[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      THE QUESTION OF FAIR HOUSING

                                 ______


                            HON. JIM SAXTON

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 7, 1994

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, my constituents have brought to my attention 
a situation that has arisen in the past few months that is causing much 
concern among realtors, advertisers, and consumers alike. The are 
angered at the interpretation of the Fair Housing Act amendments by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD].
  As a former real estate agent myself, I am alarmed at interpretations 
that have actually caused more problems than they were intended to 
solve. I have written to HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros about this 
matter. The text of that letter, dated September 12, 1994, follows:

     Hon. Henry G. Cisneros,
     Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
         Congressional Affairs, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Cisneros: I am writing at the urging of many 
     of my constituents who are both confused and angered by the 
     current wave of interpretation of the Fair Housing Act 
     Amendments.
       It appears that well-intentioned regulations aiming to 
     defeat discrimination have been trivialized to such extent 
     that they are in fact hindering all of those involved in the 
     real estate market. Please forward to me your plan for 
     approaching this problem, including clarification of the 
     interpretation of the Amendments.
       Advertisers using descriptions such as ``walk-in closet'' 
     or ``master bedroom,'' terms universally recognized as titles 
     for what they describe, can now unexpectedly find themselves 
     being sued for discrimination. I believe that this type of 
     interpretation was not the original intent.
       Is this the intent of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development in the creation of the regulations which resulted 
     from the Fair Housing Act passed by Congress? If not, what is 
     being done by H.U.D. to alleviate this harassment of 
     realtors, buyers and sellers.
       The number of lawsuits initiated by people offended by the 
     choice of wording in advertising has swollen to a number 
     disproportionate to intentional acts of discrimination.
       Moreover, the guidelines being offered by the federal 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are much 
     too subjective to be the basis of fines up to $50,000 being 
     assessed to real estate advertisers.
       I appreciate your assistance in resolving this unfortunate 
     situation.
       This is indeed a serious situation. Constituents from 
     across the Third District of New Jersey are contacting me 
     about this and their concerns are genuine.
       One of my constituents from Cherry Hill, New Jersey writes, 
     ``I feel that professional REALTORS strive very hard to 
     ensure that all our clients and customers are treated fairly 
     and equitably. However the restricted vocabulary hinders us 
     from describing property in an accurate manner which is not 
     fair to the seller or to potential purchasers and renters.''
       Another constituent from Cherry Hill writes, ``For 
     instance, we can no longer refer to a ``mother-in-law'' suite 
     or a ``family room'' without violating [the guidelines].''
       Still another constituent of mine from Cinnaminson, NJ 
     writes, ``I recently wanted to place an advertisement for 
     working mothers interested in a career in real estate. My own 
     mother started in the real estate business when I was a small 
     child. Not all offices would accept the uncertain schedule a 
     mother has to maintain and I wanted young mothers to know 
     that the environment here was friendly to her special needs. 
     I was informed by the local paper that I could not use the 
     term working mothers, because it discriminated against those 
     who did not have children.''
       I have even received letters from outside the Third 
     District of NJ. This person from Philadelphia, PA writes, 
     ``On a daily basis we are made painfully aware of the new 
     discretionary interpretations being applied to the Fair 
     Housing Amendments. The intent, * * * has been eroded.''
       I believe that the Fair Housing Act Amendments were enacted 
     to help people achieve fair housing. These interpretations 
     are causing problems for buyers, sellers, and advertisers. 
     This obvious trivialization of the Fair Housing Act 
     Amendments must be addressed.

                          ____________________