Ada Education and Reform Act of 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Langevin-Harper amendment. This bipartisan amendment removes from the bill its onerous and unjustified notice and cure provisions while leaving in place its potentially helpful educational and mediation-related provisions.

As I discussed extensively during general debate, the notice and cure provisions would have the effect of drastically weakening the ability of discrimination victims enforcing their rights in court.

Any law, including the ADA, is only effective to the extent that it is enforceable, and civil rights statutes, particularly, depend primarily on private rights of action for their enforcement. By weakening enforcement, H.R. 620's notice and cure provisions ultimately undermine the ADA's goal of integrating people with disabilities into the mainstream of American life.

For these reasons, I urge the House to adopt the Langevin-Harper amendment which cures most of the problems with this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not appear to make any substantive change to H.R. 620. Whether or not the amendment is adopted, it still would be the case under the bill that a businessowner who fails to make substantial progress in removing an access barrier would be subject to a lawsuit.

The amendment, however, does not address the fundamental concerns with H.R. 620's notice and cure provisions that I expressed in general debate, including the fact that the bill does not require a business to comply with the ADA, only to make ``substantial progress'' toward compliance within the bill's 180-day cure period.

While the amendment does not make the bill worse, it also does not make the bill better. Regrettably, therefore, I must oppose the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source