Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to the gentlewoman from Texas. Opponents of this bill claim it will delay access in some cases, even if just by a few months. But under current law, unscrupulous lawyers already delay filing ADA complaints for months after alleged violations are discovered, simply to boost their claim for attorneys' fees based on hours worked. Here is an affidavit from a former ADA lawyer showing his firm fraudulently and routinely waited months to alert businessowners of potential violations and file lawsuits so they could falsely claim many hours of work preparing the case when no such work was required. Here is what the lawyer testified to: The alleged time entries at issue in this case include authorizing discovery 6 months in advance of the case being filed. I told Mr. Lopez, the real person in charge, this practice was useless. Mr. Lopez's response was that increasing legal fees was what I was supposed to do. This means that, today, there are months of unnecessary delays before the businessowner is even notified of a violation so they can begin working on fixing the problem. That is an additional delay of months that this bill will eliminate. The bottom line is that, in ADA cases, lawyers routinely delay filing lawsuits to boost their fees. This bill will stop that practice and let that time and money be used instead to increase access, not pad the pockets of unethical lawyers. This bill will provide access months sooner than under current law. This is a pro-civil rights bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they oppose our bill to increase sanctions on unethical lawyers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the affidavit that I cited in my earlier remarks. United States District Court Southern District of Florida Case No. 1:17-cv-24116-KMM Enrique Madrinan, Plaintiff, v. Harbour Shopping Center, Inc. and Luza Corp. d/b/a Donut Gallery Diner, Defendants. DEFENDANT LUZA CORP.'S NOTICE OF FILING AFFIDAVIT IN RELATION TO DOCKET

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from Maryland. The technical requirements of title III are constantly changing. We have seen numerous revisions to both regulations and guidance, not to mention the resulting case law that affects its interpretation; therefore, the regulatory requirements of the ADA in 1991 are not the same as those today. There is no better example of these changes than the rise of the internet, which came into its current existence after the ADA was enacted. As people no longer need a physical storefront to have a business, the courts have struggled to apply the ADA's public accommodation requirements. There is, for example, a current circuit split as to whether companies operating exclusively online are subject to these requirements. And with continued advancements in technology, we will continue to see changes to the regulatory requirements. It is perfectly reasonable for small-business owners, many of whom are disabled themselves or of minorities, to have the opportunity to fix a problem before a predatory lawyer simply brings an action for the purpose of recovering--not fixing the problem, but getting money that could have been better spent by that small business fixing the problem. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers remaining other than myself and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the House Judiciary Committee, over decades, has heard testimony from many disabled owners of businesses, several of whom have testified before the committee who themselves have been extorted by trial lawyers to pay thousands of dollars to lawyers. That money could have been spent on making small adjustments to the premises to easily overlooked technical violations. Let me give you an example. Take the testimony of Donna Batelaan, who owned a store for the disabled, and herself used a wheelchair. It was a store devoted entirely to selling accessibility devices and similar items. She was made to pay $2,000 in attorneys' fees for a simple fix that cost $100. Clearly, Mrs. Batelaan was deeply interested in accommodating the disabled, yet she, too, was caught up in a legal shakedown. She said the following before the House Judiciary Committee: ``We have co-owned a mobility equipment business in south Florida for the last 20 years. Our parking lot and our building are totally wheelchair accessible. We employ two people who use wheelchairs, and we ourselves use wheelchairs, and all of our customers have mobility limitation. We had not painted the lines and posted a sign on''--just one of the-- ``handicapped spot that is required by ADA. An attorney from New Jersey, without notice, filed a suit against us. It cost us less than $100 to correct the infractions and $2,000 for attorneys' fees.'' ``The original intent of ADA was to provide access and opportunity to American life for all people with disabilities, not to give the legal profession an opportunity to make more money.'' As Abraham Lincoln's name was mentioned previously, I want to quote him on the subject of unnecessary and wasteful litigation. In his notes on a law lecture he delivered, here is what Abraham Lincoln had to say: ``Discourage litigation. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser--in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.'' And finally, to that same point, I have to say it is simply ethical practice for lawyers to give a business a heads-up of a potential violation before a lawsuit is filed. There are many other examples in Federal law where that notice to the defendant to cure, including in civil rights actions, is afforded. It should be afforded here as well. Indeed, the vast majority of lawyers do what this bill requires as a matter of simple ethical lawyering. But many lawyers don't act professionally, and they abuse the law to shake down businesses, taking money away from compliance and putting it into their own pockets. All this bill does is require those unscrupulous trial lawyers to do what ethical lawyers already do: give fair notice of a violation before thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees are racked up against a small business, diverting money away from accessibility where it belongs. Mr. Chairman, this is the right correction addressing this problem. It will enhance accessibility, it will encourage more work to be done, and it will not deprive anybody the opportunity to notify people that they have a problem with accessibility at their business. If they don't fix it, they will then be the subject of that very lawsuit. But the opportunity to fix it in a prompt fashion is, I think, critically important to making accessibility more available and helping small businesses in America to succeed, thrive, and create even more jobs for people with those disabilities. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I do not oppose the amendment.

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. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

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.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve 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.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Alabama, a member of the Judiciary Committee, for her outstanding work on this issue. Today, thousands of people are rallying in the Nation's Capital to be part of the March for Life and to join a celebration of hope and compassion for those who do not yet have a voice and to save the lives of the unborn. Many millions more have viewed videos of representatives of Planned Parenthood, which performs some 40 percent of all abortions each year. Those videos, recorded undercover, sadly portray a much darker side of our society. They show discussions of the exchange of money for the body parts of aborted babies. They also include discussions of instances during which in course of an attempted abortion, a baby is born intact and then shipped to a lab for the use of its body parts. Congress must move immediately to protect any children born alive during the course of a failed abortion. The bill before us today provides that in the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive, any healthcare practitioner present must exercise the same degree of professional care to preserve the life of the child as he or she would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age. The bill also provides that the child must be immediately-- immediately--transported and admitted to a hospital. If a baby alive is left to die, the penalty can be up to 5 years in jail. If the child is cut open for its body parts or if some other overt act is taken, the punishment is that for first-degree murder, which must include life in prison or the death penalty. Babies are born alive during failed abortions. The House Judiciary Committee heard direct testimony by two grown women who, as babies, survived attempted abortions. Gianna Jessen's mother was advised by Planned Parenthood to have an abortion. But as Ms. Jessen testified: ``Instead of dying, I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles.'' Her medical records state clearly that she was born alive during an abortion. She continued to say: ``Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die. I was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, which was caused by a lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving the abortion. I was never supposed to hold my head up or walk. I do. And cerebral palsy is a great gift to me.'' Just think of that for a moment. Ms. Jessen says cerebral palsy is a gift to her because it came with the gift of life. She forgave her mother long ago and gives praise each day for that gift of life, which she enjoys to its fullest to this day. Ms. Jessen presented a picture at the hearing showing the results of the sort of abortion she survived. I urge my colleagues to support the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act so others who survive failed abortions can have the same chance to be as thankful as Ms. Jessen and to support all efforts to save the unborn as well.