Ada Education and Reform Act of 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source