[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOE COURTNEY

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 27, 2018

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House Chamber on 
Thursday, February 15, 2018, due to official business in my district. 
Had I been present, I would have voted NO on roll call no. 80, on the 
passage of H.R. 620--legislation that I strongly oppose. This bill 
would prevent Americans with disabilities from getting their day in 
court when their right to access is violated. In the twenty-eight years 
since the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, people 
with disabilities have made important gains in access and inclusion to 
public buildings, schools, workplaces, and businesses. The ADA is a 
fundamental part of American civil rights law; like many of our other 
civil rights statutes, it depends on voluntary compliance and private 
rights of action for its enforcement. Shifting the responsibility for 
compliance to persons with disabilities undermines the spirit of the 
law and the structure of civil rights statutes more broadly.
  H.R. 620 requires a victim of discrimination to provide specific 
notice of the ADA violation to a business, and then allow 120 days for 
the business to make ``substantial progress'' toward remedying the 
violation. The bill does not define substantial progress, further 
weakening the business's incentive to comply, and loosening 
enforceability of the ADA, in turn allowing discrimination against 
persons with disabilities to continue. While some egregious portions of 
this bill were removed during floor consideration, including the 
requirement that a claimant name the specific section of the ADA 
violated before even notifying the business, its underlying purpose 
remains clear: making it harder for persons with disabilities to fight 
for their day in court.
  As members of Congress, it is our duty to promote the welfare and 
dignity of all of our constituents, particularly those who have spent 
so long on the outside looking in. We ought to defend and strengthen 
the ADA, reforming it where needed and building on its successes, 
rather than dismantling its efficacy and closing our legal system off 
from those who need it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

                          ____________________