[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 17144-17145]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 H.R. 5683 ``ENSURING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED 
                              STATES ACT''

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, December 4, 2014

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5683, the 
``Ensuring Access to Justice for Claims Against the United States 
Act.''
  I support the bill because it amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1500 to remove 
the prohibition depriving the United States Court of Federal Claims of 
jurisdiction over any civil action against the United States pending 
in, or on appeal from, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) in cases 
in which the plaintiff also has pending in another federal court a 
civil action that includes a claim against the United States arising 
from the same set of operative facts.
  Under current law, the Court of Federal Claims is prohibited from 
exercising jurisdiction over any claim in which the plaintiff has 
pending in any other federal court a lawsuit against the United States 
arising out of the same incident even if the lawsuit in the CFC seeks 
different relief.
  When combined with other jurisdictional limits on the Court of 
Federal Claims and the court's statute of limitations, this prohibition 
forces plaintiffs to pick and choose among potentially meritorious 
claims against the United States and leads to plaintiffs being denied 
relief for unlawful government actions.
  As Justice Sotomayor has observed, this jurisdictional bar imposes an 
unfair burden on plaintiffs by forcing them to ``choose either to forgo 
relief in the district court or to file first in the district court and 
risk the expiration of the statute of limitations on their claims in 
the CFC.''
  The Administrative Conference of the United States has identified 
several examples of potentially meritorious claims against the United 
States that have been adversely affected by the jurisdictional 
prohibition contained in Section 1500:
  1. A federal employee who sued the government in district court under 
both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
Her Equal Pay Act claim was transferred to the CFC and was dismissed 
under Section 1500;
  2. Property owners who sued in the CFC, claiming the government had 
taken their property without just compensation. Their claim was 
dismissed because they had previously sued in district court on a tort 
theory;
  3. A local government that was sued by the United States in district 
court over taxation of certain federal office buildings filed a 
counterclaim against the United States for the taxes it believed it was 
owed. The counterclaims were transferred to the CFC and dismissed under 
Section 1500; and
  4. An Indian tribe that sued in the CFC for breach of trust. Its 
claims were dismissed because it sued on similar claims in district 
court on the same day.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before remedies the deficiency in Section 1500 
by striking the jurisdictional bar and replacing it with a presumptive 
stay provision.
  Under the presumptive stay provision, a plaintiff could file and 
maintain actions arising out of a single incident in both the CFC and 
the district court at the same time, but the action that was filed 
second would be stayed until the first action is no longer pending.
  The stay could be lifted by the agreement of the parties or upon a 
finding by a judge that the stay is not in the interest of justice.
  This presumptive stay provision provides judges with flexibility to 
manage potentially duplicative litigation against the United States in 
a manner that is consistent with modern judicial practice.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5683, the Ensuring Access to Justice for Claims 
Against the United States Act, eliminates wasteful obstacles to justice 
and inefficient use of scarce judicial resources while at the same time 
protecting plaintiffs' ability to seek complete relief when

[[Page 17145]]

actions of the federal government violate their legal rights.
  I support this legislation and urge all members to join me in voting 
for H.R. 5683.

                          ____________________