[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.
____________________