[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 30 (Thursday, February 15, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1183-H1192]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ADA EDUCATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2017


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 620.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Newhouse). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  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 consideration of the bill, H.R. 620.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0914


                     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 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 Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

                              {time}  0915

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Private enforcement of title III of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act is a critical tool for disabled individuals to gain access to 
places like restaurants and shopping centers. Most businessowners, 
however, feel blindsided when they are sued for violations they were 
unaware of.
  This has been the case even for disabled businessowners who have 
testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Lee Ky testified in 
2016. She runs one of her family's doughnut shops that was sued for 
technical violations of the ADA because a restroom sign was in the 
shape of a triangle instead of a square.
  A person who has never walked in her life, Ky testified that she is 
proud of this Nation's effort to improve accessibility by enacting the 
ADA, but she thinks that businesses should be given an opportunity to 
remove barriers before getting sued.
  Donna and David Batelaan have also testified. They were co-owners of 
a store that sold accessibility devices in Florida. Despite employing 
two people who used wheelchairs, despite themselves using wheelchairs, 
and despite the fact that virtually their entire clientele was composed 
of customers who had mobility limitations, they were sued because they 
had not painted lines and posted a sign for a ``handicapped'' spot 
required by the ADA.
  Indeed, according to their testimony, it was later found that they 
had been just one of many businesses targeted by an unscrupulous, out-
of-state attorney. According to Mrs. Batelaan, it did not matter that 
their parking lot and store were totally accessible. It was greed that 
was driving these suits.
  These examples are among many shared by businesses across the 
country. The ADA's private right of action, which was originally 
intended to be the primary enforcement mechanism to achieve greater 
access, has instead encouraged a cottage industry of costly and 
wasteful litigation that neither benefits the business nor disabled 
individuals seeking more accessibility.
  A report aired on ``60 Minutes'' on December 4, 2016, for example, 
featured several small-business owners who were subject to what are 
known as ``drive-by'' lawsuits. In such lawsuits, commonly filed by 
opportunistic trial lawyers, the plaintiff need only drive by the 
property, not actually visit it, to file a lawsuit alleging an ADA 
violation. In other cases, plaintiffs can even use Google Earth to 
target alleged violations and, in turn, file lawsuits before even 
notifying a small-business owner of the problem.
  The fact that these types of small businesses are ill-equipped to 
defend an ADA lawsuit is the reason why they are sued. Indeed, 
opportunistic attorneys are more often willing to settle for just less 
than it would cost those mom-and-pop businesses to defend themselves in 
court. According to a 2017 op-ed published in The Hill, a conservative 
estimate of the average settlement amount is $7,500.
  Given that plaintiff attorneys' motive is often to line their own 
pockets, there is little or no incentive to work with businesses to 
cure a violation before a lawsuit is filed. This results in wasted 
resources that could have been used to improve access.
  H.R. 620 is a commonsense solution because it gives businesses a fair 
chance to cure title III violations before they are forced into a 
lawsuit, while still preserving the power of the threat of a lawsuit 
when businesses fail to make the required fixes in a timely manner.
  H.R. 620 will create more access for more Americans more quickly 
because businesses would much rather fix an access problem quickly than 
face an unpredictable and expensive lawsuit that could hurt their 
ability to expand access in other ways.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
reform, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, before we discuss the bill before us today, I want to 
address the horrible school shooting in Florida yesterday.
  We mourn the deaths of those shot and killed, and we support those 
who were injured and the families of the victims. But we must also do 
more to prevent future shootings in our schools and on our streets.
  There have been 18 school shootings in this country so far this year, 
and it is only February. According to a Washington Post analysis, over 
the last 19 years, more than 150,000 students attending at least 170 
primary and secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus. 
That does not include violence outside of the classroom.
  We cannot allow this to continue. It is long past due for the House 
to consider legislation on this floor to help prevent gun violence. Our 
calls for hearings and for action on gun violence prevention 
legislation have been met

[[Page H1184]]

with silence. Congress did nothing after Columbine 20 years ago, and 
nothing after Sandy Hook 5 years ago. Inaction is unacceptable. Moments 
of silence are completely inadequate. Our citizens demand that we act 
without delay.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 620, the so-called ADA Education and Reform Act of 
2017, would undermine the civil rights of Americans with disabilities 
by significantly weakening the key enforcement tool of the ADA Act of 
1990, which is the filing of private lawsuits by discrimination 
victims.
  Congress passed the ADA 28 years ago with the goals of fully 
integrating persons with disabilities into the mainstream of American 
life and counteracting discriminatory social attitudes toward the 
disabled. By making it harder for persons facing such discrimination to 
vindicate their rights in court, this bill ultimately undermines those 
goals.
  H.R. 620 would, among other things, institute a pre-suit notice and 
cure regime under the title III of the ADA, which prohibits 
discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations, 
like hotels, restaurants, private schools, and healthcare providers.
  Specifically, the bill would prohibit a disability discrimination 
victim from filing a lawsuit to enforce his or her rights under title 
III unless the victim first notifies a business of a title III 
violation. The victim must then wait up to 180 days to allow the 
business either to comply with the law or simply to make some undefined 
level of substantial progress--whatever that means--toward complying 
with the law.

  No Federal civil rights statute imposes such onerous requirements on 
discrimination victims before they can have the opportunity to enforce 
their rights in court. Both individually and cumulatively, this bill's 
notice and cure provisions will have the effect of inappropriately 
shifting the burden of compliance with the Federal civil rights statute 
from the alleged wrongdoer onto the discrimination victim and 
perversely incentivizing businesses not to comply voluntarily with the 
ADA.
  Moreover, because H.R. 620 does not define the term ``substantial 
progress,'' the bill leaves it entirely to a businessowner's discretion 
as to whether he has made such progress.
  At a minimum, this raises the prospect of expensive and protracted 
litigation over the question of whether the business has made 
sufficiently substantial progress should a lawsuit be filed. Such a 
prospect, along with the need to wait 180 days before filing a lawsuit, 
may be enough to deter discrimination victims with meritorious claims 
from even sending a notice of violation, much less filing suit to 
enforce their rights.
  In addition, the bill's notice requirement is overly burdensome and 
excessive. Rather than simply requiring an aggrieved person to notify a 
business of the existence of an access barrier, H.R. 620 essentially 
requires the person to plead a legal case in his or her initial notice.
  For instance, a victim must cite the specific provision of the ADA 
that has been violated, describe whether the victim made a request to 
the business about removing an access barrier, and explain whether an 
access barrier was temporary or permanent. Such specific information 
may be very difficult or impossible for a discrimination victim to 
provide at the notice stage, particularly without legal counsel.
  Finally, H.R. 620 does not even address the purported problem 
identified by his proponents who claim that a pre-suit notification is 
needed to stop lawyers from filing numerous similar lawsuits alleging 
both Federal ADA claims and State law claims against numerous 
businesses in order to force quick settlements.
  That is because many States allow for damages under their State 
disability rights laws. But this ignores the fact that title III of the 
Federal ADA only permits recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees and 
costs, no recovery of money damages. In other words, it is State law, 
not the Federal ADA, which provides the financial incentive for 
pursuing numerous lawsuits.
  Additionally, the filing of multiple suits alleging violations of the 
ADA or State disability laws says nothing about the underlying merits 
of those suits or the intent of the parties involved.
  To the extent that lawyers actually engage in misconduct, courts 
already have the tools to address such misconduct, including imposing 
sanctions, refusing to award attorneys' fees, or dismissing cases that 
have no legal or factual basis.
  A pre-suit notification requirement, together with a lack of any 
requirement to actually comply with the law, is a virtual get-out-of-
jail-free card for every public accommodation in America.
  H.R. 620 substantially diminishes the primary incentive for voluntary 
compliance with title III, which is the credible risk of being sued and 
having to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
  H.R. 620's notice and cure requirements, by starkly diminishing the 
risk of litigation, would send a clear and devastating message to every 
public accommodation in America that there is no need to comply 
voluntarily with the ADA. Instead, the bill tells businesses that they 
should simply wait and see if they ever receive a notice of a violation 
and to forget about the rights and needs of people with disabilities 
until then.
  As the former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge wrote recently in 
The Hill in opposing H.R. 620: ``. . . it is unacceptable to roll back 
the civil rights of people with disabilities. We should ensure access, 
not progress. We should expect businesses to know and comply with their 
obligations, not require our neighbors and colleagues with disabilities 
to shoulder the burden of informing and educating businesses about 
those obligations. We should not turn the business of everyday life 
into a complex and legal ordeal for people with disabilities.''
  For the foregoing reasons, I oppose H.R. 620 and I urge the House to 
reject this deeply flawed bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the 
gentleman from New York.
  In point of fact, the United States Code contains several examples in 
which a potential plaintiff must provide notice before filing a 
lawsuit.
  For example, title I of the ADA, in fact, requires a plaintiff to 
first file an administrative complaint with the EEOC. Unlike a 
complaint filed in Federal court, it is a method for parties to try to 
resolve the case before litigation through a conciliation process. As 
part of this process, the complainant is required to fill out a form 
that puts the recipient on notice of the alleged issues. Title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act has a similar process.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, the goal of the American with Disabilities 
Act is to provide access for the disabled. That goal must be pursued 
and protected.
  It is important to distinguish, however, that the ADA is not intended 
to feed drive-by lawsuits and put good people out of business.
  Unfortunately, my State of California has become ground zero for 
abusive ADA lawsuits. I have heard from many small businesses in my 
congressional district that have fallen victim to abusive ADA lawsuits 
that are not aimed at improving access to the disabled. In fact, 
California accounts for roughly 40 percent of ADA lawsuits nationwide, 
despite being home to just 12 percent of the country's disabled 
population.

  Protecting small businesses from abusive lawsuits and ensuring 
disabled Americans have adequate access are not mutually exclusive 
goals. That is why I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 620 and believe 
its passage is critical to both the disabled and to our small 
businesses. By giving businessowners adequate time to make appropriate 
changes to provide access, we are returning to the original spirit and 
intent of the ADA.
  I thank my friend from Texas, Representative Poe, for his leadership 
on this issue, as well as the bipartisan group of cosponsors for their 
support. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill and ensure 
that serial litigants are no longer rewarded for taking advantage of an 
important and meaningful law.

[[Page H1185]]

  

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend, the ranking 
member, Mr. Nadler, for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  Many of my colleagues may not remember when the Civil Rights Act 
became the law of the land in 1964, but I remember. I was there. As a 
matter of fact, I gave a little blood during the sit-ins, during the 
Freedom Rides.

                              {time}  0930

  I remember the struggle, the fight, and the sacrifice of so many to 
protect the dignity and the worth of every human being. I was here 
serving in this very Chamber when the Americans with Disabilities Act 
became the law of the land 26 years later. Yet today, it is 
unbelievable; it is unreal; we are considering a bill that turns the 
clock backwards and strikes a devastating blow in the fight for civil 
rights.
  Mr. Chair, I want to make it crystal clear for the record: there is 
no place in our country for the burden to be placed on those whose 
rights have and will be violated time and time again.
  Mr. Chair, this bill is wrong, it is mean-spirited, and it is a shame 
and a disgrace that we would bring it to the floor. I urge each and 
every one of my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the chief 
sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the chairman for his 
long work on this issue, and I want to thank a couple of the 
cosponsors--this is a bipartisan bill--Congressman Peters, 
Congresswoman Speier, and Mr. Ken Calvert, who have worked on this for 
years. I appreciate the words of the gentleman who just spoke, a great 
leader in civil rights movement, but as he probably knows, title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act does require notice, as well as this legislation 
hopefully will do.
  And let me be clear. This legislation makes the ADA better because it 
requires that businesses be told and be given a chance to fix the 
problem if there is a problem.
  Under current law, that is not the case. The goal of this bill, the 
ADA legislation that we have, is to have accommodations for the 
disabled and to make sure businesses comply with that accommodation.
  When a lawsuit is filed, many times the business is never told what 
the problem is, and it may be a year or longer before that lawsuit ends 
up in a Federal court. Under this legislation, businesses, once they 
are put on notice, they have 180 days to fix the problem or make 
substantial progress.
  If the goal of the ADA is to get problems fixed, the legislation we 
have here helps that. But what is taking place in our country, Mr. 
Chair, because of the legislation that we currently have under the law, 
some lawyers, as mentioned earlier, use the legislation and abuse the 
legislation under current ADA to the disadvantage of the disabled to 
make a profit for themselves.
  And here is the way it works, Mr. Chair. A litigant, a plaintiff, 
will send a letter or sometimes file a lawsuit against a small 
business. We are not talking about the big businesses--we are talking 
about small mom-and-pop stores--and telling them they have an ADA 
violation. The letter--the lawsuit--may not even state what the 
violation is. And the letter says: ``You pay or we will continue the 
lawsuit.''
  These businesses don't have the money to hire a lawyer to represent 
them, so what do they do? They pay the $3,000, $5,000, the extortion, 
so that those lawsuits are dismissed.
  The problem that may be alleged in that lawsuit is never required to 
be fixed for two reasons: one, the lawsuit doesn't require it; and 
second, these lawsuits may not state what the problem is.
  So, if the goal of the ADA is to make businesses comply, these serial 
plaintiffs that are filing multiple lawsuits still don't require that 
the businesses, even if they get the money, have to comply with the 
alleged violation. This is happening throughout the United States.
  Let me mention just a few of these. In Florida, a plaintiff named 
Howard Cohan filed 529 of these lawsuits; California, a person named 
Vogel filed 124; Pennsylvania, a plaintiff named Mielo brought 21 
lawsuits; and even in New York, a plaintiff named Hirsch brought 24 
lawsuits.
  What are they doing?
  These plaintiffs may not even live in the State where the violation 
is supposed to occur. These plaintiffs may not even be disabled 
themselves, but they will file the lawsuit against these businesses, 
sometimes using Google Maps to find a violation in the parking lot, 
send a letter from a law firm saying, ``You comply with paying us, or 
this lawsuit''--or paying us this shakedown is what it amounts to--``or 
we will continue the lawsuit,'' and many businesses file or pay the 
extortion. It has become a profit industry.
  It doesn't help the disabled. Contrary to what the other side has 
said, these lawsuits do not help the disabled. In fact, I think these 
lawsuits are being filed on behalf of serial plaintiffs who want 
nothing else except to receive extortion money.
  Before my time is completed, I want to mention some of the Federal 
judges. One Federal judge from New York has taken notice of these 
cases.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, Federal judges have said that there are 
issues with these drive-by lawsuits.
  Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New York, in 2016, in 
his decision, said that these cases, ``are brought against small bars 
and grills, restaurants, or bodegas or occasionally corner grocery 
stores (and sometimes their landlords), which are likely ill-equipped 
financially to vigorously defend these violations, and it is to 
intimidate businesses to settle before the trial takes place.''
  I have parents that are in their 90s. I am concerned about access for 
all disabled people, and the thought that this bill makes it worse for 
the disabled is wrong. This bill makes businesses comply and puts them 
on notice. If they don't comply within the time period, then file the 
lawsuit, go after them, but businesses should be able to have the 
notice of what the problem is so that they can fix it, which is the 
goal of the ADA: to make businesses comply.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  H.R. 620, the so-called ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, is an 
attack on the civil rights of Americans with disabilities. The 
Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA, is a civil rights law 
passed in 1990 to protect people with disabilities from discrimination 
in all aspects of society.
  I recognize that the ADA falls within the committee jurisdiction of 
the Judiciary Committee, and I am here as the ranking member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce because, if H.R. 620 were to 
become law, it would have a profound effect on students and workers 
with disabilities who are trying to learn, work, or just generally 
access their community.
  Mr. Chair, prior to the ADA, people with disabilities had no recourse 
if they faced discrimination in employment, housing, transportation, 
health services, or when accessing public schools. The ADA is nearly 28 
years old, and yet we still have continued gross noncompliance with the 
law.
  H.R. 620 specifically targets title III of the ADA regarding access 
to public accommodations. Title III prohibits discrimination in public 
accommodations such as restaurants, shopping malls, and hotels. By 
adding a notice and cure requirement, H.R. 620 shifts the compliance 
burden to the victims of discrimination.
  H.R. 620 effectively provides that discrimination against people with 
disabilities can continue until somebody hires a lawyer to file a legal 
complaint of discrimination. Then the bill allows 6 more months to 
achieve some undefined substantial progress. So even when people know 
they are out of compliance with the ADA, they don't have to do anything 
under the bill until somebody files a formal legal complaint.
  Mr. Chair, this bill does not help people with disabilities. This is 
an attack

[[Page H1186]]

on civil rights. That is why the disability community and civil rights 
communities are unanimously opposed to H.R. 620.
  There are 236 organizations that joined a letter, led by the 
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, opposing the bill. More than 
500 national and State organizations signed a letter, led by the 
National Council on Independent Living, urging Congress to reject the 
bill. More than 200 organizations signed a letter, led by The 
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, urging Congress to 
reject the bill.
  The ADA was enacted to eliminate barriers of discrimination against 
people with disabilities. And so I strongly urge each of my colleagues 
to stand with people with disabilities: protect civil rights by voting 
``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Peters), the primary cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for yielding.
  One thing I want to agree with Mr. Nadler on is his comments about 
the tragedy yesterday in Florida. I completely endorse those comments 
with respect to that tragic event.
  I do rise today in support of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform 
Act. Today, as Members have heard, the ADA is being abused by a few bad 
actors who are serving their own personal interest, financial interest, 
not fighting for the disabled. They file lawsuits and immediately 
settle them for a few thousand dollars without actually requiring that 
anything be fixed. Nobody says this abuse is not happening. Nobody says 
this advances the cause of access.
  A small restaurant owner in downtown San Diego tells a typical story. 
It was sued by an attorney who had filed 50 ADA suits against 
restaurants in San Diego County in 1 year. The barriers claimed in that 
suit didn't exist. The tables were at ADA compliant height, the 
bathroom was accessible, there was access between tables, but the 
property owner's attorney told him it could cost him upwards of $50,000 
to prove it in court, so they settled with the plaintiff for $2,500.
  The serial litigant got the quick payoff he wanted although there 
were no violations that had to be fixed, and if there were violations, 
it wouldn't have required that they be fixed. We hear stories all the 
time of lawsuits settled without any barriers being fixed.
  Now, some State governments have acted to curb this abuse. And do you 
know who has led the fight against the abuse of disability laws? 
California Democrats.
  In 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed S. 269, authored by a Democratic 
State senator and passed by a majority Democratic legislature. It gives 
businesses 120 days to correct violations claimed by a plaintiff. It is 
a bipartisan solution that educates businessowners on compliance, 
redirects payouts to settle claims away from lawyers and toward 
actually improving access, and it protects against these cookie-cutter 
lawsuits filed by serial plaintiffs.

  Now, let me address some of the issues that have been raised today. 
We are trying to provide the same kind of correction at the Federal 
level.
  First, this bill doesn't turn anyone into a second-class citizen by 
requiring notice and an opportunity to cure. The concept of notice and 
cure is not new to private rights of action. In fact, it is very 
common.
  Under the Clean Water Act in which I practice, if a complainant has 
to notify violators of a violation, the violator has 60 days to fix the 
problem before he can file a private right of action.
  And in civil rights laws, too, as has been said, notice and 
opportunity to cure is common. Before you can file a lawsuit for a 
hostile workplace environment, for instance, you have to file a claim 
and give the employer the chance to fix it.
  And the same is true, quite ironically, for disability. If you want 
to file a notice on reasonable accommodation, you have to give the 
opportunity to fix it. Today, we are asking that businessowners be 
given the same chance to fix problems that we currently give employers.
  Second, the bill does not hold harmless public accommodations. Under 
H.R. 620, public accommodations are still responsible for ensuring 
access under threat of litigation. If a property owner fails timely and 
adequately to respond to a notice, she is subject to the same remedies 
that exist today.
  Third, a notice and cure period does not shift the burden of 
compliance from businesses to victims. Today, if a public accommodation 
is out of compliance with the ADA, a plaintiff--a real plaintiff who 
had a problem with it--would have to file a lawsuit to force 
compliance. Under H.R. 620, a plaintiff would be able to file a notice 
that starts the timeline to fix the problems that exist. That doesn't 
shift the burden.
  And finally, H.R. 620 does not weaken the rights of the disabled. On 
the contrary, it facilitates the removal of barriers to ensure better 
access for the disabled within a short period of time, discouraging the 
quick payoffs that do nothing for access.

                              {time}  0945

  No one solution proposed by Congress is ever perfect. I have worked 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find amendments and 
changes to the law to make the timeline for fixes tighter and to 
tighten the definitions of compliance. In fact, many of the defects 
that are noticed by Mr. Nadler, I believe, will be addressed by 
amendments today.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. PETERS. Specifically, we will have a provision for plain language 
notice, which I think is an improvement: 120-day clarification instead 
of 180 days, and a better definition of what substantial progress 
means.
  I think we can continue to improve the bill, and I hope to work with 
my colleagues and the Senate to do that. But in the face of undisputed 
abuse of one of our Nation's civil rights laws for personal gain, I am 
certain that doing nothing is the worst response.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York 
for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, because we are talking about need this morning, having 
seen Mr. Deutch in Florida, let me offer my deepest sympathy for the 
tragic loss of our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to be able to speak for many of those who 
cannot be on the floor today, and that is the millions of disabled 
Americans; and to be able to say that with all of the consternation and 
the uncomfortableness of some of the very important people in America: 
small businesses, the engine of our economy.
  I have to stand and speak for the value of civil rights and the civil 
rights of Americans with disabilities who waited for centuries to not 
be looked upon in distaste and disgust.
  I remember preceding the passage of the American with Disabilities 
Act. George H.W. Bush is a Texan, and I see often his passion for 
passing that bill.
  There are 57 million Americans with disabilities. That translates to 
1 in 5 Americans. There are 31 million Americans with physical 
disabilities.
  I heard some of their comments: ``As an older woman with 
disabilities, I feel invisible.'' Or ``I am not living; I am just 
existing.''
  The ``notice and cure'' framework included in this bill would 
fundamentally change the structure of the ADA's public accommodations 
title and remove any reasons for business to comply proactively with 
the law.
  The same as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that we now suffer because 
we gutted section 4 and section 5, and we have voter suppression, and 
people are not having their civil rights in terms of voting.
  You touch this in a way that you undermine the very existence of 
people living with disabilities. I am outraged, even though I am 
empathetic.
  But if it is a problem of lawyers, State bars can regulate them and 
State courts can regulate them. You can punish or sanction lawyers who 
do not have the proper protocols.
  Mr. Chairman, this is wrongheaded. I ask my colleagues to stand for 
civil rights for Americans with disabilities. This is not just an 
amendment. It is undermining the civil rights of those

[[Page H1187]]

who are living with disabilities. They have a right to live.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 620, the ``ADA Education and 
Reform Act,'' legislation that would infringe on important civil rights 
of Americans who live with physical disabilities.
  I am deeply troubled that the House of Representatives is taking up 
H.R. 620, legislation that would remove any incentive businesses 
currently have to comply with this longstanding civil rights law and 
undermining protections that allow millions to live independently and 
in the dignified manner they deserve.
  There are about 57 million Americans with disabilities; that number 
translates to 1 in 5 Americans.
  There are 31 million Americans with physical disabilities who use a 
wheelchair, cane, crutches, or a walker.
  And for that I commend former President George H. W. Bush, along with 
many members of Congress, for their leadership in passing the Americans 
with Disabilities Act of 1990, legislation that made our country's 
public spaces more accessible to those with disabilities.
  H.R. 620 would require disabled persons to notify businesses of a 
violation of the ADA's public accommodation provisions contained in 
title III of the act, and wait up to 180 days to remedy that alleged 
violation before a lawsuit could be filed, presenting a direct 
undermining of the civil rights of Americans with disabilities.
  The ``notice and cure'' framework included in this bill would 
fundamentally change the structure of the ADA's public accommodations 
title and remove any reasons for business to comply proactively with 
the law.
  H.R. 620's notice and cure provisions will have the effect of 
inappropriately shifting the burden of enforcing compliance with a 
federal civil rights statute from the alleged wrongdoer onto the 
discrimination victim.
  Moreover, it would undermine the carefully calibrated voluntary 
compliance regime that is one of the hallmarks of the ADA, a regime 
formed through negotiations between the disability rights community and 
the business community when the ADA was being drafted 28 years ago.
  H.R. 620 would, instead, perversely incentivize a public 
accommodation to not comply with the ADA unless and until it receives a 
notice of a violation pursuant to H.R. 620's notice provision.
  Finally, the bill does nothing to address the problem that its 
proponents seek to address, which is the purported concern with the 
filing of meritless lawsuits by certain plaintiffs' attorneys, a 
problem (to the extent that it is actually a problem) that is one of 
state law, not the federal ADA.
  This is not the first time in this Congress, or even this year, that 
I witness the Republicans, allegedly a party for state's rights, 
completely undermine the established idea that tort law should be left 
for states to legislate without interference from federal mandates.
  H.R. 620's proponents have never adequately articulated why federal 
law must be amended to address a problem driven by state law.
  Also, the bill makes no attempt to distinguish between meritorious 
and non-meritorious lawsuits and would, instead, impose its harmful and 
unnecessary requirements on all ADA claims, regardless of potential 
merit.
  I remain adamantly opposed to any effort to weaken the ability of 
individuals to enforce their rights under federal civil rights laws and 
I am concerned that H.R. 620 would undermine the key enforcement 
mechanism of the ADA and other civil rights laws, namely, the ability 
to file private lawsuits to enforce rights.
  Joining me and my colleagues in opposition is a broad coalition of 
236 disability rights groups, including:
  American Foundation for the Blind,
  the Bazelon Center for Mental Health,
  the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation,
  the National Council on Independent Living,
  the National Disability Rights Network,
  the Paralyzed Veterans of America,
  Vietnam Veterans of America,
  the AFL-CIO,
  the Anti-Defamation League,
  Human Rights Campaign,
  the NAACP, and
  the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
  Additionally, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 
opposes the bill because it would ``remove incentives for businesses to 
comply with the law unless and until people with disabilities are 
denied access'' which ``would lead to the continued exclusion of people 
with disabilities from the mainstream of society and would turn back 
the clock on disability rights in America.''
  Likewise, the American Civil Liberties Union opposes H.R. 620 because 
it would ``fundamentally alter [the] way in which a person with a 
disability enforces their civil rights and would severely limit access 
to places of public accommodations.''
  For the foregoing reasons and those discussed below, we strongly 
oppose H.R. 620 and respectfully dissent from the Committee report.
  While it is very important to protect small and growing businesses, 
we can do so without jeopardizing the rights of disabled individuals to 
have a day in court.
  I do not believe that we have crossed the T's and dotted the I's with 
all the information that we should have in trying to improve our 
situation and address the concerns of many small businesses.
  Small businesses are the heartbeat of America and the backbone of 
successful communities, which is why I have served as one of their 
strongest advocates during my tenure in Congress.
  But the reality is that H.R. 620 does not help small businesses, it 
only hurts the disabled.
  I do, however, hope that we can achieve this balanced goal through a 
different avenue.
  So today I stand with Ranking Member Nadler, Congressman Langevin and 
all those who stand for civil rights and for the rights of Americans 
with disabilities.
  For these reasons I oppose H.R. 620.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 13 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from New York has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  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.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the American Bar 
Association supports this legislation.
  Secondarily, the gentleman is talking about lawyers, not the 
disabled. Let the State bars and let the State courts regulate these 
lawyers. Sanction them, just like we have sanctions in the Federal 
court system.
  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. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, one of our great Republican Presidents, 
Abraham Lincoln, who served in this body, spoke of government of the 
people, by the people, and for the people.
  We didn't start out that way, but through civil rights movements and 
civil rights statutes, we have opened America up. The Americans with 
Disabilities Act has been a crucial piece of legislation to opening 
America up--our restaurants, our hotels, all of our business 
establishments--to tens of millions of Americans who otherwise couldn't 
fully participate fully and on an equal basis.

[[Page H1188]]

  This bill would require a totally novel requirement in the civil 
rights field, that in order to sue for violations of public 
accommodations law under the ADA, the person must first notify the 
business of their alleged violations and then wait 180 days to allow 
the business to remedy the violation, or make substantial progress 
towards compliance. No other Federal civil rights law operates this 
way. They just don't work like that. The ADA has been in process for 27 
years, and there is no reason that any business today should be out of 
compliance with a very clear directive under the ADA.
  The new notice and cure provisions will have the effect of shifting 
the burden of enforcement from the wrongdoer to the victim of 
discrimination. It would incentivize businesses not to comply with the 
ADA, unless it receives a notice of violation.
  Now, our colleagues raised questions of overzealous, or vexatious, or 
abusive litigation by certain lawyers, and we know that there are cases 
of that. They are in the handful of States that have added damages 
under the ADA.
  Understand that, under the ADA, federally, there are no damages. You 
can just get your costs and your legal fees. So some States have added 
damages.
  Then there are some lawyers who are out making trouble. We agree with 
that. Use the State bars to sanction them. If there is sanctionable 
behavior, disbar them. Deal with that problem. But don't cut the heart 
out of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which has been central to 
the ability of our people and all of our families to participate on an 
equal basis in our economy and in our society.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland just said that, after 
decades, the ADA was well understood and the law was easy to comply 
with. In many cases, that may be true, but technology has been 
advancing so quickly that there are areas where the ADA is not clear 
today, and we are in need of guidance.
  Mr. Chairman, in the great State of Georgia, scores of businesses 
have received demand letters for their websites, that their websites 
should be considered public accommodations; and demand letters to say 
those websites do not comply with the ADA, when these businesses do not 
know how to make their websites comply with the ADA.
  Fifty credit unions alone, Mr. Chairman--folks who are in the 
business of serving our communities--have received these demand 
letters, unable to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), if he would be willing, and ask if he 
is aware of the issues created by this emergence of technology and the 
predatory litigation that credit unions, community banks, and other 
small mom-and-pop businesses are facing.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Yes, the gentleman from Georgia is absolutely 
correct, I am aware of this matter.
  Also, I am aware that the gentleman joined Chairman Goodlatte and 
about 60 Members of this Chamber last year to urge the Justice 
Department to finalize a regulation in this area with the intent of 
providing certainty. Even still, it is not clear that there is a 
statutory obligation under the ADA for the Department of Justice to 
act, which is why H.R. 620 doesn't address that issue specifically.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his guidance.
  Of course, there was no opportunity for the ADA to anticipate the 
internet, to anticipate websites. So it is unclear whether or not 
Congress intended for websites to fall inside the public accommodations 
statute.
  Because of this ambiguity, though, all of the small businesses--
everyone with a website presence, Mr. Chairman--are unclear about 
whether or not they are violating the law. They don't even have a 
framework of guidance so that they could comply with the laws that I 
know each and every one of these credit unions, community banks, and 
small businesses wants to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) if he 
would be willing to commit to working with me to encourage the Justice 
Department to move forward with some guidance in this area so that we 
could provide certainty not just to credit unions and not just to 
community banks, but to all of these small businesses looking to do 
their very best to comply with the ADA?
  Mr. POE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, this 
legislation makes it better for the disabled to have access under the 
notice and cure requirement.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. The Judiciary Committee will continue to work with 
the Department of Justice and stakeholders on this. In fact, for 
jurisdictions where courts have held the ADA does apply to websites, we 
believe protections in H.R. 620 will be applicable as well.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, these are small businesses that want to do 
their very best to comply with the ADA. With guidance, they will be 
successful in that effort.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Nadler, for 
yielding and for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, as a former Delaware Secretary of Labor, I rise today 
to strongly oppose H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017. 
This bill on the floor today would roll back the clock on civil rights 
for people with disabilities.
  Twenty-seven years ago, Congress passed the transformative Americans 
with Disabilities Act, which prohibited discrimination against people 
with disabilities and mandated that they have an equal opportunity to 
participate in society. Before the ADA, a person with a disability 
could be barred from a meaningful career, education, and, really, to 
live a fulfilling life.
  Mr. Chairman, some claim that the ADA exposes businesses to 
exorbitant costs or damage awards, but this is not the norm. It is one 
of the myths that has perpetuated. According to the Department of 
Labor, 57 percent of accommodations cost nothing at all, while the rest 
typically cost only $500.
  So once you peel back the myths surrounding the ADA, we are left with 
one simple question: Why not comply?
  The monetary cost is typically minimal in comparison to the value of 
providing qualified Americans with a job or a shot at the American 
Dream; or giving an individual with a disability the means to go to the 
grocery store, pick up their children from childcare, or travel, or 
work.
  That is why these standards are so essential. They ensure real, fair, 
and equal access for everyone.
  People with disabilities simply want to live an independent life, 
free from discrimination. This bill rolls back that progress.
  I will be voting against this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

                              {time}  1000

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
620, which would violate the 28-year-old Americans with Disabilities 
Act by allowing public places to bar access to people with 
disabilities. H.R. 620 would actually allow barriers for the disabled 
to stay in place as long as ``substantial progress'' is made to remove 
them, whatever that means.
  The ADA was a compromise, giving the disability community access and 
helping businesses to comply by giving them tax credits and training. 
H.R. 620 undoes that compromise, making it virtually impossible to 
enforce the

[[Page H1189]]

ADA's goal of fairness and inclusion; and that is why the AARP, the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Council on Independent 
Living, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities oppose this 
bill.
  It is why the National Organization of Nurses with Disabilities 
``believes that H.R. 620 represents a downward spiral of the Americans 
With Disabilities Act and will impact people with disabilities' freedom 
of access . . . across the United States.''
  And it is why 55 Illinois--where I am from--disability groups, led by 
Access Living, whose president, Marca Bristo, my personal hero, helped 
enact the Americans with Disabilities Act, she says and they say: 
``H.R. 620 . . . would fundamentally harm our Nation's progress toward 
an accessible and integrated society. The bill telegraphs to 
individuals with disabilities that . . . their inclusion is not 
important.''
  Let's show people with disabilities that they do matter, that they 
shouldn't be locked out of restaurants or sporting events or job 
opportunities, that they should not be treated as second-class citizens 
in the American civil justice system. Show your commitment to the ADA 
and to civil rights, and vote ``no.''
  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 
    ENTRY THIRTY-THREE, PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO 
  PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL AND LAW FIRM REPRESENTING 
            DEFENDANT LUZA CORP., D/B/A DONUT GALLERY DINER

       7. Notably, the alleged time entries at issue in this case, 
     include authoring discovery six months in advance of the case 
     being filed. Because most cases settled upon filing, and 
     Federal Disability Advocates wanted to bill hours before they 
     settled, they had their off-site team who handled the pre-
     filing, filing, and service, serve discovery with the 
     Complaint. I repetitively told Mr. Lopez, the real person in 
     charge of Federal Disability Advocates, this practice was 
     useless because a party cannot propound discovery until after 
     the scheduling conference. I even argued that it was counter-
     productive because it led to a debate over when, and if, 
     discovery was served, which unnecessarily increased legal 
     fees. Mr. Lopez's response was that increasing legal fees was 
     what I was supposed to do, and that serving discovery with 
     the complaint was part of how to get to ten hours pre-filing.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip and one of the 
original authors of the ADA in 1990.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation.
  In 1990, President George H.W. Bush declared a long overdue 
``independence day'' for people with disabilities as he signed the 
historic Americans with Disabilities Act into law. As the House sponsor 
of the ADA, I shared the President's optimism and hope that every man, 
woman, and child with a disability can now pass through once-closed 
doors into a bright new era of equality, independence, and freedom.
  I was proud to work across the aisle on the ADA and on the ADA 
Amendments Act of 2008, the only time the ADA has ever been amended. We 
brought together outside groups from a broad range of affiliations to 
create a framework for policy that would vastly improve accessibility 
and be agreeable to all.
  Unfortunately, people with disabilities still face stubborn barriers 
to full inclusion. In the last year, people with differing abilities 
have had to fight for access to healthcare and the services they need 
to live independently and with dignity.
  Now we have on the floor a bill that would undermine the central 
tenet of the ADA: the right of victims of discrimination to seek 
redress for exclusion. Requiring victims of discrimination to provide 
notice of a violation before bringing a lawsuit is an improper shift of 
the burden of compliance onto victims, one not required of any other 
group by any other civil rights law. Not a single civil rights law 
gives this kind of provision.
  As the Paralyzed Veterans of America wrote in its letter of 
opposition: ``Veterans with disabilities who honorably served their 
country should not bear the burden of ensuring that businesses in their 
communities are meeting their ADA obligations. Instead, it is the 
responsibility of businessowners and their associations to educate 
themselves about the law's requirements.''
  Now, this law was passed some 27 years ago. There is no excuse for 
not knowing the obligations. Our laws do not require such notice for 
women, African Americans, Latinos, religious minorities, or any other 
groups protected against discrimination.
  I acknowledge that there are issues in States that have added 
compensatory damages to their State laws. There are no damages in this 
national ADA law, which was a compromise. A problem with State law, 
however, should be fixed at the State level and not with a retreat in 
the Federal law. Lawyers who file vexatious suits may well be in 
violation of their ethical obligations.
  Sadly, we are seeing that almost 28 years after its passage and 
decades of notice as to what is required, tax credits so that you can 
make changes necessary to make your place accessible, there are still 
those who have barriers to full accommodation for Americans with 
differing abilities, contrary to law. In fact, when we adopted the law, 
we didn't have it go into effect for 24 months--2 years--so that people 
could educate themselves on their responsibilities.
  People with differing abilities still have to fight day in and day 
out for the access and inclusion to which they should already be 
entitled under the law as businesses continue to dismiss their 
obligations.
  We have a colleague, Senator Tammy Duckworth. She was a helicopter 
pilot. Her legs were shot off. She now serves in the United States 
Senate. She is a disabled veteran and an American hero. She wrote the 
following in The Washington Post about this bill: ``This offensive 
legislation would segregate the disability community, making it the 
only protected class under civil rights law that must rely on 
`education'--rather than strong enforcement--to guarantee access to 
public spaces.''
  I will be voting ``no'' on this legislation in the name of upholding 
the bedrock principles of civil rights law in this country and the 
integrity of the ADA that many of us worked together to enact on a 
bipartisan basis, an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, 400 votes-plus, 
for this legislation. Let us not retreat this day. Let us not say to 
those with disabilities: You have got to wait 180 days.
  What if we said: If you are an African American and you try to go 
into a place of public accommodations and they wouldn't admit you, and 
you said, ``Well, I have got a complaint,'' and you had to wait 180 
days to have that right redressed, that is not right.
  Let us not treat those with disabilities as second-rate citizens. 
Defeat this bill.
  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.

[[Page H1190]]

  

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, 28 years after the ADA's passage, too many businesses 
remain inaccessible to persons with disabilities. The last thing 
Congress should be doing is undermining the civil rights of a discrete 
and insular minority group by making it virtually impossible to enforce 
their rights in court.
  That is why more than 230 disability rights groups, civil rights 
groups, labor unions, and veterans organizations strongly oppose H.R. 
620, including the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the 
AARP, the NAACP, Human Rights Campaign, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the 
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Paralyzed Veterans of 
America, the United Spinal Association, the National Federation of the 
Blind, and the National Disability Rights Network. I urge the House to 
abide by these groups' concerns with H.R. 620 and reject this deeply 
problematic legislation.
  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. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 620, 
the ADA Education and Reform Act. This misguided piece of legislation 
is being sold to my colleagues and the American public as a measure 
that will help people with disabilities, help businesses come into 
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and help reduce 
drive-by lawsuits in States that have gone beyond the ADA to allow for 
monetary awards. In actuality, H.R. 620 doesn't accomplish any of these 
objectives.
  What is worse, if passed, this ill-considered bill will not only 
decimate the protections that people with disabilities rely on, it will 
turn back the clock to a more segregated society, and it will unravel 
the core promise of the ADA that a disability, visible or otherwise, 
can never be grounds to justify or tolerate discrimination.
  Mr. Chairman, I am angry. I am frustrated. I am insulted. But more 
than anything, I am disappointed. Further, neither Mr. Peters nor Mr. 
Poe ever even approached me to sit down and have a discussion about 
this bill, to try to find some common ground to try to actually fix the 
problem if it is about drive-by lawsuits.
  Has the Congress really become so divorced from the human experience 
of the disability community that we are willing to sacrifice their 
rights because it is easier than targeting the root of the problem? Are 
people with disabilities, people like me, so easily disregarded?
  I am here to say enough is enough.
  Mr. Chairman, whether someone is born with a disability, develops a 
disability, or becomes disabled due to an accident or from having 
served in our Armed Forces, the fundamental truth is that it happened 
by chance, certainly not by choice.
  As the first quadriplegic elected to the United States Congress, I 
overcame many obstacles to sit beside you as a Member of this Chamber, 
but I would never have had the opportunities that I cherish today 
without the tireless efforts of those who came before me to fight for 
the rights of people with disabilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I was injured in 1980, at just 16 years of age, a full 
10 years before the passage of the ADA, and I certainly remember what 
life was like before the ADA became law. I remember that I couldn't go 
inside a public building that didn't have a ramp, couldn't travel 
without accessible transportation, and was excluded from gatherings in 
restaurants and libraries, movie theaters and sports venues that 
couldn't accommodate a wheelchair.
  I struggled to wash my hands at a sink, access a restroom, and enter 
a classroom. I even declined matriculation at my first-choice college 
because the challenge of getting around the campus would have been too 
difficult, if not impossible.
  Mr. Chairman, the ADA brought more than just the recognition that 
disability rights are civil rights. It brought hope and opportunity to 
millions of people, and it brought dignity.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. Chairman, after all, having a disability should not limit 
opportunity, and it is with opportunity that people with disabilities 
can lead more active, productive, and independent lives.
  The ADA was passed nearly 28 years ago, and instead of holding people 
accountable to correctly implement the law, especially when free 
resources and technical information are readily available, H.R. 620 
weakens Federal protections under the ADA, protections that prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of a disability.
  The ADA does not allow people to sue for compensatory or punitive 
damages, only injunctive relief. Yet some States have gone beyond the 
Federal law to permit monetary awards.
  H.R. 620 seeks to address the issue by including a notice and cure 
period.
  Well, the idea that places of public accommodation should receive a 
free pass for 6 months before correctly implementing a law that has 
been a part of our legal framework for nearly three decades creates an 
obvious disincentive for ADA compliance.
  People with disabilities, Mr. Chairman, still face immeasurable 
obstacles, despite the progress of our great Nation since the passage 
of the ADA.
  This past year, the disability community has had to fight to preserve 
access to healthcare, the long-term services and supports that are a 
lifeline for so many under Medicaid, and the ability to maintain 
certain protections and credits under the Tax Code.
  Mr. Chairman, they are tired, and I am tired, of defending against 
efforts to weaken our rights. I urge my colleagues to see past the 
smoke and mirrors and irresponsible claims that H.R. 620 is anything 
but an appalling effort to strip away the civil rights of a protected 
class of Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, every vote in support of H.R. 620 will be a message to 
people with disabilities that we are not worthy of inclusion, 
acceptance, or deserve the same civil rights protections as others.
  Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, Americans with disabilities 
look upon us to defend their rights. Let us not vote to eliminate them. 
Let us make them proud and reject H.R. 620.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 6 minutes 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

[[Page H1191]]

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. HUNTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 620, the ADA 
Education and Reform Act of 2017. This is overdue legislation that will 
increase protections for individuals with disabilities while providing 
business and property owners the opportunity to remedy ADA infractions 
before unnecessary lawsuits and the costs that accompany litigation. 
Under the current ADA law, lawyers may collect fees when suing 
businesses or property owners, but plaintiffs cannot collect damages. 
The current system has created ``drive-by'' demand letters sent by 
lawyers, like a bulk mailer, to every location on Main St. or at a 
small mall. In some cases it was not clear that the plaintiff had even 
attempted to access the property or had even gone inside. The emphasis 
was on filing the lawsuit and collecting fees without regard for 
increasing accessibility for the disabled. Sometimes the infractions 
are easily corrected: signage, soap dispenser heights.
  In my district in east San Diego County we have quaint, older towns 
that are notable for their historical structures dating back to the 
1800s. These communities are proud of their heritage and these 
buildings are a source of local pride and tourism. In Julian, an old 
gold mining and apple growing town, the Julian Town Hall was threatened 
by a lawsuit. A public relations stunt was held there where someone 
crawled up the steps of the town hall, cameras rolling, despite the 
fact that a handicap accessible ramp was located on the side of the 
building. In Ramona, a predatory lawyer targeted every business on Main 
St. with various and frivolous claims. It is for these and other 
reasons I introduced similar legislation, H.R. 777, the ADA 
Notification Act of 2013.
  With the ``notice and cure'' provision in H.R. 620, drive-by lawsuits 
will be eliminated, business will have an opportunity to remedy any 
deficiency, and there will be increased compliance and correction 
because property and business owners cannot defer the corrections.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the rule which 
makes in order H.R. 620, the ``ADA Education and Reform Act,'' 
legislation that would infringe on important civil rights of Americans 
who live with physical disabilities.
  I am deeply troubled that the House of Representatives is taking up 
H.R. 620, legislation that would remove any incentive businesses 
currently have to comply with this longstanding civil rights law and 
undermining protections that allow millions to live independently and 
in the dignified manner they deserve.
  There are about 57 million Americans with disabilities; that number 
translates to 1 in 5 Americans.
  There are 31 million Americans with physical disabilities who use a 
wheelchair, cane, crutches, or a walker.
  And for that I commend former President George H.W. Bush, along with 
many members of Congress, for their leadership in passing the Americans 
with Disabilities Act of 1990, legislation that made our country's 
public spaces more accessible to those with disabilities.
  H.R. 620 would require disabled persons to notify businesses of a 
violation of the ADA's public accommodation provisions contained in 
title III of the act, and wait up to 180 days to remedy that alleged 
violation before a lawsuit could be filed, presenting a direct 
undermining of the civil rights of Americans with disabilities.
  The ``notice and cure'' framework included in this bill would 
fundamentally change the structure of the ADA's public accommodations 
title and remove any reasons for business to comply proactively with 
the law.
  H.R. 620's notice and cure provisions will have the effect of 
inappropriately shifting the burden of enforcing compliance with a 
federal civil rights statute from the alleged wrongdoer onto the 
discrimination victim.
  Moreover, it would undermine the carefully calibrated voluntary 
compliance regime that is one of the hallmarks of the ADA, a regime 
formed through negotiations between the disability rights community and 
the business community when the. ADA was being drafted 28 years ago.
  H.R. 620 would, instead, perversely incentivize a public 
accommodation to not comply with the ADA unless and until it receives a 
notice of a violation pursuant to H.R. 620's notice provision.
  Finally, the bill does nothing to address the problem that its 
proponents seek to address, which is the purported concern with the 
filing of meritless lawsuits by certain plaintiffs' attorneys, a 
problem (to the extent that it is actually a problem) that is one of 
state law, not the federal ADA.
  This is not the first time in this Congress, or even this year, that 
I witness the Republicans, allegedly a party for state's rights, 
completely undermine the established idea that tort law should be left 
for states to legislate without interference from federal mandates.
  H.R. 620's proponents have never adequately articulated why federal 
law must be amended to address a problem driven by state law.
  Also, the bill makes no attempt to distinguish between meritorious 
and non-meritorious lawsuits and would, instead, impose its harmful and 
unnecessary requirements on all ADA claims, regardless of potential 
merit.
  I remain adamantly opposed to any effort to weaken the ability of 
individuals to enforce their rights under federal civil rights laws and 
I am concerned that H.R. 620 would undermine the key enforcement 
mechanism of the ADA and other civil rights laws, namely, the ability 
to file private lawsuits to enforce rights.
  Joining me and my colleagues in opposition is a broad coalition of 
236 disability rights groups, including:
  American Foundation for the Blind, the Bazelon Center for Mental 
Health, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, the National Council 
on Independent Living, the National Disability Rights Network, the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, the AFL-
CIO, the Anti-Defamation League, Human Rights Campaign, the NAACP, and 
the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
  Additionally, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 
opposes the bill because it would ``remove incentives for businesses to 
comply with the law unless and until people with disabilities are 
denied access'' which ``would lead to the continued exclusion of people 
with disabilities from the mainstream of society and would turn back 
the clock on disability rights in America.''
  Likewise, the American Civil Liberties Union opposes H.R. 620 because 
it would ``fundamentally alter [the] way in which a person with a 
disability enforces their civil rights and would severely limit access 
to places of public accommodations.''
  For the foregoing reasons and those discussed below, we strongly 
oppose H.R. 620 and respectfully dissent from the Committee report.
  While it is very important to protect small and growing businesses, 
we can do so without jeopardizing the rights of disabled individuals to 
have a day in court.
  I do not believe that we have crossed the T's and dotted the I's with 
all the information that we should have in trying to improve our 
situation and address the concerns of many small businesses.
  Small businesses are the heartbeat of America and the backbone of 
successful communities, which is why I have served as one of their 
strongest advocates during my tenure in Congress.
  But the reality is that H.R. 620 does not help small businesses, it 
only hurts the disabled.
  I do, however, hope that we can achieve this balanced goal through a 
different avenue.

[[Page H1192]]

  So today I stand with Ranking Member Nadler, Congressman Langevin and 
all those who stand for civil rights and for the rights of Americans 
with disabilities.
  For these reasons I oppose the rule governing H.R. 620.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, when the Americans with Disabilities Act 
was first signed into law, President George H.W. Bush praised this bill 
for its assurance ``that people with disabilities [were] given the 
basic guarantees for which they have worked so long and so hard: 
independence, freedom of choice, control of their lives, and the 
opportunity to blend fully and equally into the rich mosaic of the 
American mainstream.'' His words were true when the ADA passed, and 
they are true today.
  H.R. 620 would reverse decades of progress. It would pave the way for 
businesses to delay or completely avoid complying with the ADA, and 
shift the onus on people with disabilities to report noncompliance. If 
this bill were signed into law, it would effectively hold harmless 
places of public accommodation for willfully failing to comply with the 
ADA.
  This legislation purports to curb ``drive-by'' lawsuits, which can be 
a legitimate problem, but these suits have arisen predominantly in 
states that provide for recovery of money damages in their state laws. 
The federal ADA does not provide for damages, only injunctive relief 
and attorney's fees.
  This would be a step backwards. We have a responsibility to protect 
these safeguards and ensure that people with disabilities are provided 
accessible accommodations.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Poe 
of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chair of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________