the constitution of civil justice comes to order. the chair is authorized to declare recessed committee at anytime. welcome to you gentlemen. sorry for being a little late. we called this hearing today to examine hr-3765, the a.d.a. education reform act of 2015 and hr-241, the access act of 2015, which are two common sense proposals that require plaintiffs to require defendants with written notice and opportunity to correct an alleged a.d.a. violation voluntarily before they may file a lawsuit and force a business owner to incur legal costs. -- overall purpose. when a.d.a. was signed into law by george h.w. bush, it was to provide the disabled with equal access. it's hailed as the most sweeping, non-discrimination legislation of the act of 1964. enterprising plaintiffs and their lawyers have abused the law by filing a flurry of a.d.a. lawsuits aimed at churning out billable hours rather than improving access for the disabled as the a.d.a. intended. these predatory lawsuits are possible for two chief reasons. first, 100% compliance with the a.d.a. is very difficult to achieve. even though good faith efforts, such as bringing or hiring an a.d.a. compliance expert, a business can find themselves subject to a lawsuit for almost any minor or unintentional fraction. according to one a.d.a. compliant specialist, i rarely, if ever see circumstances or instances where there isn't an access violation somewhere. i can find something wrong anywhere. this makes compliance a challenge, even for those with the very best of intentions. second, unlike title ii of the civil rights act, it does not require notice before a lawsuit can be filed. this has led to thousands of lawsuits filed for issues of relatively minor noncompliance such as a sign being the wrong color or the wrong wording. abuse of a.d.a. has been noted by judges around the country who referred to the plif ration as a quote, cottage industry. these judges recognized the explosion of private a.d.a. litigation is primarily driven by the a.d.a. attorneys fee provision. one federal court explained that, quote, the ability to profit from a.d.a. litigation led some law firms to send disabled individuals to as many business zs as possible to have them aggressively seek out all violations of the a.d.a., end quote. then, rather than notifying the business of the violation and attempting to remedy them, lawsuits are filed. as settlement prior to a lawsuit does not pertain to legal fees. there is incentive. a federal judge observed, the means or enforcing the attorney's fees have become more important and desirable than the end, which is accessibility for disabled individuals. but the a.d.a. was enacted to protect disabled individuals, not support a litigation mill for entrepreneurial plaintiffs attorneys hunting for a.d.a. violations just to file lawsuits. these bills examined today would help eliminate predatory a.d.a. lawsuits, increase compliance with the a.d.a. giving businesses the opportunity to fix a.d.a. violations instead of dragging them into litigation and improve the reputation into the eyes of the public and improve access to individuals. lawsuits would be reserved for instances which offenders are unwilling to make appropriate changes. this would allow legitimate claims to move through the legal system faster, requiring notification will benefit the economy. many small business zs have been forced to close because of accessibility lawsuits and others unnecessarily spent thousands of dollars litigating claims. they are critical to america's economic recovery and should not be burdened by unnecessary litigation. i's an honor to have congressman ted po who introduce 3765 and ken calvert who introduced hr-421. both here to testify about their respective bills. i look forward to your testimony and the testimony of other witnesses. with that, i recognize the ranken member, mr. cohen for his statement. >> thank you, mr. chair. colleagues, it's good to have y'all hear. this is not the first time there's been a hearing on this type of issue. since 2000, there have been, i think three times the bill has been filed for hearings on. prenotification concerning a.d.a. i met previously from the hotel world and the disability community and tried to get a better grasp on the issue and come up with some type of reasonable solution. it's difficult to do it. the folks don't really want to change from their positions they've got. some are based in 1990 and they tell me, this is what we did in 1990. that's fine, i wasn't there in 1990. my job is not to ratify whatever happened in 1990. when we look at these cases, private parties are indespenceable for enforcement of civil rights law. this is a civil rights law. we have to have private attorney generals and they have been so effective in many areas and seeing our laws are enforced, civil rights and the a.d.a. because of that, there was the agreement in 1990 that said there wouldn't be damage to the cases under the a.d.a., but would have attorney's fees. it was a compromise that was done. i understand some folks think their attorney is out there throwing out wide nets. they don't really have a specific target. i think that's wrong. definitely think that's wrong. i have suggested to them, coming up with some type of solution, part of that is in the bill, i think. you have to have specificity in your complaint and tighten it up to see that they have not just a complaint, but a specified or specific complaint. i don't know why rule 11 hasn't worked against those type of complaints in the past. so be it, maybe that would help. if you get into a situation where you obviously the title of this hearing is the examining legislation to promote the effective, i know it's effective enforcement of the a.d.a.'s provisions. we have to presume in there that we want to enforce the a.d.a.s public accommodations. most of what we got here is not so much for enforcement but limiting enforcement. that's kind of just position in my mind and what i see as the focus of the legislation. you can't -- i never seen a criminal penalty that would be created to anybody who asserts a civil right. this would be a case where you could have a civil penalty or criminal penalty if you don't give your provision. that seems harsh. some folks agree it is harsh. that would be -- but there can be abuse. i think there might be abused. if there are, i want to clean them up. i did that with this committee and looking at trolls that i know they are not your pals, mr. poe, they may be in marshall county. it's not great we are on there. i suggest if you want to amend this notification, you ought to have something that also awards the good guys to clean up the mess after 120 days. they will come forth and get notice. that's what you want to get. you want mirrors or signs or rails or whatever taken care of. if the good guys do it, great. but if they don't, you have bad actors or if they lolly gag, then you have to have a stick and if you change this, you have to have a stick to see the bad guys get punished. i'm not sure how you do it, but not just give a notice provision and time to maybe be dilatory, but punish them for not being good guys. one thought is damages, liquidated damaged or an amount to what it requires to fix the area or maybe some other kind of damages we can come up with to punish the owners that aren't the good guys. you have to have consequences for those people, otherwise, they are getting a benefit and not being the folks i know they are interested in helping through this action. the folks with the a.d.a. community, i mean, they want, like i want, the a.d.a. enforced and this is not about attorneys, this is about a.d.a. provisions. but, the attorneys do bring the cases with the notice provision of not getting attorney's fees, bring a problem to the attention to the business community and clean it up and the other side gets nothing. unlikely, there's a continued interest in those people, attorneys to follow through and help in giving the notice provisions, advising the clients and procure clients with the a.d.a. it's the way the system works. you have to have skin in the game and you are taking it out. that's going to hurt the enforcement here unless we come up with the back end that makings it sweeter. i'm a lawyer and i have a disability. i helped pass the a.d.a. state statute in tennessee and i'm interested in seeing its enforced properly, but not interested in seeing businesses get wide nets thrown and be subject to folks looking out for attorneys fees than the disabilities. members of the bar and people with disabilities. i hope we have a fruitful discussion. i know we will. i hope we come up with a solution. i think there's good ideas here. i don't think the solution is here and we need to look at a stick to make sure the bad guys get slapped and the good guys can deal with the notice. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. that's just the way it is. >> i thank the gentleman. i now yield to the ranking member of the committee, mr. conyers, from michigan. >> thank you, chairman franks. top of the morning to you and our distinguished witnesses and the guests that have joined us this morning. the three bills that are subject of today's hearings would institute a notice and cure requirement under title iii of the americans and disabilities act of 1990. specifically, these measures would prohibit a lawsuit from being commenced unless the plaintiff first gave the business owners specific notice of an alleged violation an opportunity to fix or make substantial progress toward remedying such violation. let me begin by stating what i said previously when similar proposals were considered by our committee in the year 2000 and again in the year 2012. quote, i am adamantly opposed to any effort to weaken the ability of individuals to enforce their rights under title iii accommodation provisions. and here is why. first, the notice and cure requirement will generate numerous litigation traps for the unwary and ultimately dissuade many individuals from pursuing their legitimate claims. for example, two bills would require a complaintant. they fail to define what constitutes notice nor define progress toward compliance. as a result, courts will have to struggle to determine what these inherit terms mean. thereby an open invitation for business interest to engage in endless litigation, possibly, that would drain the typically limited resources of a plaintiff. in addition, these measures would undermine a key enforcement mechanism of the american with disabilities act and other civil rights laws. the credible threat of a lawsuit is a powerf fuful inducement to businesses to proactively comply with the act's requirements. yet a presuit notification requirement would create a disincentive to engage in voluntary compliance as many businesses would simply wait until receiving a demand letter before complying with the law. in this requirement also would discourage attorneys from representing individuals with claims under title iii because attorney fees may only be recovered if litigation ensues. thus, an individual with a title iii claim would not be entitled to recover such fees, if the extent of the attorney's representation was limited to drafting the demand letter. presuit notification would make it even more difficult for disabled persons with valid title iii claims to obtain legal representation to enforce compliance with the act. finally, title iii by its terms, its already designed to make compliance relatively easy for businesses. so, i am pleased to join the hearing and yield back any time remaining. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. without objection, other members opening statements will be made part of the record. before i introduce the witnesses, i would like to submit two statements for the record. the first from theater owners in support of hr-3765, the second is a coalition letter in support of hr-3765. without objection, they will be entered into the record. let me introduce our witnesses, two distinguished panels today. i will introduce the first panel of witnesses. our first witness is representative ted poe. mr. poe represents texas second district and member of the judiciary and foreign affairs committee. glad to see you. the second is representative ken calvert and is a member of the house appropriations committee. glad you are here. so, i would now recognize our first witness, congressman ted poe. if you turn that microphone on, i know -- yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for allowing me to be here. i want to thank the ranking member and congressman calvert for his work on this issue for a good number of years. as it has chairman pointed out, or has pointed out in the past, i'm a former judge, prosecutor, lawyer, been in the legal profession for almost 40 years. this is a situation where, this particular hearing we are having deals with, i think, abuse of a good law. i believe strongly the a.d.a. it needs to be always enforced and the goal of the legislation is to make sure that when there is a violation, anywhere across the fruited plain, that the violation get fixed so there is accommodation for the citizen to get into that business. but the legislation hopes to prevent what is occurring that there are lawsuits being filed, not to get accommodation for the citizen, but to get money so that people settle and the alleged violation may or may not ever be addressed. and what happens is that lawyers are making a lot of money off these, what i think are frivolous lawsuits, to the detriment of the person who is actually being prohibited to going into some business es because the goal is not being reached to allow accommodation. what is happening is lawyers are filing lawsuits, businesses settle, rather than go to court and the lawyer gets, we don't know how much of that money. so, then the last ten years, these frivolous lawsuits have been filed under the public accommodations section of the a.d.a. some of these lawsuits are, in my opinion, shakedowns for business zs. and they are using the a.d.a. as a basis to obtain quick obtain settlements rather than go to court. for example, some of these law firms -- and there are specific law firms in different areas of the country that do this -- will file notice or give a letter stating that there is not a proper pool lift in a particular motel or hotel. and many of these -- some of these hotels don't even have a pool or these motels. but the businesses settle rather than go to court because of the cost of litigation. and that is the motivation of these lawsuits, and we're talking about settlements of around $5,000 apiece. often the same individuals or organization whoz are making many of these claims go from business to business, and it's a business model that's been working especially in the last two years where 10,000 of these lawsuits have been filed. in florida, a plaintiff named howard cohen, no relationship to the ranking member, has filed 529 of these lawsuits. california martin vogel has filed 124. in pennsylvania christopher milo has filed 21 of these lawsuits. and in some cases, like howard cohen, he sued the marques sa hotel in key west for an alleged violation of their pool despite the fact he was never a registered guest at the hotel. sounds somewhat suspicious. the a.d.a. expert who actually wrote part of the a.d.a. bill, bill norkus helped the hotel fight in this particular case and he stated that cohen was essentially operating a, quote, continuing criminal enterprise that boils down to extortion. that does not get people into these motels. it does not accommodate these individuals. it allows for, as he he said, shakedowns for many to be collected by the a.d.a. trolls. and some of the letters and notices are so nebulous that the person receiving the notice doesn't even know what the violation was. we have a realty company in houston that manages many shopping malls, and in one particular shopping mall there's 40 parking places that are painted blue and a.d.a. compliant but they're still sued because the violation doesn't -- the letter doesn't allege what the specific violation is. so this bill will require basically three things, that they be put on notice so they can fix the problem before there's a lawsuit. if that's the goal, to fix the problem, put the business on notice. if the business doesn't respond to this notice within 60 days, lawsuit commence. if the business then doesn't fix the problem within 120 days -- and i think that could be worked on how many days -- file the lawsuit. that does not prohibit the citizen from filing, getting their day in court. but if we want to fix the problem, let's fix the problem. it also allows for arbitration if the sides want to arbitrate. it's not required under the law. it's voluntary and it also require that's the justice department come up with some very working with the industry and the people in the a.d.a. community, different models on how they can educate all businesses throughout the country on what the a.d.a. says and how they can comply with the law as it is written. so that is what this legislation is, it's to put them on notice, fix the problem, get it a.d.a. compliant. it's not to really allow for these frivolous lawsuits to be -- the money going to i think the attorneys rather than fixing the problem. and i'll yield back my time. and that's the way it is. to the chairman. >> and i thank the gentleman. and you i would now recognize our second witness, representative calvert. sir, if you'd make sure that microphone is on. >> thank you, mr. chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee and the constitution of civil justice. i thank you for the opportunity to testify today on hr-241, the access act. as you know, the a.d.a. as mentioned is undoubtedly one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation that we've passed in this country. we can all agree that providing all americans with access to public accommodations is an invaluable legislative objective. the purpose of a.d.a. is to ensure access to disabled public accommodations provide appropriate remedial action for those who have suffered harm as a result of noncompliance. although there are times when litigation by harmed individuals is necessary there's an increasing number of lawsuits brought under the a.d.a. that are based upon a desire to achieve financial settlements rather than achieve the appropriate modifications for access. these lawsuits filed by serial litigants often referred to as drive-by lawsuits place exorbitant legal fees on small business oftentimes business owners are even unaware of the specific nature of the allegations brought against them. in early 2011, frivolous a.d.a. lawsuits against small businesses reached an all-time high throughout california. as a result, my good friend and colleague former congressman dan lundgren opened the issue and introduced the original access act in the 112th congress. i was pleased to have been afforded the opportunity to take over the legislation for reinduction of the 113th congress. in january 2015 i reintroduced hr-241 the access act. hr-241 is a cost-free commonsense piece of legislation that would alleviate the financial burden small businesses are facing while still fulfilling the purpose of ach d.a. any person would provide the owner or operator with a written notice violation spifk enough to allow such owner or operator to identify the barrier to their access. within 60 days the owner/operator would be required to provide the agreed person with a description outlining improvements that would be made to address the barrier. the owner/operator would have 120 days to make the improvement. the failure to meet any of the conditions would allow the lawsuit to go forward. without question, we must ensure that individuals with disabilities are afforded the same access and opportunities as those without disabilities. as a former small business owner and restaurant owner, i personally have had to deal with these serial litigants and i can say for certain that frivolous lawsuits do not accomplish any goal. ayou louing small business owners to fix a.d.a. violations within 120 days rather than waiting for lengthy legal battles to play out is a more thoughtful, timely and reasonable approach. bhiel the a.d.a. is a national law, as i mentioned earlier, california has become ground zero for a.d.a. violation lawsuits. in fact, california is home to more federal disability lawsuits than the next four states combined. a 2014 report determined that since 2005 more than 10,000 federal a.d.a. lawsuits have been filed in five states, with the highest disabled populations 7,188 of which were filed in california. as of 2/14 according to the u.s. census bureau, 31 attorneys made up 56% of those federal disability lawsuits in california. those figures are the real-life toll it takes on small business owner owners. it is clear that it's not just a major problem in california. the introduction of similar legislation by the gentleman from texas mr. poe allows just that. his legislation authorizes a training education component for affected community and certified excess specialist which i would welcome and embrace as an amendment to my legislation. this is also a bipartisan issue supported by states. i was pleased to see the that california sb-269 the text of which i would like to submit for the record as well as a related article passed unanimously in the state assembly and senate and was signed into law by governor jerry brown on may 10, 2016, just a week ago. the legislation authored by my friend a democrat state senator richard roth is similar to the access act and it allows businesses to take immediate steps to become accessible by providing them with 120 days from receipt of a certified access specialist report to resolve any identified violations without being subject to litigation costs or statutory penalties. i worry that with california acting to curb these lawsuits some of these serial litigants will try their trade in other states. maybe they'll move next door to arizona. without question, the access act would ensure that the a.d.a. is used for its true purpose of guaranteed accessibility to public accommodations for all americans while eliminating abusive, costly and unnecessary lawsuits for small business owners. once again, i appreciate your time today and stand ready to assist in any way possible and ensure this legislation moves forward. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. in fact, i'd like to thank both representative poe and representative calvert for their time and expertise. grateful for your testimony. and i would now like the members of our second panel of witnesses to come forward. >> i want to welcome all of you. our first witness on this panel is lee ky. ms. ky operates and manages a doughn doughnut shop owned by her mother. her family's business has been the subject of abusive a.d.a. lawsuits. our second witness is mili shah. mili shah is an attorney and a hotel owner in atlanta, georgia. our third witness is kelly buckland, mr. buckland is the executive director of the national council on independent living. and our fourth and final witness is david we eiss, executive vice president and general counsel of a company that owns and manages retail properties. each of the witnesses' written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. i would ask each witness to summarize his or her testimony in five minutes or less. to help you stay within that time, there's a timing light in front of you. the light switches from green to yellow indicates you have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, it indicates that the witness' five minute is expired. before i recognize the witness, it's the tradition of the subcommittee that they be sworn. so if you'd please stand to be sworn. for those who can't stand, just raise your hand. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. i would now recognize our first witness, ms. ky. and turn that microphone on and pull it close to you. >> can you hear me? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. my name is lee ky. i live in rig by, california. i am here to express my concern about the americans with disabilities act. you i understand that all businesses must be accessible for all customers. i have been disabled all my life. and i am grateful for president george bush who recognized the needs for accessibility for the disabled community when he signed a.d.a. into law in 1990. buildings should have accessible entrants for both wheelchair and stroller users. public facilities that have an eating area and restroom should be accessible with tables wide enough and high enough for wheelchairs to fit. the eating area should not be designated just for the disabled people. and eating areas should not have a sign that says for wheelchair only. accessible buildings allow people with disabilities to become more independent and self-sufficient. as for me, i appreciate businesses that have accessible facilities. but personally it does not matter if the grab bar is at 37 inches or at 32 inches on either side as long as it's providing and is there when i need it. all business owners have to recognize the needs for all customers. for example, many businesses provide carpet or rubber mat at entrance outside or inside to prevent able bodied customers from slipping. many business owners are not aware of the changes or new regulations related to a.d.a. not all businesses are up to date -- up to code with the a.d.a. guidelines of the regulations because due to the lack of information from our cities, states and federal not informing the public regarding the changes. my mother has two doughnut shops and has been sued at both locations for a.d.a. violations. it is not fair for business owners to receive a lawsuit package from a law firm that is out of our city and county limits. prior to filing a lawsuit, notification should be sent to a business if their facility is inaccessible. that means inside of the building has obstacles or steps for the entrance and the facility is too narrow. now that business facility is not up to code with the a.d.a. therefore, the particular places or businesses should be corrected immediately with penalty. however, my mom's doughnut shops in the city of reyly was built in 2000 and do not have architectural barriers. i would know. i am there. all businesses should have 30 days to correct minor violations and 120 days for construction barriers. in my experience, the carpet or the mats have never become entangled in my wheelchair. if the a.d.a. regulations remains the same and require businesses to remove all carpets or mats for the inconvenience of the disabled people, then the a.d.a. will be creating a hazard for the able-bodied person. we the disabled community should not be able to feel separated from the rest of society. this will create bitterness between the customer and the business. i do not need a sign to inform me that i am disabled and where i should sit. the a.d.a. should concentrate on accessible curbs and ramps that do not wrap around the building and in the back door access point. generally when i enter through the back door i feel like businesses are embarrassed or ashamed to associate with me because of my physical lim limitatio limitations. this is understandable to apoint because there are a few disabled individuals including lawyers that make it their personal mission in life to collect money from businesses. that they have never been to. it seems this handful of lawyers think they are only helping the disabled community, that they are helping the disabled community. moreover, they are separating the disabled community and the abled community. the lawyers are causing the abled-body communities to dislike the a.d.a. that makes the small business owners who are trying to earn an honest living look bad. throughout my life people are generally very helpful. when i am out and about in the community, people offer their kindness to assist me whether i accept or decline is up to me. i also have a voice if i need assistance. i can ask for help. i do not want business owners to cringe when they see me enter their establishment. personal experience i was at downtown state capitol and had to use the restroom. i spotted a bar and a restaurant and i asked if i could use the restroom. then they asked me if i'm going to buy a drink. my aide responded, no, she does not drinktion but she needs to go to the restroom. no, they did not give me permission to use the restroom. since the a.d.a. lawyers are going to sue small business, they are posting signs on their windows, no public restroom. i would like to see the a.d.a. regulation or federal law to be fair and not be taken advantage of or misused by people that know the laws such as lawyers and certified access specialist person. i believe our elected officials and city inspectors should inform the public of all new laws and changes. if this is honestly -- continue, many businesses will be forced to shut down and there will be many empty buildings in our community because they do not have the money to pay off the laws. to me, this is wrong and misusing the a.d.a. i never -- which limit statutory damages for certain minor or technical violations of the a.d.a. in my opinion, a lawsuit is still a lawsuit. it doesn't matter if the amount is reduced. thank you. >> i thank you, ms. ky. i now recognize our second witness ms. shah. ms. shah, is that microphone on? >> chairman franks -- >> would you turn that microphone on, ms. shah? >> it is on. >> chairman franks -- >> ms. shah, you may have to bring that closer to you. i'm not sure -- >> can you hear me? >> yes, ma'am. >> chairman franks, ranking member cohen and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. it is an honor to appear you. my name is mili shah and i'm a second generation hotelier and attorney from georgia. my parents migrated from india in the 1980s. i spent the first eight years of my life on the third floor of daze inn, a place i called home. 30 years later, my family owns several hotels that employ nearly 400 people. i personally own two hotels in atlanta, georgia, which amount to 150 guest rooms and employ over 20 dedicated employees. i am also here representing the asian-american hotel owners association, owning over 40% of all hotels in the united states and employ eefr 600,000 american workers accounting to $10 billion in payroll annually. recently smalls businesses have come under attack unstrup euless attorneys and plaintiffs seeking to make a quick buck. these bad actors manipulate one of the most important civil rights laws in our country, the americans with disabilities act. i was recently sued for allegations and violations of of the the a.d.a. at my hotel in atlanta. i was surprised to think that a guest at my hotel was denied service. i contacted the general manager to learn that the plaintiff had never actually stayed at our hotel nor was there any evidence that he or his attorney had visited the property. the claims in the complaint were extremely vague and general. among several broad issues he stated a failure to provide accessible entry into our hotel's pool. my swimming pool at my hotel has been closed since the day i purchased it. it is empty and covered with a tarp. was i being sued for failing to provide entry into a part of my hotel that has always been closed to the public? i researched the plaintiff and his attorney and found out that they have sued nearly 100 businesses and each suit is almost identical. in fact, the same plaintiff and the same attorney has sued my father with the same complaint at one of his hotels. it is clear that this plaintiff has no desire to stay at the properties and that the attorneys are using him as a proxy. i now have two options. i can either fight the suit, subject my business, employees, families to months of intrusion and litigation and pay thousands of dollars in attorney's fees or i can settle with the plaintiff and pay his attorney thousands of dollars in which the attorney will likely be the only one with the financial gain. we cannot afford to pay out settlement after settlement and defend against meritless suits aimed at preying on our fears. hoteliers are targeted because so many of us are minorities. settling would imply that i'm guilty of violating a civil rights law. it would send a signal to my customer that's my hotel is substandard and i do not care for my guests an adverse decision could impact my ability to finance additional properties and grow my business. it is a no-win solution. we need to find a solution that discourages attorneys from abusing the a.d.a. for dishonest purposes. hr-3765, the a.d.a. education and reform act, is a vehicle that balances the important protections conferred by the a.d.a. with affording small business owners the opportunity 0 address any issues that may exist. the bill requires a detailed description of a potential problem, a requirement to provide notice and a cure period in order for the owner to provides and address the areas of concern. it will also provide a collaborative solution that provides improffered accessibility. mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. i appreciate your listening to how an unscrupulous attorney has targeted me and several others in an effort to exhort money under the guise of promoting accessible under the a.d.a. he we are hoteliers. we are in the business of hospitality. the crux of our industry is to provide a welcoming, enjoy able and enjoyable environment for our guests. i ask you to consider my story when evaluating this bill. support small business owners like myself who want to run our business free of the fear that the next envelope we might open might be a lawsuit that closes the doors to our hotels. thank you. >> and thank you, ms. shah. and i would now recognize our third witness, mr. buckland. and mr. buckland, is that microphone close to you and on, sir? >> can you hear me, mr. chairman? >> yes, sir. >> mr. chairman and ranking member conyers and members of the subcommittee, my name is kelly buckland. i'm executive director of the national council on independent living. ncil is the oldest disability national grassroots organization run by and for people with disabilities. we go by ncil, right? ncil membership includes people with disabilities center for independent living, state independent living councils and other disability rights organizations. ncil advances the independent living and the rights of people with disabilities and we envision a world in which people with disabilities are valued equally and participate fully. centers for independent living addressed discrimination and barriers that exist in society through direct advocacy. these barriers are sometimes architectural, but more often reflect attitudes and principles that have been reinforced for generations. they have deterred people with disabilities from working, leaving many in poverty and unjustly detained in institutions. as my own life experience has proven, with increased opportunities, individuals with disabilities can claim their civil rights and participate in their communities in the same way that people without disabilities do. i broke my neck in a diving accident on july 26, 1970. i have used a wheelchair ever since. coincidentally, the americans with disabilities act was signed into law on july 26, 1990, by president george h.w. bush, exactly 20 years to the day after i got my disability. therefore, i had 20 years of experience living with a disability prior to the americans with disabilities act. and now i have 26 years of experience living with a disability post ada. fortunately, the ada has literally changed the face of the globe. although i'm honored to be here, i am here to testify in opposition to the so-called ada notification bills. as congressman sensenbrenner conyers and adler know, the original a.d.a. amendments passpass ed and signed into law passed because people with disabilities, bipartisan lawmakers and businesses worked together. the various efforts to make it harder to bring a title iii lawsuit have never followed the same process and never enjoyed support from people with disabilities or the organizations that support them or the organizations that represent them. people with disabilities don't want more lawsuits. we want more accessibility. adding a notification requirement won't make the multiple lawsuit phenomena go away. it simply sends the message to business owners that they don't have to worry about complying with the a.d.a. until they get a letter. in most parts of this country, it is very difficult to find a lawyer who is interested in bringing an a.d.a. complaint against a place of public accommodation because they can't collect damages. when the a.d.a. was enacted as a compromise between the disability and business community, the disability community gave up the ability to obtain damages under title iii of the a.d.a. by allowing adjunctive relief and attorneys' fees. unfortunately, there are still businesses and companies who have yet to comply with this important civil rights law, even after 26 years. the problem here that these bills are trying to address have little to do, if anything, with the a.d.a. title iii does not provide for damages. settlements or court orders only can involve attorneys' fees. and in the states that some of the witnesses are from, those state statutes, like california, which has been mentioned, allow the people to get damages. that's why california changed its law. damages aren't allowed in the a.d.a. there's no need to change the americans with disabilities act. there is lots of information out there. there's lots of technical assistance people can get on how to comply with the law. there is even a phone line you can call in to get information, and there is a website. there's lots of free technical assistance to businesses who actually want to comply with the law. the a.d.a. does not require businesses to do anything that would be considered an undue burden, which means that it's not readily achievable -- i mean, it is readily achievable and it can be accomplished without much difficulty or expense. and i just want to say some of the stuff that's been -- i'm going to not go through the rest of my written testimony, but some of the stuff that's been talked about around building stuff and people need to be in compliance, the state that i hail from, idaho, we changed the building code in the state so that when people do get a building permit their building's going to be built according to the americans with disabilities act. and the act really gives people ranges that they have to put stuff into. like, for instance, ms. ky can fit under this table. i can't. that's why the act allows for ranges instead of exact numbers that have to be met. so with that, mr. chairman, i know my time is running out, but just in closing, i would like to recognize yoshiko dart, the wife of mr. justin dart who is known as the father of the a.d.a. in the building. with that, mr. chairman, thank you very much. >> and thank you, mr. buckland, and welcome. i will now recognize our fourth and final witness, mr. weiss. sir, is that microphone on or close? >> yes. can you hear me? >> all right. yes, sir. >> good morning, mr. chairman, ranking member cohen, mr. conyers and members of the subcommittee. i'm david weiss with ddr corp, executive council. i've been in practice for 33 years and general counsel since 2003. ddr is a new york stock exchange-traded real estate investment trust. we own over 350 properties around the country and puerto rico and have over 113 million square feet. our tenants are some of the most recognizable national, regional and local retailers. i'm here to testify today on behalf of the international council of shopping centers or icsc, the global trade association for the shopping center industry. with over 70,000 members and over 100 countries, they represent a wide variety of owners, managers and other professionals related to real estate. first and foremost, let me say that the icsc vigorously supports both the letter and the intent of the a.d.a. we recognize and applaud the positive impact that the a.d.a. has had on our society. we also support hr-3765 introduced by congressman poe and co-sponsored by congressman peterson as ways to strengthen accessibility, the primary goal of the a.d.a. frankly, i think the legislation that we're talking about today is misunderstood. there's actually quite a bit of agreement related to the legislation. as mr. buckland noted, people with disabilities don't want more lawsuits. they want more accessibility. frankly, we couldn't agree more. we all share the goal of more accessibility. we want full compliance, we want it faster with less cost, and we want more resources, not less, devoted to improving accessibility. as an industry, our interests are aligned with the goals of the a.d.a. first of all and foremost, it's the right thing to do. many of us have experienced the challenges faced by family and friends who are disabled. second, it's in our economic best interest to do so. there's a fundamental misunderstanding and misconception that businesses don't support or want to comply with the a.d.a. let me be very clear. more people visiting our shopping centers and properties is a good thing. we work with our tenants exhaustively to find ways to encourage more, not less, people to come to our properties, and we spend millions of dollars each year to accomplish this. let me be clear again on an area where i think there is also agreement, and that relates to the bad apples. for those persons who flaunt the a.d.a., they deserve the full weight of enforcement. if they choose to ignore compliance and a lawsuit and the threat of attorneys' fees is the only way to force compliance, then so be it. but on the other hand, if a simple notice is the fastest and cheapest way to solve many unintended and often minor areas of noncompliance, why would we not encourage that? unfortunately, not everyone agrees with mr. buckland. lawsuits by a small group of lawyers have skyrocketed, a 63% increase from 2013 to 2014, over 4,700 lawsuits filed in 2015. unfortunately, there are some whose interests are not aligned with the a.d.a. these attorneys take a different approach. they file first, ask questions later. they sue, settle and move on. their interest is not in actually improving the accessibility but, rather, only in earning attorneys' fees. many never visit the property, can't tell you what violations may be there and never bother to confirm whether any alleged violations have been resolved. so why do we support this legislation? because it gives the good apples a 60-day window to respond to claims without an immediate lawsuit. it gives 120 days for the opportunity to cure any potential violations. i think we can all agree that this is the fastest, most efficient and most cost-effective way to achieve compliance. and secondly, let's not forget it also enhances education and training and encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution to actually speed up enforcement. and then let's also be clear about what this legislation does not do. it does not stop the right to sue for noncompliance. it does not limit the ability to recover attorneys' fees. it does not change the department of justice enforcement rights. it does not change state laws. what it will do is encourage compliance and stop the unfortunate abusive tactics of a few. with that, i thank you for this opportunity to testify today, and i look forward to answering any questions that you might have. >> thank you, mr. weiss. and thank you all for your testimony. we'll now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions. i'll begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. and ms. ky, if it's all right, i'll begin with you. mr. poe's bill requires a plaintiff to give a business owner notice of an alleged a.d.a. violation and the opportunity to fix that violation before a lawsuit may be filed. as a business owner, as someone disabled, do you believe it's fair to the disabled to require notice and an opportunity to fix a violation before a lawsuit can be filed? >> it's fair to insert issue that's itemized. the reason -- i believe it is fair because there's so many new update law regulation that all of you had written to, for example, for my mom's shop. there was seven items unnecessarily. it was a sticker note, a violation for the exit sign, an incorrect symbol of the restroom, the doorknobs, the mat. that is simple. i was not aware of the new regulation. so if you all that making changes, let us know, and this would not happen. if the community, if the citizen knows, this would not happen. i would like to say something. i don't think your building here is accessible. i went to the women's restroom. it's not accessible. and you guys create and make the laws and your building's not accessible. so how do you expect a normal citizen to follow your rules if you're not doing it yourself? >> thank you, ms. ky. ms. shah, critics of legislative efforts to allow for a cure period prior to commencing a lawsuit under title iii of the a.d.a. have argued that the property owners have a legal obligation to ensure their property's accessible to the disabled. these critics argue that a notice and cure legislation would create a further incentive for property owners not to comply with a.d.a. until they're sued. how would you respond to that criticism? >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i respond to the critics by saying that the fact that they're having an issue with the grace period to begin with shows and implies that they're not here to promote accessibility. all of us here in this room support the a.d.a., support americans with disabilities. we promote it. we think it's great for america. in fact, we want to fix any issues because ultimately that attracts customers to our business and we want to grow our business. so we're automatically incentivized. so a notice and cure provision would help us fix any areas of concern and promote the accessibility versus just the attorneys filing lawsuits immediately to get attorneys' fees. >> thank you, ms. shah. mr. weiss, has there been an increase in a.d.a. litigation under title iii? and if so, could you provide the committee with some background on that increase? >> yes, i'd be happy to. yes, the number of cases has grown dramatically over the last few years. frankly, that's really the driving need for this legislation. this is both a growing and expanding problem and actually just continues to grow. as i mentioned in my opening remarks, there's been a 65% increase from 2013 to 2014, and the numbers just continue to grow and grow. in particular, there are certain states where these cases are growing the fastest, california, florida, new york, texas, arizona. those combined had the largest number of suits filed, over 80% of them filed nationwide. california has approximately 40% of the lawsuits but only, frankly, about 12% of the disabled population there. so this is an ongoing and continuing problem. >> well, thank you, sir. and i will now recognize the ranking member, mr. cohen, for five minutes. >> thank you, sir. mr. weiss, is the fact that california's got their state law, and i think i heard that it includes damages. could that not be the reason why there's so many of those cases in california? >> no, i don't think so. obviously, the a.d.a.'s been in effect for 25 years. i think we all would agree it's had a dramatic impact across the country, so much so that it is just a part of the way of doing business. in our industry, it becomes second nature. we're constantly updating our properties and ensuring compliance with them. the issues that we're having here are very specific, and this legislation was intended to be -- >> let me ask you -- we have limited time -- why do you think california is particularly litigious? that's the question. >> i can't tell you exactly why some states over others, but i can just tell you that it's growing nationwide. those happen to be where the most -- >> but specifically, you mentioned texas, arizona, california and florida. there's got to be some -- aren't those the states you mentioned? >> that's where there are the most cases, but there are cases across the country. >> i'm hip to that. >> many states without -- >> but there's got to be a reason why those 4 are more than the other 46. you don't have a thought. mr. buckland, do you have a thought? >> mr. cohen, i do. those are the states that allow damages. >> all four of those states allow damages? >> yeah. >> how many other states allow damages, do you know? >> there's about ten in total. >> if there's ten total and these are four of them, that seems like what they've got in common, and that's not a national problem. seems like it's not -- ms. shah, you grasp that, do you not? >> i'm sorry? >> you grasp the fact that those four states are four of ten and that that might be the unifying or unique factor that causes the lawsuits there and not something with the a.d.a. in general? >> sure, but it's prevalent across the united states. you know, there are properties -- my property's in georgia, and the same attorney and the same plaintiff have filed the same lawsuit 100 times. >> in georgia? is it a georgia lawyer? >> correct, yes. >> let me ask you this, you heard what i was saying in my opening remarks about the possibility of having some type of damages for the folks that don't comply if there was a notice provision. would you agree that there needs to be some type of a stick to punish harshly with some sanctions the folks that don't comply within the 120-day period? >> yes. the whole idea is that you would be able to file the lawsuit. the first -- >> but that's already available. >> right. >> shouldn't there be something extra? >> such as what? >> such as sanctions, damages, liquidated damages, some amount of -- >> yeah. i mean, exactly. you can uphold that and impose sanctions. but remember, at the same time, we're also trying to run our business, and so, we're doing the best we can. >> but you're a good guy. i'm talking about the bad guys. >> of course, the bad guys do need sanctions. >> right. so, you would agree that -- mr. weiss, would you agree that that would be something that would make your proposal better? >> well, frankly, let me start on this damages issue, which you've raised before. first of all, this -- we are not talking about making changes, fundamental underlying changes, to the a.d.a. we are talking about legislation which is narrow and focused to a particular abuse for an existing enforcement mechanism. secondly, i'm not sure that damages actually will reduce the problem. in fact, it may well encourage them. more damages means more lawsuits. more lawsuits means more attorneys' fees, it means more time and resources on lawyers rather than what we're trying to -- >> damages are only for the people who don't comply with this program. your program does have a lot of beneficial purposes, yours or ted's or whoever's it is. i can see the benefit of getting compliance, but for the folks who don't comply, why not -- the damages isn't going to be a problem for the good guys. it's only going to be for the bad guys. and bad guys always have to be punished. >> i think your underlying assumption is this is only a damages issue. take florida, for instance. >> no, i'm not saying it's only a damages issue. it's probably a damages issue because of where the litigation has exploded, but i'm talking about damages is a way to have another lever out there to make people comply. all you've got is the notice. what you make is it harder to bring a lawsuit and disincentivized lawyers from being involved in the process, which will probably result in less notice of actual problems. so if you're going to do that, do something that doesn't -- you know, you don't want to have overkill and help the good guys at ddr but not the bad guys at eeq. >> with all due respect, mr. cohen, i don't think this inhibits the enforcement of the ada. i think it actually helps enforcement. and here's why. >> mr. buckland, do you think it inhibits people? >> absolutely. there's no other civil rights statute that requires notice to be able to fix the problem before you can bring suit. no other civil rights, but they're wanting to put it in this one. it absolutely -- i'll give you a couple of examples. i was in virginia beach. there's a timeshare down there. and if we sat through, like i'm sure a lot of you have experienced, if you sit through a presentation, they give you some reward, right? so the reward was to be able to go on this whale-watching tour. so we sat through the presentation, me, my wife and my son, sat through the presentation. they gave us our whale-watching tickets. and by the way, none of the timeshares -- i couldn't have purchased any of the timeshares because they're all inaccessible. not a single timeshare didn't have a step in front of it. so they're all inaccessible. so then we go to the whale-watching tour, and they tell me they don't take people in wheelchairs on their tours. so i talked to the guy that took the tickets and said, are you aware of the americans with disabilities act? he said, yes, that doesn't apply to us. i said where's the manager? can i speak to the manager? i'm the manager. i said, you still don't think the a.d.a. applies to you? and he said no. so when i got back home, i talked to the department of justice, and we went into where you work it out between you. we did that. they with very little expense built a ramp to the boat. now they take people with disabilities on their whale-watching tour. another one that just happened very recently is there's a business association here in washington, d.c., that i went to, could not get in. the front entrance is not accessible. couldn't independently enter the building either. i told them all of that. i gave them resources to get information on what the fixes were. i checked back with them about 2 1/2 months later to see if they had made any progress on making their building accessible. i got no response. so i waited for about another two weeks, sent them another e-mail asking if they had made any progress. no response. i did that three times with no response. so then i made a phone call. they weren't in so i left a message. no response to my phone call. frankly, that is most of the responses you get from -- when you notify people that there's a problem, you don't get any return response. that's what's happened to me over and over. it's what happened -- >> thank you, sir. i appreciate it. my time's out. >> i will now recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. king for five minutes. >> thank mr. chairman and i thank the witnesses for your testimony here today. i'm just thinking about how the americans with disabilities act in a way changed my life, and i want to put this narrative into the record. i happen to have been the only public building in the community that was wheelchair accessible right after the passage of the a.d.a. and so they came and asked me, would you be the host of the republican caucus in your community? and i said, sure, i'm happy to open up my doors and help people out. and then i became the chairman of that caucus and now here i am in congress. so i just slip that in as, i don't know how many different implications there are. i'm sure it's affected your lives a lot more than it's affected mine, but it's ironic that had that meeting not taken place, who knows what i'd be doing today. so i wanted to ask especially mr. buckland, and i'd ask if you could be brief in your analysis of this. but you lived through 20 years prior to the a.d.a. in a wheelchair and 26 years afterwards and you probably didn't see the immediate results of that because we had a lot of new construction that took place and refurbishing that took place. so i don't have any doubt that it's changed a lot of accessibility. you've seen it incrementally from your eyes. the question back then in 1990 was do we require compliance with the a.d.a. only on new construction or also for existing buildings and facilities? and i recall going in and doing curb cuts and making wheelchair accessible, and i'm wondering why didn't we think of that when we built the sidewalk in the first place. it was really a huge oversight on the part of our society not to see how simple and how cheap that part of the a.d.a. could have been. but what would it be like today, do you think, if the a.d.a. had been written in such a way that new construction complied but old construction was voluntary? what kind of progress do you think we would have made in the last 26 years? >> mr. chairman, mr. king, very little. i mean, if you walk around this town, most of this is old construction. so if we hadn't applied the a.d.a. to existing structures, nothing here would be -- or not nothing, but a lot of the buildings here wouldn't be required to comply. >> okay. so do you think -- and these buildings especially have got some of the oldest buildings here. in my neighborhood, it would be different for different reasons. we have a lot of new sidewalks and a lot of new curb cuts would have been done. but i just want to ask you in your perspective, and you've given it to me, and i appreciate it. i'd like to turn to ms. shah. and you mentioned that there are essentially a copy-and-paste 100 lawsuits from a single lawyer, and those lawyers in many cases -- it's either you or ms. ky that said that the lawyers had not been in the facility. so i'll ask each of you, but first to ms. shah. what does that list of plaintiffs look like when you've got a lawyer with 100 suits that are copied and pasted? what's the list of the plaintiffs look like on each of those suits? >> in my case, it's just one plaintiff and so he's using -- the attorney's using that one plaintiff to fish out other properties in the area and slap the same lawsuit on them. >> and have you looked at the plaintiffs in those other lawsuits that were filed by the same attorney? could it be the same plaintiff in some of those cases or even all of them? >> absolutely. in this case, it is the same. i mentioned that my father received the same lawsuit, same number of pages, same attorney, same plaintiff at his property. >> okay, but there are 98 others out there. what's the likelihood that that same plaintiff has also been utilized by the same attorney in a number of other cases in addition to you and your father? >> there is a likelihood that there is the same plaintiff, same attorney. there is also other plaintiffs and other attorneys. so it's an ongoing case, right? i mean, you can have one plaintiff suing 100 properties using the same attorney, and that same attorney may want to settle 100 properties, and you average $5,000. that's a lot of money. >> okay. so i'm just trying to get this concept of how this works in the attorney's office. you have an attorney that is a hotel chasing attorney, and he decides i've got a potential plaintiff here. i'm going to contact him and the two of us can go together. and now we'll file, potentially, 100 lawsuits, and you be the plaintiff, i'll be the attorney, and we'll collect this money at the expense of the businesses that never had a chance of a notice to cure, never had an opportunity to even know they were potentially out of compliance with the a.d.a. so i just -- i look at that and -- had these plaintiffs then, what's the likelihood that the plaintiff had never been in the building before the suit was filed? >> i think each case varies. in my case, i looked back one year to check the reservations to see if the first and last name ever matched. and there was no record of that person ever staying at our hotel. >> ms. ky? >> yes. >> would you concur with the testimony of ms. shah in your experience? >> yes. on that particular day, this individual sued three locations in our city, same person. and he does not live in the city. at that particular day, i was not at the shop. i came back from doing my errands and i got a package, and i asked everybody, who is this person? no one knew who he was. i even asked the medical facility that does provide wheelchairs, just to make sure if he's, you know, in the register with them or buy anything from them. they don't even know who he is. and recently, they did kind of investigate on this individual. he is an able body. he sit in the wheelchair, he goes to places and he uses wheelchairs to get what he does, and he lift this wheelchair and put back in his truck. he has no -- >> isn't that fraud? wouldn't you say that is fraud? >> that is fraud. and that's why we're here is we need to stop this. we need to stop this fraud. we need to stop this ridiculous using a.d.a. to get what they want. like mr. buckland say, that this facility he contact three times and they no respond. please go sue them. double the price. whatever that need to be done, yes. but, you know, give us a chance. like myself or ms. shah, this we don't have any barriers in our facility, no barriers. just because we don't have the information that you folks changes. the lawyer has no rights. there is no barriers. if there was barriers, please come after us. we have no problem. >> thank you very much. i thank the witnesses and yield back. >> thank you. i would now recognize the ranking member, mr. conyers, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman franks, and i thank the witnesses. could i begin by asking unanimous consent to enter into the record 14 letters from organizations that have a variety of objections to the measure that we're examining today, the consortium for citizens with disabilities, paralyzed veterans of america, the leadership conference on civil and human rights, and plenty of others. could i ask unanimous consent? they take strong exception to this measure, and i ask that these letters be included in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to just ask mr. buckland if -- we're all friends here -- mr. weiss' testimony raised any objections in terms of your experience as someone that's disabled? >> well, mr. chairman, mr. conyers, the whole issue around the written notice and you have to wait a certain time for it to cure, all of that stuff, like said in my testimony, i think that will incentivize businesses to not do anything until they do get a letter. so, yeah, i take exception to that. i also think that like just naming the number of lawsuits doesn't mean that's a bad thing. if those businesses were out of compliance, then why is that a problem that they got sued for being out of -- for breaking the law? i don't quite understand that. so there was no mention about whether or not they were valid complaints. they were just the numbers. so i'm not sure that this results in being a bad thing. >> would it be helpful if the committee knew what the results of all those lawsuits were? >> yes, i think it would. and then i also think that the department of justice could provide this committee with some information about how many complaints they've received, what the complaints were about, how the complaints were resolved, that sort of stuff. >> mr. chairman, i'm hoping that we might be able to follow through on both my suggestion and mr. buckland's in terms of getting a little bit more detail on some of these cases. now, mr. buckland, we have four witnesses here this morning. you're the only one that is opposed to this measure. so i wanted to ask you, what does the presuit notification mean for the private enforcement of the a.d.a., and what would happen if enforcement is left only to the attorney general if private lawyers stop bringing cases? >> well, i think you stated the obvious, mr. conyers. like what will happen if our ability to file suit is impeded, then we have less enforcement. like i mentioned before, the businesses will just wait until they get a letter. our experience really has been, as i mentioned, it's difficult to find attorneys that will take cases except for those states that allow damages. and so i think this is really more of a state legislation issue than it is with the americans with disabilities act. >> yes. i do, too. proponents now of presuit notification argue that it's reasonable to give businesses the opportunity to cure a violation before a lawsuit commences. but how might such a notification scheme affect voluntary compliance? >> well, again, it would impede our ability to make our businesses compliant because you'd have that waiting period, the notification. it would disincentivize attorneys. but i want to ask the opposite question, why do they need to be notified? the americans with disabilities act is out there. there's lots of information about how you comply. i mentioned that before. there's ten a.d.a. centers, one in each region of the country. and they have expertise on the americans with disabilities act, what it requires to comply. they'll even come out to your business and talk to you about what you need to do. so they should be proactive and they should be -- they know the law is there. they should get the technical assistance. they should come into compliance. >> i think that's a very good response, and you've answered all my questions very appropriately. and mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> and i thank the gentleman and now recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for holding this hearing. the americans with disabilities act fundamentally changed our society for the better. it both literally and figuratively opened the doors of public life that had been closed for too long. and i believe that any efforts that we undertake to address abuses under the current law have to protect the progress that's been made and we have to continue to ensure that our society is open to everyone. the goal that we all share is widespread compliance, full compliance with the ada. retrofitting older construction, ensuring all new construction is built inclusively from the start has always been the guiding principle. i appreciate that the original compromise that created the ada was designed to balance our national interests in accessibility with the desire to make private businesses allies in this endeavor, rather than our adversaries. and i don't want to upset the original balance that makes it -- that in any way would make it harder to work together toward our common goal of compliance. but i believe that we have to exercise strict oversight to ensure that we're achieving continued progress to accessibility. that's what the ada is meant to provide. and if abuses of the process work against those goals, then i think it requires us to stop and pay attention. in florida, which we talked about earlier, in my own state, more than one in five ada claims filed last year originated in the southern district of florida. businesses have to -- have to retain the right to do the right thing, and there has to be an incentive for them to do the right thing. the threat of a lawsuit is powerful, and it works. but for honest, good-faith actors who are making easily correctible, small fixes, things that would take a few minutes to remedy, we have to have a process that allows them to make these fixes, to adjust a grab bar, to rehang a coat hook, and to be able to do it quickly without a lawsuit. i don't take the idea of good faith lightly. it should be difficult, a difficult standard to meet. it should show that businesses are in partnership with the american people in create a society that is accessible and is welcoming to everyone, that public life is for everyone, and we want a society where small businesses can thrive doing business with everyone. now, mr. weiss, i've been told that some of the worst of the repeat plaintiffs don't even bother to follow up to see if the infractions have been corrected, which tells me that complaints often are about, more about extracting money than about making a facility more accessible. the code enforcement officer in delray beach, in my own part of south florida, was quoted as saying, "they don't care if you fix it or not. the businesses pay between $5,000 and $12,000, and it goes away. people are taking complete advantage. it's a money-maker. it has nothing to do with compliance." in your experience, what's been the follow-through of plaintiffs post settlement? >> turn up the mike -- yeah. >> i'm sorry to say it's virtually none. and that's part of the problem. we spend millions of dollars ensuring our properties are code-compliant and compliant with the ada, and we have millions of dollars invested, and then we have attorneys essentially that come to us with their hand out, not knowing, with vague claims of noncompliance. they don't have specifics. and they never bother to follow up, as long as you have paid to settle the suit. as a follow-up, i guess i would just mention, both in your district, mr. deutch, this has become -- this is not just the icsc issue. there are press reports. there was one, in fact, this week of a serial plaintiff filing 1,000 lawsuits. in response to mr. cohen's reference to lawsuits in california, california has actually passed two pieces of legislation to actually try to curb the abuse of these lawyers, even with the damages provision that he thinks will actually help. there are abuses going on. and so, california's passed legislation as well to try to limit the abuses that are occurring there. >> okay. mr. buckland, isn't there a difference between a business owner who refuses to include a required number of handicapped spaces or who refuses to make their restrooms accessible and a business owner who runs a business who has followed all of the technical assistance as best as he or she could and the grab bar is two inches too high or the paper towel holder is a couple of inches off, or the line on the handicapped parking space that is there is drawn slightly crooked? there's a difference between them, isn't there? and shouldn't we incentivize -- don't we want the people in -- the bad actors to actually have to do what's necessary? and lawsuits absolutely are required to get them to do it, but shouldn't we require or give an opportunity to the small business owner who used all good faith to comply with the law the opportunity to fix something when it might take five minutes to fix instead of making them pay $10,000 or $12,000 when a lawsuit is filed? >> mr. chairman, mr. deutch, with all due respect, if there's only -- if the only issue is the grab bar is two inches off, the business fixes that, there's no -- unless you're in a state with damages, there is no money paid out. you would only collect -- >> excuse me one second. i want to correct that. and maybe i misunderstand. but the stories i've heard from the businesses in my district, where in south florida, where one in five of these cases are filed, the story i heard from the guy who runs the bagel shop i stop in in the morning, who just shared another one of these stories with me, that he got hit with a lawsuit for one of these very minor mistakes. he's used all good faith to try to comply, and you're right, he's going to raise it by those couple of inches, and it's going to cost him $10,000 in plaintiff's legal fees, which is a cost that he never should have had to incur. >> well, i'm sorry. unless he's like somehow fought against the original complaint, why would there be attorneys' fees? >> mr. weiss, can you answer that question? >> the answer is because the suit's filed before the business owner even knows what the issue is. so to get rid of that lawsuit, you need -- you end up settling it. >> right. and all i'm trying -- i'm not -- i think the chairman understands this and the ranking member of the committee understands, there's no one on this committee who fights harder to keep the courtroom doors open for people who deserve justice in this country than i do. >> believe me, he's telling the truth. >> but in this situation all i think we're looking for is the opportunity for someone, for a small business owner to be able to -- who's exercised all good faith and has only tried to do the right thing to be able to continue to do the right thing without being forced to pay an extravagant amount of money. give them the opportunity to fix it, and they will. i really appreciate the panel for being here. i think it's a really important discussion. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> and i thank the gentleman. and this concludes today's hearing. and without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. and i want to thank the witnesses and thank the members and thank the audience for being here. and this hearing is adjourned. [ room noise ] [ room noise ] [ room noise ] [ room noise ] [ room noise ] this sunday night on "q & a," "vanity fair" columnist and slate magazine founder michael kinsly talks about his new book "old age: a beginner's guide," on living with parkinson's disease. >> parkinson's is a brain disease. so that was a nonsensical question. but what i really meant, obviously, was thinking. it going to affect my thinking? and thinking is how i earn a living. so that became pretty important. and i asked this neurologist, what's going to happen? and he says -- he was trying to tell me it wasn't such a big deal. he said, you may lose your edge, as if that was just nothing. and i thought, gee. my edge is how i earn a living. it's why i have my friends. maybe why i have my wife. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c sp-spac-span's" our campaign 2016 bus continues to travel throughout the country to recognize winners from this year's student cam competition. and recently the bus stopped in massachusetts to visit several winning students from that state. they went to the same school in foxborough where all the students in first through eighth grade attended a school ceremony to honor seventh-graders annika ofterlamb, cory muatt and sasha bates for their video titled "gunning for salt." they also made a stop in paul r. baird middle school to honor sedona wicca and her video called veteran services. and james elliott won for his video titled lgbt rights: stop the discrimination. the two were honored in front of their classmates, family members and local elected officials receiving $250 for their winning video. a special thanks to our cable partners, comcast cable and helping to coordinate