On the recordFebruary 15, 2018
I appreciate the intent behind this amendment to make the notice provision of H.R. 620 slightly less onerous, and I acknowledge that it does so by eliminating the requirement that an aggrieved person cite in his or her initial notice to a business the specific ADA provision being violated. The amendment, however, still leaves in place the basic problem with the bill, the basic problem with the notice and cure provision, and that is the notice and cure provision. Therefore, it does not alleviate any of the real concerns with the underlying bill. Again, the basic notice and cure provisions of the bill turn on its head the normal practice of any civil rights statute in which the burden of compliance is on the actor, not on the victim. Here, we put the burden of compliance on the victim. The debate has been as if people have not had 28 years to come into compliance, only to find out they are not in compliance when someone complains about it, some victim is victimized. That is just wrong. This goes in exactly the wrong direction. Although this amendment would slightly alleviate the provision, it is putting lipstick on a pig. For this reason and in deference to the disability rights community, which opposes this amendment and the pre- suit notice and cure requirements, I must oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
