[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 30 (Thursday, February 15, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1196-H1198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1100

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering 
this amendment and being the original sponsor of this legislation. I 
support the amendment. The substantial progress provision in H.R. 620 
provides needed flexibility in cases in which removing a barrier is 
halted for reasons beyond the business' control.
  For example, a business may not be able to pour concrete in Alaska 
during the winter to fix a ramp. Likewise, a business may find that 
getting a building permit from their local government is taking longer 
than expected.
  In these cases, as well as other unexpected events, the substantial 
progress provision provides judges with a discretionary standard to 
determine whether the improvements and progress by the business are 
both material and meaningful.
  This clarifying amendment further defines the term ``substantial 
progress'' to make clear that circumstances beyond the business' 
control--owner--are the only allowable justifications for not making 
substantial progress within the required time.
  The amendment will help provide more access for the disabled. I 
support it because it makes this legislation better.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chair, let me close by saying this: I wholeheartedly 
support the letter and the spirit of this law. I recognize how 
important it is. This law is powerful, but it has been weaponized by 
lawyers who are trying to make a quick buck.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Bera

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part A of House Report 115-559.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 15, strike ``120'' and insert ``60''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 736, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bera) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Chair, the Americans with Disabilities Act is landmark 
civil rights legislation. Americans with disabilities face real 
challenges every day. We should strive to support them every way we 
can.
  When Congress passes a law, we have an obligation to make sure that 
legislation is working and see if improvements can be made. Under the 
ADA, business owners are responsible to make sure their business is 
fully accessible to those with disabilities. However, in some cases, 
business owners are unaware they are in violation of the ADA.
  Most Americans can agree: rather than immediately face lawsuits for 
violations, business owners should be given time to actually fix what 
is wrong. This solution advances our shared goal of improved access for 
all members of the community. But in listening to my constituents in 
Sacramento County, many are concerned that the timeframe for fixing 
these violations was too long. And I agree.
  In response, my amendment would cut the time businesses have to fix 
violations in half. This means, after the notification period, a 
business has 60 days to fix violations, instead of 120 days in the 
current bill.

[[Page H1197]]

  In some cases, these barriers can and should be immediately 
addressed. But in a State like California, which is prone to 
earthquakes, construction permits can take time. Small businesses 
should be given a reasonable amount of time to make changes and better 
serve their customers.
  Having heard both sides of this debate, I believe we can, and should, 
find a compromise that works for both. I have seen how hard Sacramento 
small businesses work and how important they are for growing our 
economy and creating good-paying jobs. As a doctor, I have seen 
firsthand the challenges of those with disabilities. This amendment 
seeks the middle ground and is a commonsense improvement.
  Americans with disabilities deserve to live full, healthy lives, 
unafraid of barriers that restrict their movement.
  Now, let me be clear: if a business does not make the modifications 
to obstructions once notified, they should be held accountable and 
there should be consequences.
  When we work across the aisle, Washington can get things done for the 
American people. This amendment is a commonsense fix that makes the 
bill better.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise, again, in opposition to this amendment.
  While I thank the gentleman from California for stressing the 
importance of providing opportunities for places of public 
accommodation to learn that they are in violation of the ADA, I 
disagree with the premise that the onus of enforcement should be placed 
on people with disabilities by requiring them to issue arduous and 
detailed notices.
  There are free resources available that provide information and 
technical assistance to the public on the requirements of the ADA.
  I can't stress this enough: when someone owns a business, they have 
to balance a variety of regulations and requirements at both the State 
and Federal Government level. Why should the requirements that their 
business be accessible to people with disabilities, requirements that 
have been in existence for decades, be weakened or viewed as less 
important?
  Why should business owners be given a free pass until someone catches 
a violation before they comply?
  The suggestion that we can reduce the timeframe of a notice and cure 
period misses the point. There is nothing that can be done to improve a 
notice requirement that shouldn't exist in the first place.
  No other civil rights law requires people who experience 
discrimination to wait for justice or provide a written notice before 
taking legal action. Why should people with disabilities be treated any 
differently?
  Further, what are the incentives to comply with the ADA in the first 
place if businesses can wait to be told what is wrong and then maybe 
fix the issue?
  After all, even with a reduction in the notice and cure timeframe, 
there is still no clear requirement that a barrier actually be removed.
  Again, I appreciate my colleague's desire to find a compromise, but 
this is not the answer.
  Whether the notice and cure period is 120 days or 180 days, it does 
nothing to address the underlying issue of drive-by lawsuits. That is 
the crux of the problem happening in States that have gone beyond the 
requirements of the ADA and merely delays access and creates a national 
policy of apathy on ADA implementation.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  The goal of the bill is to provide more access for Americans more 
quickly. Absent circumstances beyond a business' control, 120 days is 
sufficient time to remove a barrier. Under this amendment offered by 
the gentleman, instead of 180 days total, a business would have up to 
120 days, instead, to fix access problems.
  I believe this amendment improves the bill. I urge its support, and I 
thank the gentleman for offering this amendment.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, again, while I appreciate my colleague's 
attempt to find somewhat of a common ground on this issue, it does not 
address the underlying problem. The issue of the ADA being around for 
30 years--it is well-known now. People are even proactive about finding 
out what their responsibilities are under the ADA, as opposed to just 
waiting until they are notified of a problem and then perhaps complying 
with.
  No, we should not treat people with disabilities any differently than 
anyone else who is protected under civil rights laws. That is why we 
have them in the first place.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Let's work 
together on finding a better common-ground solution. But this amendment 
and the underlying bill is not the answer.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Chair, this amendment makes the bill better. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 115-559.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mrs. 
McMorris Rodgers, and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

         Page 5, beginning on line 22, strike ``the specific 
     sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act alleged to 
     have been violated,''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 736, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will make it easier 
for a disabled American to provide a business with a notice of an ADA 
violation.
  Violations of the ADA can be very technical. The Department of 
Justice has hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of regulations and 
guidance documents on complying with the public accommodation 
requirements of title III of the ADA. Given that the Department of 
Justice will not certify whether a business' property is ADA compliant, 
these ADA requirements are often left to the interpretation of 
plaintiffs' lawyers.
  The notice provisions of H.R. 620 require that those who allege a 
business is violating the ADA must provide the business with a 
description of ``the specific sections of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act alleged to have been violated.'' This provision was 
designed to ensure that businesses have a clear picture of the alleged 
violation with the business.
  However, this requirement may go too far. Accordingly, the amendment 
removes this requirement, making clear that written notices provided by 
disabled individuals can be written in plain English, without legalese.
  Removing this requirement will also facilitate a dialogue between the 
individual and the business. Additionally, it may avoid any need for a 
disabled individual to hire a lawyer.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the intent behind this amendment 
to make the notice provision of H.R. 620 slightly less onerous, and I 
acknowledge that it does so by eliminating the requirement that an 
aggrieved person cite in his or her initial notice to a business the 
specific ADA provision being violated.
  The amendment, however, still leaves in place the basic problem with 
the

[[Page H1198]]

bill, the basic problem with the notice and cure provision, and that is 
the notice and cure provision. Therefore, it does not alleviate any of 
the real concerns with the underlying bill.
  Again, the basic notice and cure provisions of the bill turn on its 
head the normal practice of any civil rights statute in which the 
burden of compliance is on the actor, not on the victim. Here, we put 
the burden of compliance on the victim.
  The debate has been as if people have not had 28 years to come into 
compliance, only to find out they are not in compliance when someone 
complains about it, some victim is victimized. That is just wrong. This 
goes in exactly the wrong direction.
  Although this amendment would slightly alleviate the provision, it is 
putting lipstick on a pig. For this reason and in deference to the 
disability rights community, which opposes this amendment and the pre-
suit notice and cure requirements, I must oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments.
  I want to remind folks that notice requirement is required even under 
title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It is also required under title I of 
the original ADA legislation. So this is not a new phenomena.
  This legislation and this amendment gives potential plaintiffs the 
ability to advise and put a business on notice without even having to 
hire a lawyer with the legalese requirements that are written by the 
Department of Justice, which constantly updates what requirements are 
under the ADA.
  The intention is to simply have the violation described in a way that 
is sufficient to put the business on notice of what the ADA violation 
is.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that all Members support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 7 will not 
be offered.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. POE of Texas. 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. 
Mooney of West Virginia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Womack, Acting 
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.

                          ____________________