that currently are not allowing us to manage this extraordinary heritage of the united states of america, of public lands. We need active management, we need active conservation, and our current laws and regulations are failing us, and they're not allowing us to do that.
▶ 1:44:29>> so to your secondary question, so if you're if it's an agency that's underfunded, why can't private sector do this stuff? >> public private partnerships are going to be the future of federal land management. >> I appreciate it when I had I live out in the forest, when I had to have forest service come in and talk about defensible spaces on my property. Yeah, that's where we gotta make this happen. Um, last but not least to you again.
▶ 1:44:51Um, if we made, uh, the american people, the recipients of public lands, some of the money coming off public lands, do you think we would use a little bit better than some of these agencies would do? And some of these ngos would be fighting against. >> can can you restate that question? Yes. >> so I have a bill. It's called the lasso act. It takes 10% of all the proceeds coming off public lands. Puts it in the social security trust fund that now, now is worth 2 to $4 billion.
▶ 1:45:20But somebody's going to look at it and say, you know, if we do this right, we can make a bunch more money. And we do. We can have the people's interest in reforms, keep it out of harm's way. We could that be something you could support? >> uh, I think that there while the american public, including myself, have extraordinary, um, love of our public lands and our industry supports public lands being publicly owned, I also think that there's a disconnect about the public's appreciation or understanding of the economic and social economic contributions of public lands and natural
▶ 1:45:52Resources to the united states of america. And so if you're able to somehow connect financially those benefits that return to the american public, I think you would activate millions of people that are not currently engaged in this space. >> see a little comment, because that's what I'm thinking. Exactly. Because you have failing programs. And if you engage those people, they will care. So I appreciate it. Now, um. Yes. >> thank you, Mr. much. Uh, Mr.
▶ 1:46:20Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter this committee, um, received today concerning today's hearing dated december 9th, 2025 from the national organization of social security claimants representatives, which represents the many public interests, attorneys and advocates who assist disabled americans seeking nothing more than fair adjudication of their social security claims. And in the letter, it unequivocally opposes, quote, any legislative proposal that would cap, restrict or curtail the availability of fees under eaja.
▶ 1:46:51The letter concludes that weakening eaja is, quote, a direct attack on the ability of vulnerable americans to seek redress in our courts. I think we're all in agreement. That's not what we are trying to do. However, we did hear representative hageman say it is time that eaja either needs to be taken off the books or fundamentally reformed, and I think that is absolutely counter to the interests of the american people. And I just hope that we can put that into the record. >> without objection. So ordered.
▶ 1:47:18Now, I think the witnesses for your testimony and thanks for traveling all the way out here during, you know, the holidays. I appreciate it and stay warm. Members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we ask that you respond to those in writing. Under committee rule three, members of the committee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5 p.m. On monday, december 15th. The hearing record will be held open for ten business days from these. For these responses, if there's no further business, we stand adjourned.