ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today, sadly, we find ourselves considering legislation that would actually make it easier for unscrupulous payday lenders to actually skirt State interest rate caps and another bill that guts enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act that puts an unfair burden on people with disabilities.

These bills hurt the American people. Instead of spending our time here debating a very important immigration bill, like the Senate is doing across the way, we are considering bills that will only harm our most vulnerable populations.

Over on the other side of the Capitol, the Senate is having an open debate about immigration in our country. This House owes the American people no less. The Senate is trying to find solutions to help the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients, to improve border security, or to address family reunification. The Senate is debating different proposals from both sides of

the aisle. We will see what they come up with.

Again, this House is simply not doing its job. This House is doing nothing to improve border security, nothing to address the DACA recipients or family reunification. Over here, there is not even a plan to bring any immigration bill or amendment to the floor. In fact, there is no commitment at all to actually address the issues that the American people care about. We have bipartisan bills today that Speaker Ryan could bring to the floor. They would pass with probably 70 or 60 percent of the vote.

Mr. Speaker, the March 5 deadline for DACA protections is rapidly approaching. There is no plan in place to protect Dreamers like Anareli, Marcos, and Javier in my district. Instead, over 800,000 young adults are trying to see what happens next, hoping that the court system intervenes, hoping that somebody somewhere does something so they can continue to live and work legally in the only country that they know, the country that they call home, the United States of America.

I have offered the Dream Act as an amendment to every spending bill that has come through the Rules Committee. I will continue to do so until we finally get it done.

But, again, instead of bringing up a bill to help protect Dreamers before the self-Trump-imposed March 5 deadline, the House will consider legislation that undermines the civil rights of disabled Americans, and it also makes it easier for predatory lenders to evade consumer protection laws. And people wonder why the House of Representatives is as unpopular as it is.

H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act is a bill that hurts consumers. It is one that makes it easier for payday lenders to evade well-thought-out State-level protection laws.

That is why over 200 national and State organizations have written in opposition to this bill, which they fear would open the floodgates for predatory lending with interest rates as high as 300 percent. Additionally, 20 State attorneys general have also written in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these two letters.

November 29, 2017.

Re Oppose H.R. 3299 (McHenry) and S. 1642 (Warner),

Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017.

Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned 202 national and

state organizations write in strong opposition to H.R. 3299

(McHenry) and S. 1642 (Warner), the Protecting Consumers'

Access to Credit Act of 2017. The primary impact of this bill

will be enabling nonbank lenders to make high-cost loans that

exceed state interest rate limits by using a bank to

originate the loan. The bill poses a serious risk of enabling

predatory lending and unsafe lending practices. Unaffordable

loans have devastating consequences for borrowers--trapping

them in a cycle of unaffordable payments and leading to harms

such as greater delinquency on other bills.

Specifically, the bill makes it easier for payday lenders

and other nonbanks to use rent-a-bank arrangements to ignore

state interest rate caps and make high-rate loans. The bill

overrides the Second Circuit's Madden v. Midland decision,

which held that a debt buyer purchasing debts originated by a

national bank could not benefit from the National Bank Act's

preemption of state interest rate caps. The Madden decision

did not limit the interest rates that banks may charge on

credit cards and other forms of credit, but it does limit

nonbanks from evading state interest rate caps. Reversing the

Second Circuit's decision, as this bill seeks to do, would

make it easier for payday lenders, debt buyers, online

lenders, fintech companies, and other companies to use

``rent-a-bank'' arrangements to charge high rates on loans.

The bill provides that ``a loan that is valid when made as

to its maximum rate of interest . . . shall remain valid with

respect to such rate regardless of whether the loan is

subsequently sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to a

third party, and may be enforced by such third party

notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.'' In other

words, if a bank originates a loan that exceeds state

interest rate caps, and then sells or assigns the loan to a

nonbank, that nonbank can continue to charge a usurious rate.

This bill could open the floodgates to a wide range of

predatory actors to make loans at 300% annual interest or

higher. The bill could bless arrangements such as the

partnership between the payday lender Elevate and Republic

Bank, through which Elevate is making high-cost loans that

exceed state interest rate caps. Through its Elastic brand,

Elevate offers purportedly open-end loans in 39 states and

the District of Columbia.

Elevate does not disclose an APR, but a $380 advance repaid

with monthly minimum payments would cost $480 to repay over

five months. Including all fees, the annual rate for this

extension of credit is about 100%, which is nearly three

times the 36% legal interest rate approved by voters in

Montana, one of the states where the lines of credit are

offered. Through its Rise brand, Elevate also makes closed-

end loans at rates up to 365% in states where those rates are

permitted, and it could attempt to expand to other states.

Enova, dba NetCredit, also offers high-cost installment

loans in a number of states through a rent-a-bank

partnership. Enova, like Elevate, relies on Republic Bank and

Trust to facilitate this scheme.

Other payday lenders have regularly attempted to avoid

state usury caps through rent-a-bank arrangements. For

example, CashCall has attempted to partner with banks to make

usurious loans in several states. Courts have struck down

those arrangements, finding that CashCall had to comply with

state interest rate caps. The bill could undermine these

decisions, by stating that a loan's interest rate remains

valid even if a loan is transferred or assigned to a third

party and ``may be enforced by such third party

notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.'' This could

allow high-rate lenders to use banks to originate and then

immediately transfer usurious loans.

This bill is a massive attack on state consumer protection

laws. In a letter by 20 State Attorneys General opposing

provisions in another bill that would have overturned the

Madden decision, the state law enforcement officers warned

that the bill ``would restrict states' abilities to enforce

interest rate caps. It is essential to preserve the ability

of individual states to enforce their existing usury caps and

oppose any measures to enact a federal law that would preempt

state usury caps.'' ' In fact, the Colorado Attorney General

is in the midst of challenging online lenders' use of a rent-

a-bank scheme to make loans in violation of the state's usury

limits. This bill aims to thwart actions like these that seek

to enforce state laws.

The potential costs and damage to consumers are

significant. In about 34 states, a $2,000 loan, 2-year

installment loan at an APR exceeding 36% would be illegal.

This bill risks making high-cost loans permissible across the

country. The bill also could potentially expand short-term

payday lending to the 15 states plus the District of Colombia

whose state interest rate limits currently save borrowers

over $2.2 billion annually in payday loan fees.

Fintech lenders also should not be allowed to make loans

that exceed state interest rate caps. State interest rate

caps have not impacted responsible marketplace loans. The

leading marketplace lenders do not make loans above 36% and

the vast majority of their loans are well below that rate,

comfortably within state interest rate caps. But the mere

fact that a lender uses the label ``fintech'' or

``martketplace lender'' does not ensure that it is a safe or

affordable loan. For example, OnDeck, a lender focused on

small business lending, offers term loans up to 99%.

Moreover, many marketplace lenders make very large loans of

$30,000 to $50,000 or higher, and even 36% is a very high

rate for such loans. Many states have tiered rate structures

in recognition that interest becomes more unaffordable the

larger the loan. Iowa, for example, caps interest at 21% for

loans over $10,000.

There are also signs that some online lenders may not be

appropriately underwriting their loans to ensure that the

loans are affordable, and that many borrowers may not have

the ability to repay, especially, if the economy sours.

Recent news reports and SEC filings show that delinquency and

charge-off rates at these marketplace lenders are rising. One

online lender apparently failed to verify a borrower's income

for a full two-thirds of its loans in 2016. Another lender

has had so many of its loans fail, that it has had to repay

investors for their losses in the last three securitizations

of the loans it bundled up and sold to Wall Street.

This bill would weaken lenders' incentive to underwrite

properly by making it easier to make high-rate loans. High

interest rates result in misaligned incentives that can lead

to lender profits but borrower catastrophe. Skewed incentives

are already a problem in the marketplace loan industry.

Moody's credit-rating firms liken this industry to mortgage

lending in the years leading up to the 2008 financial

crisis--``because the companies that market the loans and

approve them quickly sell them off to investors,'' relieving

themselves of the risk of the loan later going bad. This bill

could make that problem worse.

The bill is not necessary to ensure access to affordable

credit. Proponents of this bill claim that the Madden

decision has had an adverse impact on access to credit. They

point to a study that showed a drop in marketplace lending by

three lenders in the Second Circuit after the Madden decision

for subprime borrowers, especially for those with FICO scores

below 644. However, the study showed that these lenders

offered only miniscule amounts of credit in the low FICO

range even before the Madden decision. Thus, the impact on

access to credit was trivial. Moreover, it is likely that the

credit extended before the decision at the lower end of the

FICO spectrum was made to borrowers who had trouble repaying,

and that lenders were relying on high interest rates on large

loans to compensate for high default rates.

The bill wipes away the strongest available tool against

predatory lending practices. Strong state rate caps, coupled

with effective enforcement by states, remain the simplest and

most effective method to protect consumers from the predatory

lending debt trap. Contrary to what lenders often claim,

robust state loan laws do not drive people to find loans

online. In fact, illegal online lending is more prevalent in

states that do not effectively regulate predatory lending

than it is in states that enforce state interest rate caps.

Accordingly, we urge you to reject this bill. For more

information, contact Lauren Saunders at [email protected] or

Scott Astrada at [email protected].

Action NC; Albany Center for Economic Success, Inc.; Allied

Progress; Americans for Financial Reform; Arbor Farm Press;

Arizona Community Action Association; Arizona PIRG; Arkansans

Against Abusive Payday Lending; Ashe County Habitat for

Humanity; Asheville Area Habitat for Humanity; Baker

Organizing School South.; Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc;

Billings First Congregational Church; Brazos Valley

Affordable Housing Corp.; Bucks County Women's Advocacy

Coalition; Business Outreach Center Network, Inc.; California

Reinvestment Coalition; CALPIRG; Capital Good Fund; CARECEN-

Central American Resource Center.

Carolina Behavioral Health Alliance; Carolina Jews for

Justice; CASH Campaign of Maryland; Catalyst Miami; Catholic

Charities of Southern New Mexico; CCCS of WNC, Inc. DBA

OnTrack Financial Education & Counseling; Cedar Grove

Institute for Sustainable Communities; Center for Economic

Integrity; Center for Economic Integrity--New Mexico Office;

Center for Financial Social Work; Center for Global Policy

Solutions; Center for Responsible Lending; CEO Pipe Organs/

Golden Ponds Farm; Children First/Communities In Schools of

Buncombe County; Church Women United in North Carolina;

Clarifi; CO PIRG; Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in

Ohio; College Park: An American Baptist Church; Colorado

Center on Law & Policy; Communications Workers of America

(CWA).

Community Capital New York; Community Council of

Metropolitan Atlanta; Community Economic Development

Association of MI (CEDAM); Community Loan Fund of the Capital

Region Inc.; Connecticut Association for Human Services;

Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.; ConnPIRG; Consumer Action;

Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; Covenant

House of WV; Credit and Homeownership Empowerment Services

Inc (CHES, Inc.); Credit Counseling Agencies of NC; Creighton

College Democrats; Davidson Housing Coalition; Demos;

Disability Rights North Carolina; Durham Regional Financial

Center; East LA Community Corporation; Ecumenical Poverty

Initiative; Empire Justice Center.

Faith in Action Alabama; Faith in Texas; Fayetteville Area

Habitat for Humanity; Federation of Democratic Women DAC;

Financial Pathways of the Piedmont; Florida Alliance for

Consumer Protection; Florida Alliance for Retired Americans;

Florida Consumer Action Network; Florida PIRG; Fons Law

Office, representing consumers; Georgia PIRG; Georgia Watch;

Gowen Consulting; Greater Ward's Corner Area Business

Association (Virginia); Habitat for Humanity of Catawba

Valley, Inc.; Habitat for Humanity of Davie County; Habitat

for Humanity of Greater Greensboro; Habitat for Humanity of

North Carolina; Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human

Rights; Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas; Hispanic

Federation; HomesteadCS; Housing Consultants Group.

IDA and Asset Building Collaborative of NC; Illinois

People's Action; Illinois PIRG; Indiana Assets & Opportunity

Network; Indiana Institute for Working Families; Indiana

PIRG; Innovative Systems Group; Iowa PIRG; Jesuit Social

Research Institute at Loyola University New Orleans; Just

Harvest; Kentucky Equal Justice Center; La Casa de Don Pedro;

Legal Aid Justice Center (Virginia); Legal Aid Society of

Milwaukee; Legal Services of Southern Piedmont; Long Island

Housing Services, Inc.; Louisiana Budget Project; Lutheran

Episcopal Advocacy Ministry NJ; Lutheran Advocacy Ministry--

New Mexico; Maine Center for Economic Policy; Maryland

Consumer Rights Coalition; Maryland PIRG; MASSPIRG;

Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council.

MICAH; Mobilization for Justice, Inc.; Montana Organizing

Project; Montebello Housing Development Corporation; MoPIRG;

Mountain State Justice; NAACP; NAOMI; National Association of

Consumer Advocates; National Association of Social Workers

West Virginia Chapter; National Consumer Law Center (on

behalf of its low-income clients); National Rural Social Work

Caucus; Native Community Finance; NCPIRG; New Economics for

Women; New Economy Project; New Jersey Appleseed Public

Interest Law Center; New Jersey Citizen Action; New Jersey

Tenants Organization; New Mexico Fair Lending Coalition;

NHPIRG; NJPIRG; North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute,

Inc.

North Carolina Assets Alliance; North Carolina Council of

Churches; North Carolina Housing Coalition; North Carolina

Institute of Minority Economic Development; North Carolina

Justice Center; North Carolina PIRG; North Carolina Rural

Center; North Carolina State AFL-CIO; North Carolina United

Methodist Conference; North Dakota Economic Security and

Prosperity Alliance; OhioPIRG; Oklahoma Policy Institute;

Oregon PIRG; PennPIRG; Pennsylvania Council of Churches;

Pennsylvania Military Officers Association of America;

Pennsylvania War Veterans Council; People's Action Institute;

Philadelphia Unemployment Project; Piedmont Housing Alliance

(Virginia); PIRG in Michigan; Power New Mexico.

Prince George's CASH Campaign; Prosperity Indiana;

Prosperity Works; Public Justice; Public Justice Center;

Public Law Center; Reinvestment Partners; Rural Dynamics,

Inc.; Safety MD LLC; Samaritan Ministries; Sisters of Charity

of Nazareth Congregational Leadership; Sisters of Charity of

Nazareth Western Province Leadership; Sisters of Mercy South

Central Community; Southern Poverty Law Center; Statewide

Poverty Action Network; Step Up Savannah; Tabor Community

Services; Tennessee Citizen Action; Texas Appleseed; TexPIRG;

The AMOS Project; The Bell Policy Center; The Episcopal

Diocese of North Carolina; The Midas Collaborative; The One

Less Foundation.

Tuscaloosa Citizens Against Predatory Practices; Tzedek DC;

U.S. PIRG; Unitarian Universalist Pennsylvania Legislative

Advocacy Network; UNITE HERE; United for a Fair Economy;

University of Wisconsin Law School, Consumer Law Clinic;

Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Virginia Interfaith

Center for Public Policy; Virginia Organizing; Virginia

Poverty Law Center; Virginians Against Payday Lending; VOICE

Oklahoma City; WASHPIRG; Watauga County Habitat for Humanity;

WESST; West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy; West

Virginia Citizen Action Group; WISDOM; WISPIRG; Women

AdvaNCe; Woodstock Institute; WV Citizen Action Group.

State of New York,

Office of the Attorney General,

June 7, 2017.

Re The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10).

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny Hoyer,

Minority Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McCarthy, Minority

Leader Pelosi, and Minority Whip Hoyer: On behalf of the

undersigned State Attorneys General and the Executive

Director of the Office of Consumer Protection for the State

of Hawaii (the ``States''), we write to express our strong

opposition to H.R. 10 (the ``Act''), which we understand the

full House of Representatives intends to vote on this week.

The proposed Act will eliminate many of the critical consumer

protections implemented as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank'') in

the wake of, and in response to, the financial crisis. As the

chief consumer protection officers in each of our respective

States, we write to call your particular attention to those

portions of the Act that would effectively eviscerate the

role of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (``CFPB''),

the only independent federal agency exclusively focused on

consumer financial protection. While the Act purports to

protect consumers from over-regulation by federal agencies,

its far-reaching consequences would make consumers more

vulnerable to fraud and abuse in the marketplace. The

undersigned States support the work of the CFPB and oppose

any effort to curtail its authority. While we find numerous

provisions of the Act to be objectionable, we write to

highlight certain provisions that would significantly impact

consumer protection -- a core function of our States.

I. Background

Our States' work to protect consumers from unscrupulous

marketplace actors and practices is greatly enhanced when the

federal government serves as an effective partner. In the

years leading up to the global financial crisis, residents of

our States suffered the consequences of a federal government

that failed to fulfill its basic obligations to U.S.

consumers to prevent fraud and misconduct by mortgage

providers, servicers, and other financial firms. Families

nationwide suffered dire financial consequences as a result

of lax federal oversight and inaction.

Since its inception, the CFPB has emerged as the

independent federal consumer watchdog the nation has long

needed, and as a key partner in critically important consumer

protection work undertaken by our States and by State

Attorneys General across the country. The exceptional record

of the CFPB speaks for itself. As of January 1, 2017, the

CFPB has handled over one million consumer complaints, and

obtained $11.8 billion in relief for 29 million consumers.

The CFPB has taken enforcement actions to stem abuses by

student loan originators and servicers, for-profit schools,

debt collectors, credit reporting agencies, payday lenders,

and foreclosure ``rescue'' companies, among others. Among its

more recent, significant enforcement actions have been cases

against

mortgage servicer Ocwen Financial Corporation for widespread

mortgage servicing failures, including improperly calculating

balances, misapplying payments, and failing to investigate

consumer complaints, student loan servicer Navient for

student loan servicing abuses, including failing to notify

struggling borrowers of their eligibility for income-based

repayment plans and steering such borrowers into more costly

forbearance plans--and Wells Fargo bank for its widespread

practice of opening unauthorized bank and credit card

accounts for consumers. In addition, as part of its statutory

mandate, the CFPB has conducted thorough and nuanced studies

of complex financial issues that impact consumers and has

issued rules intended to protect consumers in a thoughtful,

consensus-driven manner.

II. The Devastating Effects of the Act on Consumer Protection

The Act would effectively cripple the CFPB from doing the

job it has been doing so effectively since its inception.

A. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Rulemaking and Enforcement

Authority Over Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive Acts and Practices

Section 736 of the Act would eliminate the CFPB's authority

to prohibit unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices

(``UDAAP''). The CFPB's authority to prohibit entities it

supervises from engaging in UDAAP violations has been the

basis for many of the CFPB's most significant enforcement

actions, including the Ocwen, Navient, and Wells Fargo

matters discussed above. In addition, several of the

undersigned States have jointly filed cases with the CFPB

against businesses and individuals engaged in unfair,

deceptive, or abusive practices. UDAAP authority gives the

CFPB the flexibility to respond swiftly to new technologies

and practices that harm consumers, without the need to wait

for legislation expressly addressing a given practice.

B. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Supervision and Enforcement

Authority Over Large Banks

Section 727 of the Act would similarly eliminate the CFPB's

supervision and enforcement authority over large banks and

permit financial institutions that meet certain criteria to

elect to be exempted from the CFPB's supervisory authority.

This provision is concerning in a number of ways, not the

least of which is that it is through the supervision process

that the CFPB often learns of systemic issues in the

companies and industries it regulates. The CFPB is the only

federal agency that has been conducting consumer protection

reviews as the focus of their supervisory authority (rather

than safety and soundness), which is important for the

reasons previously discussed. In addition, many of the CFPB's

enforcement actions have been against the large banks.

C. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Authority to Regulate Payday and

Vehicle Title Loans

Section 733 of the Act expressly prohibits the CFPB from

engaging in any rulemaking or enforcement with respect to

payday and vehicle title loans. Payday lending, as the CFPB's

own extensive research has documented, has adversely affected

the lives of millions of financially vulnerable consumers

across the country. The CFPB has been at the forefront of

curbing abuses in the payday lending industry and has

supplemented state enforcement by taking enforcement actions

against payday and other lenders that are attempting to

collect on loans that are void under state law. The CFPB has

been similarly aggressive in uncovering and confronting

abuses in the vehicle title loan industry, where consumers,

risk the loss of their vehicle (with the corresponding loss

in mobility) if they find themselves unable to repay their

loans. The Act will strip the CFPB of all authority in these

areas, including its enforcement authority and the ability to

adopt sensible and common sense rules to prevent consumers

from falling into debt traps that are often the result of

payday and vehicle title loans.

D. The Act Would Permit Third Party Debt Collectors to Charge Usurious

Interest Rates

Section 581 of the Act would restrict states' abilities to

enforce interest rate caps. Currently, there are no federal

interest rate caps that cover financial products and services

offered by national banks. Rather, national banks are

permitted to export the interest rate of their home state and

disregard the more stringent interest rates of other states

in which they do business. Section 581 of the Act would add

language to four federal statutes to provide that, when a

national bank sells or assigns debt covered by the National

Bank Act, the buyer or assignee has the right to collect that

same interest rate, regardless of the law of the state where

the buyer or assignee is located. This would make it more

difficult to ensure that debt buyers, online lenders, fintech

companies, and rent-a-bank schemes comply with state interest

rate caps. It is essential to preserve the ability of

individual states to enforce their existing usury caps and

oppose any measures to enact a federal law that would preempt

state usury caps.

E. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB Rulemaking Authority Regarding

Mandatory Arbitration

Section 738 of the Act would repeal the provision of Dodd-

Frank that granted the CFPB authority to study and issue

rules regarding arbitration in financial services contracts.

Dodd-Frank expressly authorized the CFPB to study arbitration

provisions in financial services contracts, and to issue

regulations prohibiting or restricting such provisions if the

CFPB concluded that doing so would be ``in the public

interest and for the protection of consumers.'' After a

thorough review, the CFPB concluded that tens of millions of

Americans use financial products or services subject to

mandatory arbitration clauses that prohibit proceeding on a

class basis and that the effect of such provisions is to

prevent consumers from seeking redress, particularly for

small dollar claims. Elimination of the CFPB's authority in

this area can only operate to the detriment of consumers.

F. The Act Would Reduce Transparency and Deprive Consumers of a

Valuable Source of Information

Finally, the Act would end the CFPB's current practice of

publicly posting information concerning individual consumer

complaints in a searchable database. This information helps

consumers make informed decisions about the companies with

which they choose to do business, and increases transparency

in the marketplace. Eliminating the release of this

information provides no benefit to consumers, but only to

companies whose practices generate repeated complaints.

III. Conclusion

For these and other reasons, the undersigned States urge

you to support robust and engaged consumer protection in the

financial services industry by voting against the Act. A

rollback of these significant post-financial crisis rules and

regulations would substantially harm consumers and the public

in general. If we can provide any further information or

assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully submitted,

Eric T. Schneiderman, New York Attorney General;

Xavier Becerra, California Attorney General;

George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General;

Matthew Denn, Delaware Attorney General;

Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of

Columbia;

Douglas S. Chin, Hawaii Attorney General;

Stephen H. Levins, Executive Director, Hawaii Office of

Consumer Protection;

Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General;

Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General;

Janet T. Mills, Maine Attorney General;

Brian E. Frosh, Maryland Attorney General;

Maura Healey Massachusetts Attorney General;

Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General;

Jim Hood, Mississippi Attorney General;

Josh Stein, North Carolina Attorney General;

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General;

Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania Attorney General;

Peter F. Kilmartin, Rhode Island Attorney General;

T.J. Donovan, Vermont Attorney General;

Mark R. Herring, Virginia Attorney General;

Bob Ferguson, Washington State Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, States can, and do, like my own State of Colorado, put limitations on the interest rates of installment loans issued by nonbanks. Banks, on the other hand, have the preemption of State interest rate caps through the National Bank Act.

So in order to get around State interest rate caps, payday lenders often use a bank to originate a loan at a higher interest rate, but the nonbank designs the loan, provides the funding for the loan, services the loan, and guarantees any losses the bank incurs. In all but in name, it is the nonbank entity that is the loaning entity. Essentially, the payday lender is the de facto lender and the bank is simply a nominal participant to evade regulations. These are referred to as ``rent-a-charter'' schemes, and they are not new.

In the early 2000s, Federal banking regulators shut down several of these arrangements between national banks and nonbank lenders. In 2014, the OCC made it clear that banks may not rent out their charters to third parties. Right now, our Federal banking regulations are able to contain these schemes, but this legislation would undermine our ability to stop abusive and predatory practices.

States are leading the effort to stop abusive lending practices. In my home State of Colorado, there is actually a lawsuit challenging this very scheme.

And now that the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has delayed a final rule that would have helped protect borrowers, it is actually up to the States to help protect

consumers, and this bill would make it harder. This bill would cripple States', like Colorado's, efforts to stop predatory lending from preying on their citizens.

The Republican assault on States' rights has gone from bad to worse. This is yet another part of the big government Republican war on consumers across the country preempting States' rights for Washington, D.C., control.

It seems the Republicans want to control everything from Washington. That is why we need to make sure that our States are empowered to have the ability they need to protect consumers and protect our law.

Lately, there has been an increased focus on fintech companies and how they can help serve the unbanked or underbanked. And I agree. I am a big supporter of financial innovation and promote financial inclusion, but we can't do that at the expense of consumers or at the very high cost of putting consumers into cycles of debt, which ends badly.

Why are we considering legislation that would put all of the power in Washington, D.C., and take away State-level protections for consumers?

Instead, we should be finding ways to increase access to affordable credit, make it easier for consumers to access the financial services that meet their needs, rather than trying to force a Republican Washington solution on all of the States across our country.

We are considering this bill under a closed rule. There is only one amendment filed to this bill, and it is not even allowed to be debated about, no less voted on.

Now, I want to talk about the other bill under this rule. H.R. 3978, the TRID Improvement Act, is actually a package of several bills that came out of the House Financial Services Committee, some which are more controversial than others. Title I of the package, the TRID Improvement Act, was reported out by a 53-5 vote, and all the Republicans and Democrats supported Title V of the package, Eliminating Barriers to Jobs for Loan Originators.

I support Title II, the Protection of Source Code Act, that is being included in this package. I also support Representative Foster's amendment to that title, which would provide additional clarification to the subpoena requirement and would only apply to the source for algorithmic trading.

The problem is that it takes several bills that have broad bipartisan support and combines them with other bills that should be considered separately, which is forcing Democrats and Republicans to weigh the package as a whole. We simply can't know the ramifications of considering all these bills at the same time, especially when they haven't had hearings on the individual components.

Finally, H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act, is, in many ways, the most damaging bill that is discussed under this rule.

We are celebrating the Americans with Disabilities Act that was signed into law 28 years ago to really allow Americans with disabilities to have every kind of opportunity that everybody else does, free from discrimination in the workplace, schools, and transportation. It was a landmark bipartisan effort.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating against individuals with disabilities and sets a minimum reasonable standard for accessibility, which has been the law of our land for three decades.

H.R. 620 would make it more difficult for people with disabilities to have their rights guaranteed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under this bill, instead of requiring the public establishment to comply with the ADA, the burden should shift to the victim of the discrimination to prove a violation has occurred. You are forcing disabled Americans to go around with clipboards and inspector goggles, rather than forcing businesses to comply. It is simply not fair.

It has been nearly three decades since the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law. All title III of the ADA requires is that businesses make their facilities accessible to the extent that it is readily achievable--a very reasonable burden under the law. Businesses have flourished over the last three decades and we have had continued economic growth.

I have heard from so many of my constituents about this bill, including Cari Brown, a systems advocacy specialist with the Arc of Larimer County, serving disabled residents. She said: ``The standards set forth in the ADA are designed to ensure that people with disabilities can access basic public accommodations. Requiring people with disabilities to file a complaint to enforce compliance of a 28- year-old law is a step backwards.''

I think this is a Republican plan to turn everybody with disabilities into an attorney, because that is what they are going to need to be to be able to assert the rights that they already have under the law.

There is significant, if not universal, opposition to H.R. 620 from health and disabilities advocacy groups, including, but not limited to: Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Epilepsy Foundation, The Bazelon Center, the National Council on Disabilities, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities.

We knew, Mr. Speaker, that this President has mocked and taken on Americans with disabilities, but I frankly thought it was above the Republicans in Congress to join President Trump in assaulting the rights of those with disabilities.

H.R. 620 will not allow people with disabilities to immediately file ADA violations, essentially denying access to buildings due to a lengthy legal process.

Who has time to wait several years to access a building that you need to be in because of your job?

It simply doesn't make sense. That means that people with disabilities will wait weeks, months, or years just to gain the access that is required under law.

For businesses, there is simply no incentive to adhere to ADA guidelines. All of this combined harms disabled Americans and weakens the legal protections that, for decades, Republicans and Democrats have been proud of in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

President Trump continues to, frankly, offend our sensibilities and values by insisting that somehow Democrats don't care about fixing DACA. Well, I would beg to differ. This is the 22nd time we have tried to bring the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, to the House floor for a vote.

We have made our position clear. We want immigration policies that reflect our values, that make America safer, while realizing, of course, that we are a nation both of laws and of immigrants.

Yesterday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce again urged Congress to pass legislation that provides permanent relief for Dreamers. Even the conservative Cato Institute estimates that deporting Dreamers would result in a $280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, if we don't care about the families, about the young people affected, surely you care about $280 billion that will be lost if Republicans fail to act. Protecting these aspiring Americans is not only the right thing to do morally, it is the right thing to do for our country and for our economy.

If we defeat the previous question today, for the 23rd time, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would finally help hundreds of thousands of young people who are American in every way except for on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what is worse, the fact that we are taking up legislation that would make it more difficult for Americans to gain access to buildings in their community, including buildings that they work in, or that we are considering legislation that makes it easier for payday lenders to prey on vulnerable consumers by forcing in Washington, D.C., Big Government Republican values on our States' rights; or is it worse that we are not taking up legislation to protect the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers at risk of deportation in the beginning of March unless we act?

My Republican colleagues are working hard to put Washington, D.C., Big Government ahead of people, to force people with disabilities to get law degrees and wander around with notepads to document when they are unable to get into a building, and putting payday lenders ahead of hardworking Americans.

Instead, we should be focused on finding bipartisan solutions to protect aspiring Americans from being forcibly deported from the only country that they know as home.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on H.R. 3299 and H.R. 620, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 736 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 736, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule today on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act; H.R. 3978, the TRID Improvement Act; and H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017.

The rule provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 620, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit and makes in order multiple amendments from colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

It also provides for one hour of debate on the two Financial Services bills, with time equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of that committee.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from my fellow Judiciary Committee members: Mr. Nadler, Mr. Poe, as well as Mr. Langevin. We also heard from Mr. Hill and Ms. Waters on the Financial Services bill.

H.R. 620 received consideration by the Judiciary Committee and enjoyed a rigorous markup process. H.R. 3299 and H.R. 3978 were considered and reported by the Financial Services Committee.

The bills before us today address different topics on different segments of our economy and our Nation, but they have something in common. They are all pro-growth bills aimed at righting wrongs, increasing common sense, and improving the way that the current system works.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act and, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, have had multiple occasions to talk and listen about this bill. It is sponsored by my good friend from Texas (Mr. Poe), and several of my friends from both sides of the aisle have cosponsored this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have cosponsored this bill because I believe the Americans with Disabilities Act is critical legislation. No individual should ever suffer discrimination for any reason, and disabled individuals should have access to businesses and other sites that provide public accommodation. I am a former small-business owner, so I speak from experience running businesses.

Even more importantly, however, one of the main reasons I stand before you on this issue and behind this bill is I am the father of a strong, intelligent, capable, and a little sassy daughter named Jordan. Jordan is 26 years old and has spina bifida. Jordan has been in a wheelchair her entire life. Her first walk and first steps came in a little, pink wheelchair.

Jordan makes this issue personal for me. Discrimination is unacceptable, and it is also unacceptable for opportunists to build a cottage industry of serial litigation on the backs of the disabled, especially when these drive-by lawsuits offer little to no discernible benefit to disabled individuals.

Mr. Speaker, my daughter Jordan helps me understand the importance of

access to public space and the danger posed by lawsuits that exploit the disabled community instead of serving its members. I believe that there are good actors genuinely seeking to increase access and call to task those who block access to disabled individuals. Unfortunately, what we are seeing too often is bad actors intentionally exploiting the law for their own financial gain.

When these bad actors, these serial litigants, clog up the courts by drive-by lawsuits geared not at solutions but at profits, they take up time the courts could be using to address issues that truly need remediation. They also undermine the Americans with Disabilities Act. The intent and purpose of the ADA is not to drum up lawsuits; it is to prevent discrimination, increase access, and to protect those with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, the disability community, my daughter included, represents some of the strongest people I know. They have a voice, and they are powerful. Today, we are here making sure the law works better for them and that it isn't being exploited by those who seek to undermine that law.

Today, small businesses face legal fees and complex technical jargon when presented with an impediment to access. Most businesses want to fix such issues and would, but instead of being able to make this issue right, they are forced into court before they have the chance to do so. In some examples of these serial lawsuits, the issues have not even been perceptible to the human eye; in others, building codes have changed--and yes, even the ADA--yet business owners have been hauled into court before they have a chance to respond or to fix the problem.

H.R. 620 ensures businesses have the opportunity to fix any access issues once they have been made aware of them. It provides notice and a cure period and clarifies the requirements for demand letters. It also provides training for business owners and State and local governments so that they can better understand proper ADA compliance.

The number of ADA title III lawsuits has skyrocketed in recent years. Since 2013, there has been a 132 percent increase in the number of lawsuits in Federal courts. H.R. 620 addresses this problem in a smart way that maintains the integrity, purpose, and key provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act while ensuring there is a chance to fix access issues.

This bill does not take away an individual's right to sue for access. This bill does not overturn the ADA. It does give business owners a chance to fix ADA problems quickly. Some owners may not even actually realize they are not in compliance. Codes have changed, and there are literally hundreds of pages of compliance.

That, however, is not an excuse for willful noncompliance. Far from it. But it is a reason that good actors who may need to update their accommodations should have a chance to do so.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this bill has bipartisan support and that the Rules Committee made in order several amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle so that we can consider ideas to even further strengthen this legislation. I would ask that all Members listen to that amendment debate because these amendments do have an impact on this bill, and I would encourage them to be a part of that.

H.R. 620 makes sense and focuses on fixing issues rather than spending money on trials or, better yet, extorting money from businesses with no thought of helping those with disabilities.

We also have a chance to consider some other commonsense measures today with the two important Financial Services bills also provided for by this rule.

H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act, was introduced by Mr. McHenry and Mr. Meeks, and reported by the Financial Services Committee with bipartisan support. Similar language was included in the House-passed CHOICE Act last year.

This legislation codifies the ``valid-when-made'' doctrine, a longstanding legal principle that, if a loan is valid when it is made with respect to its interest rate, then it does not become invalid or unenforceable when assigned to another party. This bill is a response to the 2015 decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Madden v. Midland, which appears to have ignored the longstanding legal principle.

The decision in the Madden case created instability and uncertainty in the secondary credit market, and restricts the availability of loans to borrowers, particularly those with less access to traditional lending sources. It has also led to regulatory uncertainty and fallout for fintech lenders. My home State of Georgia has an increasing presence in fintech, and H.R. 3299 provides a legislative fix that increases certainty and supports economic opportunity.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss 3978, the TRID Improvement Act, which incorporates numerous important provisions from several smart Financial Services bills. It was introduced by Congressman Hill from Arkansas, and takes steps to provide important regulatory relief and make capital markets more competitive and efficient.

Dodd-Frank led to an explosion of regulations and requirements that ultimately have squeezed access to capital, created hurdles to smaller market entrants, and imposed burdens on small businesses, startups, and investors.

One especially critical provision is H.R. 3978, the language authored by Mr. Duffy from Wisconsin. This provision prohibits the SEC from compelling the production of source code or similar intellectual property without a subpoena. The SEC has had a data breach, and the GAO has been critical of its cybersecurity.

I think Mr. Duffy and Mr. Hill, along with my colleague David Scott from Georgia, are right to recognize that we shouldn't be forcing SEC registered entities to hand over their highly sensitive source code without due process protections. This legislation ensures normal processes can be followed to access this information is needed, but prevents unnecessary disclosures of this intellectual property.

Mr. Speaker, source code for security and other financial entities is similar to what the Coke recipe is to Coca-Cola, or the doughnut recipe is to Krispy Kreme. It is critical intellectual property that represents the backbone of a company. This bill makes clear that this sensitive and highly valuable information doesn't have to be simply handed over to the SEC with the hope that the information remains secure.

H.R. 3978 includes numerous other key provisions, including recognizing unique needs of emerging growth companies and tailoring regulatory burdens accordingly, and requiring the CFPB--the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--to allow for more accurate and clear calculations to be provided to consumers when they purchase lenders and owners title insurance policies.

Mr. Speaker, today, you are seeing a theme. You are seeing a rule that provides for numerous bills that make commonsense changes to the current system to spur growth and simply increases fairness. And you are seeing bipartisan bills, including bipartisan amendments, that will be coming forward on this in support of these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that we can agree or disagree on here, but one of the things, from my position, especially with a daughter who has a handicap--this is not an insult to disabilities. It is actually keeping them from being abused and used by folks who don't even have a disability suing and asking for money and not really caring if the issue gets fixed or not.

At the end of the day, which would somebody rather have: a person in a wheelchair have something fixed, or have someone pay an attorney off so that they can make some money?

Let's at least put this in context of what it truly is.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think the interesting thing is, as has been expressed by a couple of our speakers, especially on the Financial Services bills, these are bipartisan pieces of legislation that have come back. They have been vetted. They came before not only this body, many of them through the CHOICE Act, previously, but also have been coming back. And something that is really interesting is the bicameral, bipartisan process of making sure that capital and these Financial Services bills are actually something that we can move and can improve.

But I do, again, take a little bit of exception. And look, rhetoric is rhetoric, but deceit is also deceit in the sense that we don't talk about, especially in this ADA--I am not sure how opposing a bill that is designed to make improvements for folks and in protecting trial lawyers who can get people who do not even have disabilities to sue or to send a demand letter to get money without ever requiring that the business actually solve the problem. That is what has been missing in this debate today.

They can actually send a letter, say: Here is where our problem is. We are going to sue you, but if you send us X amount of dollars, that will do away with it--never concerned at all if the decision is actually making a difference in the business or the location. They don't care.

And, in fact, if you want to oppose this, then you are just actually, frankly, saying: That is a good idea. I like that. Let's just pick on businesses, and at the end of the day, you know those folks with disabilities, they are just our key to making more money.

That is wrong. My daughter is not a money-making proposition. That has got to cease.

We can disagree on ways about this. My friend from Rhode Island and I have talked about this a great deal. We are of the same mind and same agreement. We may disagree on somehow this is it and how to get there, but at the end of the day, the ADA is still there. The ADA is not going away. The ADA is not being gutted, and nobody is asking folks with disabilities to get law degrees. A lot of them have, and they are making a difference.

But one of the greatest emphases to a business that may have an impediment, they may have put something in the way, is for somebody with a disability to say: By the way, I can't get in here.

And most every business on Earth does not want to stand at the door and say: I don't want disability folks in my business.

No. They want to fix it because they want to do business. To say anything else is simply, unfortunately at times, tending to scare people for the wrong reasons.

If you want to defend trial lawyers and others who are willing to sue with nondisabled people, to sue businesses taking Google photographs of Google Maps and saying, ``This is a business that we are going to extort something from,'' then vote against this bill, but then explain to somebody in a wheelchair why you are using them and allowing these folks to use them for their profit motive. That is wrong.

We can find a lot of ways to find agreement here, but let's at least look at the situation on how it is.

So, with these Financial Services bills, they provide regulatory relief. They reduce unnecessary burdens. They are bipartisan. I am urging my friends and colleagues to take a look at the amendments because there are a lot of amendments that are going to come forward on these, especially the ADA bill and others.

Look at that. Listen to it. Talk about it. But at the end of the day, never forget what is actually happening here, and what we are actually seeing is something that we can make a difference in and we are looking to make a difference in.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), the primary cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

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.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers remaining other than myself and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

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. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come before the House during this rules debate on this package of bipartisan bills that have been worked on for two Congresses now and that address a number of issues that I think Members on both sides of the aisle and our committee recognize would improve the capital market system, improve access to capital for business and consumers, and, also, reduce the red tape, the bureaucracy associated with trying to run a community bank and provide services to our consumers, both businesses and families, that has been made so challenging since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act almost 8 years ago.

You know, I was coming to Washington yesterday, and I was reading the weekend business section. There was a story there about Richard Griffin from Crossett, Arkansas, who has owned a community bank there for decades. It is about a $30 million, $35 million bank.

He just said that, with his 13 employees, he just couldn't comply with the level of regulatory burden following Dodd-Frank that was so geared to our biggest financial institutions, our most complex financial institutions, companies like those headquartered up in New York. He just felt compelled to exit the business and leave that town, leave the local board of directors, the local management team, and turn it over to an out-of-State company.

Crossett, Arkansas, is a fine town, and it deserves a good banking presence by a number of competitors, home to Georgia-Pacific and all of their activities there.

Mr. Speaker, these bills are, as I say, bipartisan, and they are needed across this country. Let me just touch on a few of them.

The ones that I think provide the most benefit to community bankers and businesses and customers of those local banks are, first of all, Mr. Stivers' bill, which eliminates a barrier, a well-intended licensing provision if you wanted to make mortgage loans after the '08 crisis.

Congress thought it was a good idea to make sure that mortgage lenders were qualified, so they made them get a license. We can debate whether that was too much work or not or whether it was worthwhile or not. They made bankers get it and nonbanks.

But in this bill, Mr. Stivers simply says, if you are going to try to change jobs and you hold a mortgage license, that you just have a transition period where you don't have to go requalify for that if you are going to work for a nonbank or you are going to work for somebody in another State. It only passed our committee 60-0, so it doesn't get much more bipartisan than that. That will help banks reduce red tape, recruit loan officers, and get them to work faster serving customers.

Likewise, the TRID Improvement Act of 2017 is something that I worked on in a variety of ways, and it is included in this package. It allows States where you can buy both a personal policy for your title insurance as well as the title coverage for a closing to show you the real discount.

Mr. Speaker, the real irony here is that, when Elizabeth Warren was a staffer and a college professor, one of her goals for the CFPB was simplification, that we take all these complicated forms and we would make them easier to use.

Well, here is an example of the exact opposite. The new Truth in Lending forms for real estate settlements were made more complicated. After 8 years of dealing with it, this was a classic example of trying to make it simpler.

Let's actually show the consumer what the real closing costs are for their title insurance. This will speed mortgage closings. This will reduce errors in mortgage closings. This will reduce consumer confusion about the so-called Know Before You Owe rule. I would argue this rule has made it much more difficult to know what you owe before you borrow it, and this is a small step in improving that.

Mr. Speaker, these things help our community banks.

There is one other in this package we are considering today, Mr. McHenry's bill, which allows community banks that originate loans, consumer loans, commercial loans, that are selling those loans to a nonbank, a nonbank servicer or a nonbank packager, to be able to pass through the rate that they originated the loan for. There was a Supreme Court case that has made that more complicated, that said you can't pass through the rate and that State banking laws don't preempt our State usury laws for this kind of work.

So I commend Mr. McHenry for this, because this improves liquidity to our community banking system and, again, lowers rates for consumers, makes products more accessible, and makes our small community banks more competitive.

I will close by just touching on a couple of other measures that I think help businesses, help capital markets, help capital flow.

One, you just heard my friend from California (Mr. Royce) talk about his bill. That will help capital markets flow. That will create parity among our exchanges, lowering costs for companies that want to go public and have their action there, raise capital on the public markets.

Mr. Duffy has a bill that requires the SEC to actually get a subpoena if they want to get source code from a capital markets provider, someone who is managing money, someone who is offering to manage portfolios or offer a mutual fund company, and this is very, very helpful. I think, when you want to get your secret sauce for your business and the government wants it, they ought to have a subpoena.

That is all that this bill does. It doesn't change the rules about that. It doesn't change anything other than saying, if you want this information, you ought to go and get a subpoena, and I believe that will improve capital formation.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are good bills. These are bipartisan bills. These are bills that we have worked on for two Congresses that will help consumers, increase access to credit, lower the cost of that credit, and increase capital flows to the business sector to support the growth that the American people want.

I appreciate the Rules Committee allowing me to speak on these bills. I appreciate Chairman Hensarling putting them together.

And to my friends on the other side, these are bills that went through regular order.

These are bills that are bipartisan. These are bills that have the support of the opposition. We have put them together in a bipartisan package today under this rule because our friends down the hall in the United States Senate are rapidly moving a bipartisan package of improvements for our capital markets and our banks, something that we want, something that we have waited some 8 years for. So this allows us to work better with our colleagues over in the Senate, where 14 Democrats have partnered with Senator Crapo on the Banking Committee to move bipartisan legislation that will help us grow our economy.