A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain property to the Tanana Tribal Council located in Tanana, Alaska, and to the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation located in Dillingham, Alaska, and for other purposes.

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. Chair, I want to thank the chairman for his long work on this issue, and I want to thank a couple of the cosponsors--this is a bipartisan bill--Congressman Peters, Congresswoman Speier, and Mr. Ken Calvert, who have worked on this for years. I appreciate the words of the gentleman who just spoke, a great leader in civil rights movement, but as he probably knows, title VII of the Civil Rights Act does require notice, as well as this legislation hopefully will do.

And let me be clear. This legislation makes the ADA better because it requires that businesses be told and be given a chance to fix the problem if there is a problem.

Under current law, that is not the case. The goal of this bill, the ADA legislation that we have, is to have accommodations for the disabled and to make sure businesses comply with that accommodation.

When a lawsuit is filed, many times the business is never told what the problem is, and it may be a year or longer before that lawsuit ends up in a Federal court. Under this legislation, businesses, once they are put on notice, they have 180 days to fix the problem or make substantial progress.

If the goal of the ADA is to get problems fixed, the legislation we have here helps that. But what is taking place in our country, Mr. Chair, because of the legislation that we currently have under the law, some lawyers, as mentioned earlier, use the legislation and abuse the legislation under current ADA to the disadvantage of the disabled to make a profit for themselves.

And here is the way it works, Mr. Chair. A litigant, a plaintiff, will send a letter or sometimes file a lawsuit against a small business. We are not talking about the big businesses--we are talking about small mom-and-pop stores--and telling them they have an ADA violation. The letter--the lawsuit--may not even state what the violation is. And the letter says: ``You pay or we will continue the lawsuit.''

These businesses don't have the money to hire a lawyer to represent them, so what do they do? They pay the $3,000, $5,000, the extortion, so that those lawsuits are dismissed.

The problem that may be alleged in that lawsuit is never required to be fixed for two reasons: one, the lawsuit doesn't require it; and second, these lawsuits may not state what the problem is.

So, if the goal of the ADA is to make businesses comply, these serial plaintiffs that are filing multiple lawsuits still don't require that the businesses, even if they get the money, have to comply with the alleged violation. This is happening throughout the United States.

Let me mention just a few of these. In Florida, a plaintiff named Howard Cohan filed 529 of these lawsuits; California, a person named Vogel filed 124; Pennsylvania, a plaintiff named Mielo brought 21 lawsuits; and even in New York, a plaintiff named Hirsch brought 24 lawsuits.

What are they doing?

These plaintiffs may not even live in the State where the violation is supposed to occur. These plaintiffs may not even be disabled themselves, but they will file the lawsuit against these businesses, sometimes using Google Maps to find a violation in the parking lot, send a letter from a law firm saying, ``You comply with paying us, or this lawsuit''--or paying us this shakedown is what it amounts to--``or we will continue the lawsuit,'' and many businesses file or pay the extortion. It has become a profit industry.

It doesn't help the disabled. Contrary to what the other side has said, these lawsuits do not help the disabled. In fact, I think these lawsuits are being filed on behalf of serial plaintiffs who want nothing else except to receive extortion money.

Before my time is completed, I want to mention some of the Federal judges. One Federal judge from New York has taken notice of these cases.

Mr. Chair, Federal judges have said that there are issues with these drive-by lawsuits.

Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New York, in 2016, in his decision, said that these cases, ``are brought against small bars and grills, restaurants, or bodegas or occasionally corner grocery stores (and sometimes their landlords), which are likely ill-equipped financially to vigorously defend these violations, and it is to intimidate businesses to settle before the trial takes place.''

I have parents that are in their 90s. I am concerned about access for all disabled people, and the thought that this bill makes it worse for the disabled is wrong. This bill makes businesses comply and puts them on notice. If they don't comply within the time period, then file the lawsuit, go after them, but businesses should be able to have the notice of what the problem is so that they can fix it, which is the goal of the ADA: to make businesses comply.

And that is just the way it is.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, the gentleman from Georgia is absolutely correct, I am aware of this matter.

Also, I am aware that the gentleman joined Chairman Goodlatte and about 60 Members of this Chamber last year to urge the Justice Department to finalize a regulation in this area with the intent of providing certainty. Even still, it is not clear that there is a statutory obligation under the ADA for the Department of Justice to act, which is why H.R. 620 doesn't address that issue specifically.

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, this legislation makes it better for the disabled to have access under the notice and cure requirement.

The Judiciary Committee will continue to work with the Department of Justice and stakeholders on this. In fact, for jurisdictions where courts have held the ADA does apply to websites, we believe protections in H.R. 620 will be applicable as well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act. This misguided piece of legislation is being sold to my colleagues and the American public as a measure that will help people with disabilities, help businesses come into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and help reduce drive-by lawsuits in States that have gone beyond the ADA to allow for monetary awards. In actuality, H.R. 620 doesn't accomplish any of these objectives.

What is worse, if passed, this ill-considered bill will not only decimate the protections that people with disabilities rely on, it will turn back the clock to a more segregated society, and it will unravel the core promise of the ADA that a disability, visible or otherwise, can never be grounds to justify or tolerate discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, I am angry. I am frustrated. I am insulted. But more than anything, I am disappointed. Further, neither Mr. Peters nor Mr. Poe ever even approached me to sit down and have a discussion about this bill, to try to find some common ground to try to actually fix the problem if it is about drive-by lawsuits.

Has the Congress really become so divorced from the human experience of the disability community that we are willing to sacrifice their rights because it is easier than targeting the root of the problem? Are people with disabilities, people like me, so easily disregarded?

I am here to say enough is enough.

Mr. Chairman, whether someone is born with a disability, develops a disability, or becomes disabled due to an accident or from having served in our Armed Forces, the fundamental truth is that it happened by chance, certainly not by choice.

As the first quadriplegic elected to the United States Congress, I overcame many obstacles to sit beside you as a Member of this Chamber, but I would never have had the opportunities that I cherish today without the tireless efforts of those who came before me to fight for the rights of people with disabilities.

Mr. Chairman, I was injured in 1980, at just 16 years of age, a full 10 years before the passage of the ADA, and I certainly remember what life was like before the ADA became law. I remember that I couldn't go inside a public building that didn't have a ramp, couldn't travel without accessible transportation, and was excluded from gatherings in restaurants and libraries, movie theaters and sports venues that couldn't accommodate a wheelchair.

I struggled to wash my hands at a sink, access a restroom, and enter a classroom. I even declined matriculation at my first-choice college because the challenge of getting around the campus would have been too difficult, if not impossible.

Mr. Chairman, the ADA brought more than just the recognition that disability rights are civil rights. It brought hope and opportunity to millions of people, and it brought dignity.

Mr. Chairman, after all, having a disability should not limit opportunity, and it is with opportunity that people with disabilities can lead more active, productive, and independent lives.

The ADA was passed nearly 28 years ago, and instead of holding people accountable to correctly implement the law, especially when free resources and technical information are readily available, H.R. 620 weakens Federal protections under the ADA, protections that prohibit discrimination on the basis of a disability.

The ADA does not allow people to sue for compensatory or punitive damages, only injunctive relief. Yet some States have gone beyond the Federal law to permit monetary awards.

H.R. 620 seeks to address the issue by including a notice and cure period.

Well, the idea that places of public accommodation should receive a free pass for 6 months before correctly implementing a law that has been a part of our legal framework for nearly three decades creates an obvious disincentive for ADA compliance.

People with disabilities, Mr. Chairman, still face immeasurable obstacles, despite the progress of our great Nation since the passage of the ADA.

This past year, the disability community has had to fight to preserve access to healthcare, the long-term services and supports that are a lifeline for so many under Medicaid, and the ability to maintain certain protections and credits under the Tax Code.

Mr. Chairman, they are tired, and I am tired, of defending against efforts to weaken our rights. I urge my colleagues to see past the smoke and mirrors and irresponsible claims that H.R. 620 is anything but an appalling effort to strip away the civil rights of a protected class of Americans.

Mr. Chairman, every vote in support of H.R. 620 will be a message to people with disabilities that we are not worthy of inclusion, acceptance, or deserve the same civil rights protections as others.

Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, Americans with disabilities look upon us to defend their rights. Let us not vote to eliminate them. Let us make them proud and reject H.R. 620.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for yielding.

One thing I want to agree with Mr. Nadler on is his comments about the tragedy yesterday in Florida. I completely endorse those comments with respect to that tragic event.

I do rise today in support of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act. Today, as Members have heard, the ADA is being abused by a few bad actors who are serving their own personal interest, financial interest, not fighting for the disabled. They file lawsuits and immediately settle them for a few thousand dollars without actually requiring that anything be fixed. Nobody says this abuse is not happening. Nobody says this advances the cause of access.

A small restaurant owner in downtown San Diego tells a typical story. It was sued by an attorney who had filed 50 ADA suits against restaurants in San Diego County in 1 year. The barriers claimed in that suit didn't exist. The tables were at ADA compliant height, the bathroom was accessible, there was access between tables, but the property owner's attorney told him it could cost him upwards of $50,000 to prove it in court, so they settled with the plaintiff for $2,500.

The serial litigant got the quick payoff he wanted although there were no violations that had to be fixed, and if there were violations, it wouldn't have required that they be fixed. We hear stories all the time of lawsuits settled without any barriers being fixed.

Now, some State governments have acted to curb this abuse. And do you know who has led the fight against the abuse of disability laws? California Democrats.

In 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed S. 269, authored by a Democratic State senator and passed by a majority Democratic legislature. It gives businesses 120 days to correct violations claimed by a plaintiff. It is a bipartisan solution that educates businessowners on compliance, redirects payouts to settle claims away from lawyers and toward actually improving access, and it protects against these cookie-cutter lawsuits filed by serial plaintiffs.

Now, let me address some of the issues that have been raised today. We are trying to provide the same kind of correction at the Federal level.

First, this bill doesn't turn anyone into a second-class citizen by requiring notice and an opportunity to cure. The concept of notice and cure is not new to private rights of action. In fact, it is very common.

Under the Clean Water Act in which I practice, if a complainant has to notify violators of a violation, the violator has 60 days to fix the problem before he can file a private right of action.

And in civil rights laws, too, as has been said, notice and opportunity to cure is common. Before you can file a lawsuit for a hostile workplace environment, for instance, you have to file a claim and give the employer the chance to fix it.

And the same is true, quite ironically, for disability. If you want to file a notice on reasonable accommodation, you have to give the opportunity to fix it. Today, we are asking that businessowners be given the same chance to fix problems that we currently give employers.

Second, the bill does not hold harmless public accommodations. Under H.R. 620, public accommodations are still responsible for ensuring access under threat of litigation. If a property owner fails timely and adequately to respond to a notice, she is subject to the same remedies that exist today.

Third, a notice and cure period does not shift the burden of compliance from businesses to victims. Today, if a public accommodation is out of compliance with the ADA, a plaintiff--a real plaintiff who had a problem with it--would have to file a lawsuit to force compliance. Under H.R. 620, a plaintiff would be able to file a notice that starts the timeline to fix the problems that exist. That doesn't shift the burden.

And finally, H.R. 620 does not weaken the rights of the disabled. On the contrary, it facilitates the removal of barriers to ensure better access for the disabled within a short period of time, discouraging the quick payoffs that do nothing for access.

No one solution proposed by Congress is ever perfect. I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find amendments and changes to the law to make the timeline for fixes tighter and to tighten the definitions of compliance. In fact, many of the defects that are noticed by Mr. Nadler, I believe, will be addressed by amendments today.

Specifically, we will have a provision for plain language notice, which I think is an improvement: 120-day clarification instead of 180 days, and a better definition of what substantial progress means.

I think we can continue to improve the bill, and I hope to work with my colleagues and the Senate to do that. But in the face of undisputed abuse of one of our Nation's civil rights laws for personal gain, I am certain that doing nothing is the worst response.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill.