[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 30 (Thursday, February 15, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1192-H1196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ADA EDUCATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2017

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 736 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 620.
  Will the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) kindly resume the chair.

                              {time}  1028


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 620) to amend the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
1990 to promote compliance through education, to clarify the 
requirements for demand letters, to provide for a notice and cure 
period before the commencement of a private civil action, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
  The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, all 
time for general debate pursuant to House Resolution 736 had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule, and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows

                                H.R. 620

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``ADA Education and Reform Act 
     of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE THROUGH EDUCATION.

       Based on existing funding, the Disability Rights Section of 
     the Department of Justice shall, in consultation with 
     property owners and representatives of the disability rights 
     community, develop a program to educate State and local 
     governments and property owners on effective and efficient 
     strategies for promoting access to public accommodations for 
     persons with a disability (as defined in section 3 of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12102)). Such 
     program may include training for professionals such as 
     Certified Access Specialists to provide a guidance of 
     remediation for potential violations of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act.

     SEC. 3. NOTICE AND CURE PERIOD.

       Paragraph (1) of section 308(a) of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12188(a)(1)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) Availability of remedies and procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     remedies and procedures set forth in section 204(a) of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a-3(a)) are the 
     remedies and procedures this title provides to any person who 
     is being subjected to discrimination on the basis of 
     disability in violation of this title or who has reasonable 
     grounds for believing that such person is about to be 
     subjected to discrimination in violation of section 303. 
     Nothing in this section shall require a person with a 
     disability to engage in a futile gesture if such person has 
     actual notice that a person or organization covered by this 
     title does not intend to comply with its provisions.
       ``(B) Barriers to access to existing public 
     accommodations.--A civil action under section 302 or 303 
     based on the failure to remove an architectural barrier to 
     access into an existing public accommodation may not be 
     commenced by a person aggrieved by such failure unless--
       ``(i) that person has provided to the owner or operator of 
     the accommodation a written notice specific enough to allow 
     such owner or operator to identify the barrier; and
       ``(ii)(I) during the period beginning on the date the 
     notice is received and ending 60 days after that date, the 
     owner or operator fails to provide to that person a written 
     description outlining improvements that will be made to 
     remove the barrier; or
       ``(II) if the owner or operator provides the written 
     description under subclause (I), the owner or operator fails 
     to remove the barrier or to make substantial progress in 
     removing the barrier during the period beginning on the date 
     the description is provided and ending 120 days after that 
     date.
       ``(C) Specification of details of alleged violation.--The 
     written notice required under subparagraph (B) must also 
     specify in detail the circumstances under which an individual 
     was actually denied access to a public accommodation, 
     including the address of property, the specific sections of 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act alleged to have been 
     violated, whether a request for assistance in removing an 
     architectural barrier to access was made, and whether the 
     barrier to access was a permanent or temporary barrier.''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. MEDIATION FOR ADA ACTIONS RELATED TO ARCHITECTURAL 
                   BARRIERS.

       The Judicial Conference of the United States shall, under 
     rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any other 
     applicable law, in consultation with property owners and 
     representatives of the disability rights community, develop a 
     model program to promote the use of alternative dispute 
     resolution mechanisms, including a stay of discovery during 
     mediation, to resolve claims of architectural barriers to 
     access for public accommodations. To the extent practical, 
     the Federal Judicial Center should provide a public comment 
     period on any such proposal. The goal of the model program 
     shall be to promote access quickly and efficiently without 
     the need for costly litigation. The model program should 
     include an expedited method for determining the relevant 
     facts related to such barriers to access and steps taken 
     before the commencement of litigation to resolve any issues 
     related to access.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in part A of House Report 115-559. Each such amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

                              {time}  1030


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Denham

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-559.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 620.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H1193]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 7, strike ``Based on existing funding'' and 
     insert the following:
       (a) In General.--Based on existing funding
       Page 3, insert after line 18 the following:
       (b) Materials Provided in Other Languages.--The Disability 
     Rights Section of the Department of Justice shall take 
     appropriate actions, to the extent practicable, to make 
     technical assistance publications relating to compliance with 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act available in all 
     the languages commonly used by owners and operators of United 
     States businesses.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 736, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would ensure that the 
Department of Justice takes appropriate actions to provide ADA 
compliance materials for businessowners whose primary language is not 
English.
  As a Representative from California's Central Valley, my district is 
far too familiar with the kinds of abusive lawsuits H.R. 620 aims to 
curb.
  For years, small businesses--some that make less than $30,000 a 
year--have been targeted by ``drive-by'' lawsuits from people who are 
driving by--many of whom are from outside of our State and, certainly, 
outside of our community. They have been slapped with demands for 
thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollars for minor infractions, 
like faded parking signs or outdated signage or stripes in the parking 
lot.
  More often than not, the lawyer or plaintiff didn't even enter the 
business in the first place. In too many cases, these lawsuits did not 
lead to compliance. They led to shakedowns and shutdowns.
  Throughout California and, certainly, throughout California's Central 
Valley, we have seen a number of minority businesses and businesses as 
a whole, small businesses, that have been shut down by many of these 
shakedown lawsuits where the attorney will call back and say: I 
understand that you can't pay us today, but we will put you on a 
monthly plan.
  That doesn't solve any problems for those with disabilities. It 
certainly doesn't solve any problems for the businesses. All it does is 
line the pockets of some abusers that are coming into our area that 
will target dozens of businesses in a day's or week's time, only to 
leave our community without even going into these businesses.
  In my district alone, Barnwood Restaurant in Ripon was sued and shut 
down. Main Street Inn in Ripon was sued. Country Ford Trucks in Ceres 
was sued. The city hall in Escalon was sued.
  In Turlock, my hometown, seven businesses less than a mile apart on 
the same road were sued by the same plaintiff. Forty-three businesses 
in the city of Modesto were all sued by the same plaintiff.
  California has been ground zero for this lawsuit abuse. Even the 
State legislature in a State that is not considered conservative by any 
means has had a number of ADA lawsuit measures aimed at trying to curb 
those.
  The Federal Government has a job to fix this, and that is one of the 
reasons that I am a coauthor and support the ADA Education and Reform 
Act. I especially support its provisions to increase businessowner 
education on ADA compliance, which I believe my amendment can help to 
strengthen.
  In California, 75 percent of the businesses targeted by these types 
of lawsuits are immigrant- or minority-owned businesses. These 
demographics are more unlikely to be familiar with ADA standards as 
well as their own legal rights. That is the reason for the shakedown of 
these minority-owned businesses.
  One obstacle for these types of businesspeople is that the vast 
majority of the DOJ's compliance resources aren't readily available in 
other languages that they may need to be made available. For example, 
key sections of a Spanish-translated web page haven't been updated for 
3 years and doesn't include close to the number of materials available 
in English. With a district like mine that is over 40 percent Hispanic, 
this is a real problem.
  If you want businesses to comply with the law, you have to give these 
businesses the opportunity to comply. Give them the ability to read 
from their own website what new laws are going into effect every single 
year. Because if only the lawyers know, then the shakedowns will 
continue to occur and businesses will continue to lose more of their 
profits and be unable to provide raises and bonuses to their employees. 
But worse than that, you will continue to see small businesses shut 
down.
  Let me finish on one final note. A few years ago I received a phone 
call in my office. We had been focused on ADA lawsuit abuse for quite 
some time. I talked to the lady about her concerns. She explained how 
she had received a notice in the mail and then a follow-up notice. No 
attorney had ever come into her restaurant--a small-business owner. She 
was just trying to make ends meet. In fact, she was not only the 
proprietor of this restaurant, but she worked the kitchen. In fact, she 
started the business and worked the front end and the back end. She was 
the first to come and the last to leave.
  We have heard a lot of these stories about small businesses and the 
regulatory impacts that they face. But in this case, I was amazed to 
find out when I visited that she was more than happy to fix any ADA 
compliance issue. As she wheeled around in her wheelchair from her 
kitchen to the cash register, and her Spanish language being the first 
language that she knew, she wanted to fix things for her customers and 
fix things for those who are coming in with disabilities.
  We need to give her the opportunity to do that.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for support of this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, but I do not oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I want to first commend the gentleman from California for 
addressing this issue. He is quite right that it is important that, in 
order to expeditiously make sure that accommodations for the disabled 
are made, people have to understand what those requirements are. The 
regulations on this change frequently and constantly.
  I do not oppose this amendment. In fact, I support it. I would ask 
the gentleman if he would work with us moving forward to make sure that 
this does not impose an inordinate burden on the bureaucracy 
responsible for putting this out so as to delay getting new regulations 
to protect the ADA folks out.

  There are many languages spoken by people in various businesses in 
this country. Some are very common, and that is definitely the case, 
but we may not have this written in every single language that is 
spoken by every single individual.
  Mr. DENHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with the gentleman.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I thank Mr. 
Denham for offering this amendment and letting us all know some of the 
drive-by lawsuit problems in California.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice, for example, has come up 
with 250 pages of regulations recently about the ADA. These regulations 
are sent out to the businesses. It is important, as the gentleman from 
California has mentioned, that these businesses be able to understand 
what those regulations are because many of these businesses that are 
being targeted by unscrupulous lawyers are minority-owned businesses, 
some first-generation Americans who have come into our country trying 
to make ends meet.
  So the amendment is a good idea. I support the amendment, and I urge 
all Members of this body to vote for it as well.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.

[[Page H1194]]

  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Denham).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Langevin

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-559.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, strike line 19 and all that follows through page 6, 
     line 2.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 736, the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with my colleague and 
fellow Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus co-chair, Representative Gregg 
Harper. I want to mention that it is the only bipartisan amendment 
being offered to H.R. 620, and I think it is important to stress this 
point.
  Mr. Chairman, two Members of Congress from different political 
parties--who represent a caucus that exists solely to inform, educate, 
and highlight issues impacting the disability community--have come 
together to say that there is something gravely wrong with this bill.
  We are offering an amendment that would make it palatable. The 
amendment would strike H.R. 620's notice and cure requirement. As 
presently written, the notice and cure section mandates that someone 
who claims discrimination on the basis of a disability relating to an 
architectural barrier must provide a written notice that allows 60 days 
in order to acknowledge receipt of the complaint and 120 days to 
demonstrate substantial progress in removing the barrier before further 
legal action may be pursued.
  That is 6 months of waiting without a guarantee that the 
architectural barrier will be removed and access granted. So the idea 
that places of public accommodation must first receive a notice before 
correctly implementing a law that has been part of our legal framework 
for nearly three decades creates an obvious disincentive for ADA 
compliance.
  The proposal of a notice ignores the tenets of the ADA that support 
an indisputable right to inclusion and respect. No other civil rights 
law requires protected class members to hand a notice to people 
behaving in a discriminatory manner in order to educate them without 
any guarantee the situation will improve.
  This amendment would keep program funding for the ADA education. It 
also maintains language supporting alternative mediation pathways 
relating to architectural barriers outside of the existing framework 
within the Department of Justice.
  If supporters of H.R. 620 truly believe these State-based nuisance 
lawsuits are the result of a lack of knowledge of what the Federal ADA 
requires, and that businesses need less costly avenues to remedy 
violations, then why wouldn't they support an amendment that provides 
an answer to both of those claims without the harm of a notice and cure 
period that weakens the civil rights protections of the ADA?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of a 
bill that delays justice for people with disabilities in a way that no 
other class protected by civil rights laws must endure when asserting 
their civil rights. I then urge my colleagues to consider whether the 
delay of a notice and cure requirement adequately addresses the 
underlying issue of ``drive-by'' lawsuits.
  I am hopeful that doing so will result in a decision to support this 
amendment to remove the harmful notice requirement, while maintaining 
provisions that increase access to education and mediation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment because it 
would completely gut the notice and cure provisions, which are the core 
provisions of this bill. The need for a notice and cure period has been 
highlighted in congressional hearings since the early 2000s.
  In 2016, David Weiss, who testified on behalf of the International 
Council of Shopping Centers, stated:

       The problem that the private sector faces is an increasing 
     number of lawsuits typically brought by a few plaintiffs in 
     various jurisdictions and often by the same lawyers for very 
     technical and usually minor violations. It has become all too 
     common for property owners to settle these cases, as it is 
     less expensive to settle them than to defend them, even if 
     the property owner is compliant. It is often too costly to 
     prove that a property owner is doing what is right or 
     required. Therefore, the property owner makes a rational 
     business decision commonly resulting in settlement.

  Mr. Chairman, given that plaintiffs' attorneys' motives are often 
monetary, there is little or no incentive to work with businesses to 
cure a violation before a lawsuit is filed. This unintended result 
wastes resources on the cost of litigation that could have been used to 
improve access sooner. This delays justice.
  H.R. 620 remedies these problems by allowing businesses a finite 
period of time, before a private enforcement lawsuit can be filed, to 
fix defects on their premises once they are notified that these 
premises do not comply with the ADA.
  This will reduce abuses of the law by opportunistic lawyers. It will 
result in more access for the disabled because it encourages businesses 
to cure their access issues now in order to avoid costly litigation 
later.
  Mr. Chair, I would also note that made in order is an amendment 
coming up that would reduce this amount of time by 2 months, the total 
amount of time for notice and cure.
  I think that is a good step to address the concerns raised, but I 
cannot support an amendment that completely takes away the purpose of 
the legislation, which is to give small-business owners the opportunity 
to cure a problem once they are made aware of it. Many of these are 
very technical violations of the law designed primarily to line the 
pockets of some unscrupulous lawyers, as opposed to really helping 
advance the cause of accessibility.
  For those reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I proudly yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking 
member of the House Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Langevin-Harper amendment. This 
bipartisan amendment removes from the bill its onerous and unjustified 
notice and cure provisions while leaving in place its potentially 
helpful educational and mediation-related provisions.
  As I discussed extensively during general debate, the notice and cure 
provisions would have the effect of drastically weakening the ability 
of discrimination victims enforcing their rights in court.
  Any law, including the ADA, is only effective to the extent that it 
is enforceable, and civil rights statutes, particularly, depend 
primarily on private rights of action for their enforcement. By 
weakening enforcement, H.R. 620's notice and cure provisions ultimately 
undermine the ADA's goal of integrating people with disabilities into 
the mainstream of American life.
  For these reasons, I urge the House to adopt the Langevin-Harper 
amendment which cures most of the problems with this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, again, I urge support of my amendment. 
The whole point of this amendment is to remove the notice and cure 
provision.
  Again, the ADA law has been around for nearly three decades now. 
People should be proactive about understanding what their 
responsibilities are

[[Page H1195]]

to operate businesses or issues of public accommodation, to understand 
what their responsibilities are. Not, basically, taking that 
responsibility incentivizes people to say: Well, just wait and see if 
there is an issue, and only if we get notified will we then fix the 
problem.
  People need to be proactive and comply with the law, and I believe, 
there, everybody wins.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, as I indicated, 
because the ADA is a regulation-based law, and those regulations are 
constantly changing as new technology changes and as accessibility to 
new features that businesses offer are desired by those in the 
disability community.
  That is a necessary thing, but it is also necessary to make sure that 
businesses have time to accommodate as well and learn about those new 
requirements and have the opportunity to fix it before somebody can 
just get attorney's fees for something that is going to be done anyway.
  So I think the better approach is to oppose this amendment and 
support the underlying bill with the addition of an amendment coming up 
that would reduce that time by 2 months.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Foster

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-559.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 10, insert after ``in violation of section 
     303'' the following: ``, except that if a violation continues 
     to occur after the expiration of the applicable period 
     provided for under subparagraph (B), the court may, in 
     addition to any other available relief, award punitive 
     damages in such amount as the court determines appropriate''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 736, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Foster) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, since the start of the debate on this 
legislation, I have been laser-focused on getting the problems with ADA 
compliance actually fixed. The problems of drive-by lawsuits have hit 
my district, and abusive demand letters are a problem nationwide. One 
of the tragedies of the status quo is that, even after settlement of 
demand letters, the problems are often not even fixed.
  Many of my colleagues have expressed concern, however, that the 
underlying text of this legislation would not provide sufficient 
incentive for legitimate civil rights attorneys to take to court 
businesses that offer no good faith effort to solve the problem with 
ADA compliance after they have been pointed out.
  My amendment simply would allow courts to award punitive damages in 
the cases that a business has made no good faith effort to remove a 
barrier to access. If they cure the problem, the matter is resolved; if 
not, they should be subject to the full force of the law, including 
punitive damages.
  Since its enactment, the Americans with Disabilities Act has allowed 
millions of Americans to gain access to public accommodations that many 
of us take for granted. The passage of the ADA was a major civil rights 
victory. Many more schools, hospitals, grocery stores, and movie 
theaters are now accessible. Thanks to the ADA, many of our fellow 
citizens are fully integrated into the fabric of society.
  Despite these gains, however, more still remains to be done. As 
people with disabilities have continued to work to make our public 
accommodations more accessible, unfortunately, some individuals have 
found ways to use the current system for their own financial benefit.
  The underlying bill aims to prevent unscrupulous individuals from 
taking advantage of the law and to establish a process leading to 
increased compliance. However, during many meetings with disability 
groups in my district over their concerns, some voiced fears that the 
underlying bill would discourage attorneys from taking ADA cases.
  My amendment would work to create an incentive for lawyers to take 
ADA cases, knowing that, if a business does not comply, punitive 
damages may be sought. The goal is that individuals with disabilities 
have access to competent legal representation in order to bring 
meritorious cases against businesses that seek to purposely avoid 
compliance with the ADA.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it 
would defeat the whole purpose of the bill, which is to resolve access 
issues under title III without the need for expensive litigation. The 
private enforcement provisions provided in title III of the ADA are 
already a powerful tool to achieve greater accessibility through 
injunctive relief.
  Importantly, the ADA does not provide for damages in private 
lawsuits; it never has. This amendment would then, for the first time, 
allow such damages, which will drive up litigation costs and provide 
even more fodder for trial lawyers to abuse the law. Businesses should 
use their resources to fix access to problems, not to pay unnecessary 
and wasteful litigation costs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to answer by saying that 
my goal in this amendment has nothing to do with the plaintiff's bar. 
It has to do with getting the problems fixed without going to court.
  Unfortunately, I think without at least the threat of punitive 
damages, I think it is a legitimate question as to whether some 
fraction of the violations of the ADA will, in fact, not be fixed as 
part of the calculation of cost benefit. I think that is not the way we 
should solve this in this country.
  It is a time in this country when a lot of our justice system--our 
courts--are coming under attack, and I actually have faith in the 
judges and courts in our country to make a reasonable judgment as to 
whether or not there was a good faith effort made to fix this 
fundamental law in our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comment 
about having faith in judges. As a former judge, I appreciate that 
comment.
  When the ADA legislation was debated here on this House floor in 
1990, there was discussion about this whole issue. The purpose of the 
ADA legislation that passed Congress was to fix the problems that 
businesses had in accessibility for the disabled. It was not designed 
for punitive damages at all. It was designed to fix the problem. That 
is why the underlying legislation that we are sponsoring today makes 
businesses move in a timely manner if there is a violation.
  So this would change the whole concept of the ADA. Mr. Chairman, I 
oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Speier

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-559.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 12, insert after ``barrier or'' the following: 
     ``, in the case of a barrier, the removal of which requires 
     additional time as a result of circumstances beyond the 
     control of the owner or operator, fails''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 736, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H1196]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, the ADA is a powerful and important law 
that we all respect and embrace. Unfortunately, in States like 
California, it has created a cottage industry of unscrupulous attorneys 
abusing title III of the ADA.
  The amendment I am offering is very simple. The current language in 
the bill permits a business notified of noncompliance with the ADA to 
simply make substantial progress in remedying the violation. Frankly, 
this language is too loose. My amendment strengthens this language to 
only permit the language of ``substantial progress'' where they cannot 
complete the work because of extenuating circumstances.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment promotes basic fairness. It does not 
allow dishonest property owners to abandon responsibility by claiming 
they have made substantial progress. The message is still clear: 
businesses must fix their ADA violations.
  Today is a chance to pass something that addresses the real problem. 
Let's not let the lack of a perfect solution get in the way of real 
progress.
  I want to speak to some of the issues that we have had in California.
  In California, this particular law has created an industry that 
allows for lawyers to make a lot of money off of small businesses. It 
has basically allowed shady law firms to make a profit out of abusing 
the ADA, often resulting in high legal bills and no fix to the 
allegations presented.
  In many cases, businesses are forced into settlements because the 
cost of fighting an allegation is so great. The average cost of a 
settlement is $16,000, but the cost of fighting the allegation is 
sometimes four to six times the average $75,000 income generated by the 
business.
  In California, a simple fix--putting up a sign or moving a door a few 
inches--can carry a $4,000 penalty, the minimum amount of damages, 
which will still be in place when the bill passes. This is no small sum 
if you are a local bakery, a neighborhood grocery store, or a barber 
shop.
  California is ground zero for this problem. It is home to 12 percent 
of the disabled population but 40 percent of ADA lawsuits nationwide. 
From 2012 to 2014, 54 percent of all related complaints in California 
were filed by just two law firms.
  The law firms sometimes recruit plaintiffs who are not directly 
impacted by the ADA or even living in the same State. Fourteen 
plaintiffs brought 46 percent of all these lawsuits. One of them, 
Robert McCarthy, filed more than 400 suits against California 
businesses, and he doesn't even live in the State.
  One infamous example is the California-based Moore Law Firm, which 
filed more than 700 lawsuits over the past few years, resulting in 
large settlements and sometimes even bankruptcy for some businesses. 
Given recent laws to address this in my home State, trial lawyers are 
rushing to States like Texas, New York, and Florida, where they can 
make a profit.
  In 2014, a bar owner living in Torrance, California, was handed five 
lawsuits in the past 2 years and needed to save up to $30,000 to 
remodel. She was the target of a small group of attorneys who took aim 
at businesses in shopping centers for a quick profit.
  What we need to do, Mr. Chairman, is take the profit out of making 
these facilities accessible. We all want them to be accessible. We want 
to give them notice and a couple of months to cure the problem or else 
the lawsuit can continue. I think this makes a lot of sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not appear to make any 
substantive change to H.R. 620. Whether or not the amendment is 
adopted, it still would be the case under the bill that a businessowner 
who fails to make substantial progress in removing an access barrier 
would be subject to a lawsuit.
  The amendment, however, does not address the fundamental concerns 
with H.R. 620's notice and cure provisions that I expressed in general 
debate, including the fact that the bill does not require a business to 
comply with the ADA, only to make ``substantial progress'' toward 
compliance within the bill's 180-day cure period.
  While the amendment does not make the bill worse, it also does not 
make the bill better. Regrettably, therefore, I must oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

                          ____________________