[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4356-H4359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 660, HOUSING FOR OLDER PERSONS ACT
OF 1995
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 126 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 126
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 660) to amend the Fair Housing Act to modify
the exemption from certain familial status discrimination
prohibitions granted to housing for older persons. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], 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.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 126 is an open rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 660, the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995
authored by our distinguished colleague from Florida, [Mr. Shaw].
The purpose of this legislation is to clarify the requirements for
seniors-only housing by removing the ``significant facilities and
services'' requirement for housing for older persons from the Fair
Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3631. The Fair Housing Act prohibits
discrimination against families with children, and as the father of two
young boys, I am a strong supporter of the rights of families with
children of any age. However, current law also allows for seniors-only
housing if it meets certain requirements, including the provision of
``significant facilities and services.'' It is my understanding that
compliance with the regulations that the Department of Housing and
Urban Development has devised to meet this requirement are often vague
and sometimes very expensive to meet.
Mr. Speaker, I would defer to the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and to others, other members of the Committee
on the Judiciary and Members who have worked diligently on this
legislation, which of course the Committee on the Judiciary reported
this bill, to speak to the details, to the bill's merits.
I will speak to the rule with which the Committee on Rules brings
this bill to the floor. It is, I believe, an extremely fair rule; it is
an open rule. Two amendments were offered by members of the minority in
the Committee on the Judiciary, amendments that failed on recorded
vote, and there may be other Members of Congress and not on the
Committee on the Judiciary that may wish to amend this bill. Under this
open rule any Member of Congress, regardless of committee or party
affiliation, has the opportunity to offer any germane amendment.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Judiciary. After general debate, it shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 126, I believe, is exemplary, it is a
totally fair, completely open rule, and I urge its adoption.
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of April 5, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\............... 46 44 21 72
Modified Closed\3\.................. 49 47 8 28
Closed\4\........................... 9 9 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals:....................... 104 100 29 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
[[Page H4357]]
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of April 4, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) O................... H.R. 5.............. Unfunded Mandate Reform.. A: 350-71 (1/19/
95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) MC.................. H. Con. Res. 17..... Social Security.......... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1......... Balanced Budget Amdt..... 95)
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 101............ Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/1/
Pueblo Indians. 95)
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 400............ Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/1/
Nat'l. Park and Preserve. 95)
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 440............ Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/1/
County, Calif. 95)
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95). O................... H.R. 2.............. Line Item Veto........... A: voice vote (2/2/
95)
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 665............ Victim Restitution....... A: voice vote (2/7/
95)
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 666............ Exclusionary Rule Reform. A: voice vote (2/7/
95)
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95). MO.................. H.R. 667............ Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/9/
Incarceration. 95)
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95). O................... H.R. 668............ Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/10/
Deportation. 95)
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) MO.................. H.R. 728............ Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/10/
Grants. 95)
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) MO.................. H.R. 7.............. National Security PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
Revitalization. 127 (2/15/95)
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) MC.................. H.R. 831............ Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
Deductibility. 188 (2/21/95)
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) O................... H.R. 830............ Paperwork Reduction Act.. A: voice vote (2/22/
95)
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) MC.................. H.R. 889............ Defense Supplemental..... A: 282-144 (2/22/
95)
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) MO.................. H.R. 450............ Regulatory Transition Act A: 252-175 (2/23/
95)
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) MO.................. H.R. 1022........... Risk Assessment.......... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95)
H. Res. 100 (2/27/ O................... H.R. 926............ Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/28/
95). Relief Act. 95)
H. Res. 101 (2/28/ MO.................. H.R. 925............ Private Property A: 271-151 (3/1/95)
95). Protection Act.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 988............ Attorney Accountability A: voice vote (3/6/
Act. 95)
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 1058........... Securities Litigation ...................
Reform.
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) MO.................. .................... ......................... A: 257-155 (3/7/97)
H. Res. 108 (3/6/95) Debate.............. H.R. 956............ Product Liability Reform. A: voice vote (3/8/
95)
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) MC.................. .................... ......................... PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
181 (3/9/95)
H. Res. 115 (3/14/ MO.................. H.R. 1158........... Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
95). Approps. 95)
H. Res. 116 (3/15/ MC.................. H.J. Res. 73........ Term Limits Const. Amdt.. A: voice vote (3/28/
95). 95)
H. Res. 117 (3/16/ Debate.............. H.R. 4.............. Personal Responsibility A: voice vote (3/21/
95). Act of 1995. 95)
H. Res. 119 (3/21/ MC.................. .................... ......................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95). 95)
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 1271........... Family Privacy Protection A: 423-1 (4/4/95)
Act.
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 660............ Older Persons Housing Act ...................
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) MC.................. H.R. 1215........... Contract With America Tax A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
Relief Act of 1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) MC.................. H.R. 483............ Medicare Select Expansion ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous
question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague,
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], as well as my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle for bringing this resolution to the
floor. House Resolution 126 is an open rule which will allow full and
fair debate on the important issue of housing for older Americans. As
the gentleman from Florida has described, this rule allows 1 hour of
general debate. It makes in order the Judiciary Committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment. Under the rule, germane amendments will be allowed under the
5-minute rule, the normal amending process in the House of
Representatives. I am pleased that the Rules Committee was able to
report this rule without opposition, and I plan to support it.
Although this rule is open, I do have some questions about the bill
itself. In passing the Fair Housing Amendments of 1988, the Congress
protected families living with children against discrimination. At the
same time, Congress did recognize the particular needs of older people
to live among their peers in age restricted communities. This was a
correct policy in my view. However, by changing the requirements for
senior housing now, I want to make sure that we are not shutting out
families, who are struggling to make ends meet, from obtaining
affordable housing.
According to the Justice Department, under this bill more than half
the persons living in a facility designated as ``housing for older
persons'' could be younger than 55 and that facility would not be
required to provide any significant services for seniors. Yet, such a
facility could be exempt from the Fair Housing Act. Fortunately, the
rule we have before us today will allow amendments to this measure, and
I sincerely hope the bill can be improved.
As I indicated before, I support this open rule and I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we have four speakers who have asked to
address the House. I will begin by yielding 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], my colleague and close friend, for yielding
me this time, and I parenthetically say it is a great pleasure having a
gentleman of his esteemed distinction and knowledge serving on the
Committee on Rules. The fact that he is from Florida also is an extra
blessing. I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak in favor of this
wide-open rule on a bill that I hope will have very broad bipartisan
support.
As my colleagues know, much has been said about the Contract With
America and just which is the crown jewel of that contract, and my
colleague from the southwest coast of Florida [Mr. Miller], and myself
from the southwest coast of Florida believe this probably is the crown
jewel of the Contract With America; at least in my district it is in
close competition because this legislation makes good on yet another
promise we made in the Contract With America, and I have also got to
point out another Floridian who had an important part of this, and I
commend him as a prime sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Shaw, my colleague who has actually been an initiator and
put in a lot of hard work, and it is his persistence which brought this
to a successful close today.
I think it is important to remember how we got back into this
situation, and it is not a great track record. What happened is back in
1988 Congress unintentionally tried to do the right thing when it
rightfully sought to exempt bona fide senior citizen communities from a
bill to prohibit discrimination against families with children.
Congress did have the right idea, but the administrative agency charged
with implementing that idea sort of missed the mark. The result was a
great deal of unnecessary, I think, unfair anxiety, upset, costly legal
headaches for older Americans seeking to live in designated senior
retirement communities. This Congress has not wavered on its commitment
to assisting our older Americans in their effort to live out their
golden years in communities with their peers, places where their
special needs can be met. I know our country's grandparents, I think,
because I am one, too. I believe our grandparents like to maintain
active life styles, complete with frequent visits by their children,
grandchildren,
[[Page H4358]] and great-grandchildren, and I do not have any of those
yet; I hope I will someday. I understand and I respect the wishes of
many seniors to join together in communities designed and specifically
maintained for people over 55. After several false starts, the
administration seems to have caught on to the problem with earlier
application of the 1988 law, and we are grateful that finally we have
some much-improved rules from HUD, but still it is clear the
bureaucracy has not been able to put the problem to rest on its own,
and that is why the legislative fix is important.
So, I urge my colleagues to join in this support for H.R. 660 and
this very wonderful rule we have to bring it to the floor.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 660,
the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, Congress passes laws which have unintended
consequences. The Fair Housing Act of 1988 is one of those instances.
This landmark legislation has laudable goals of eliminating
discrimination in housing. Unfortunately the bill also contains
provisions which have had a damaging and harming effect to our
chronologically gifted seniors. This has been particularly apparent in
San Diego.
Let me tell my colleagues the problems. When the law was enacted,
first of all, that in one specific area, and that is the mobile home
residents, we had a law enacted that changed the tax rate from going
from DMV for mobile homes to property taxes. When that happened, it
caused many of the mobile home parks to shut down. There was nowhere
else to go, unlimited access to it, and then with the Fair Housing Act,
it mandated that they get certain special facilities, medical
facilities and others, to the chronologically gifted. In some cases
those costs were passed on to our seniors, and in some cases the owners
actually made a profit on those services.
Now most of these chronologically gifted folks in the mobile home
parks are on a fixed income, and they could not pay the additional
costs. It seemed like every time their Social Security increased, they
would also get a rent raise. They could not move, and then these extra
facilities were put on, and they could not meet it. The mobile home
owners would say, ``Okay, move,'' and of course there was no other
parks to move to because of the previous law also, so catch-22.
Mayor Thibadow of San Marcos, a city councilman, Corby Smith, and
Jerry Linhart who worked with the mobile home people came to me 4 years
ago with this, and that is why I laud the gentleman for bringing this
bill up.
{time} 1230
Even Secretary of HUD Jack Kemp wrote letters and tried to establish
the policies. We have not been able to do that before this time. So I
would like to thank the gentleman on the other side of the aisle as
well as the Members on this side for finally being able to correct a
provision that is harmful to chronologically gifted folks.
This is a good bill. It is a bill that protects, as I never use the
term senior citizens, the chronologically gifted of our society, and it
was one that, and it was not the intent of an original bill, hurt those
folks, and we can ill afford to do it. This is government at its best.
From senior citizens going to a city council and a mayor, to coming
to the Federal Government for resolutions, it has taken a long time.
But again I would like to thank the chairman and Clay Shaw for bringing
this up and the Committee on the Judiciary for acting on it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me
this time. I am in strong support of this rule and this legislation.
When we signed the Contract With America, one of the underlying
principles of the Contract With America was that we are going to
restore some common sense to our Government again. And this precisely
is an area where it is needed.
The agency has now come and told senior citizens some of these areas
what kind of bingo they have to have, how many ping-pong tables they
have to have. It is absurd regulations.
I applaud the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Shaw, for introducing this
legislation, and also another Member, one of our colleagues, Dan Miller
from Florida, for the excellent ``Dear Colleague'' he sent to all of us
regarding this legislation. I thought it was very well done.
What this legislation is going to do is going to clarify the
congressional intent relating to the Fair Housing Act of 1988. The 1988
law does prohibit discrimination against families and children, but it
also has an exemption. It exempts healthy seniors. It exempts senior
citizens who want to live in a unit where they can have relative peace
and quiet.
The way it has been interpreted by the departments has been totally
unworkable. The 1988 legislation has been interpreted in such a way
that it is unclear, unworkable, and very costly. It is, I think, an
example of what happens when government runs amuck, and this is a
precise example of that.
The passage of this bill will finally set forth once and for all a
clear and workable and fair exemption that will ensure that these
housing facilities that are intended for older persons qualify and
remain as housing for our older citizens.
Basically the nub of this bill is this: Under this bill, if a
community can prove that 80 percent of its units have one or more
occupants aged 55 or older, then it passes the adult only housing test
and qualifies for the exemption. That is precisely what we are doing
here, is redefining, clarifying, what the 1988 law was to have done.
We need senior communities. But what has happened is that these
senior communities have been harassed by lawsuits. The significant
facilities and services test has been completely misinterpreted. It has
made senior housing unafforadable, it has driven the cost up on it, and
many low and fixed income seniors have had to suffer because of this.
The other point I want to make is this, is that this bill is going to
protect the realtors. Relators and community boards have been harassed
because of this legislation. Basically we have got too many people
working in our departments here in Washington and for the Federal
Government, and they are just looking for things to do. So they are out
harassing realtors and community boards. What we are doing with this
legislation is this bill protects the relators and the members of the
community boards who act in good faith--that is precisely what the law
should do--from liability and monetary damages and lawsuits arising out
of senior only provisions. There have been numerous lawsuits against
realtors and directors of housing boards, and most of whom were just
trying to meet this vague exemption for senior housing.
So I applaud the gentleman from Florida, the Committee on Rules, and
every one who has been involved in this, because this is certainly an
area that needs clarification, and finally today we are going to do
that.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Miller], who, along with the sponsor, the gentleman fro
Florida [Mr. Shaw], has worked extremely hard and very diligently on
this legislation.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be able to stand here today to offer my
strong support for the Housing for Older Americans Act, H.R. 660, which
we will be voting on very shortly. This is a very important piece of
legislation. As my colleague the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss],
said, to many people in our districts down in southwest Florida, this
is the crown jewel of the contract, in addition to the tax bill and
reductions we offered last night.
This is the final part of the Contract With America. I would like to
think of it now as the granddaddy of the Contract With America since we
are going to conclude the contract with this very important issue.
It is not that important to many Members of the Congress because they
do not have as many seniors as I have. I have the largest number of
seniors of any congressional district in the country, and many of them
move to my area to live until senior-only housing,
[[Page H4359]] especially mobile home parks. And it is a special way of
life. That is the reason they move to this area of Florida, is to live
with their peers,
You have to be in a senior-only housing project to get a better idea
of what it means to them. Mobile homes are close to each other, they
share so much of their lives together as they get older. They can rely
only on their neighbors to provide transportation. They have activities
and programs specifically to their needs. They want to preserve this
way of life. It is very, very important. And that is the reason I feel
very strongly that we need to pass this legislation.
The election last year was a message to Congress and Washington to
stop trying to micromanage our lives. And this is one of the many
things that shows that they are trying to micro-manage our lives.
I am very familiar with this issue. My grandparents moved to Florida
back in the 1940's to live in a trailer park, the Bradenton Trailer
Park they moved into in 1947 or so. I saw them mature and finish and
retire and stay in that mobile home park. They retired to that mobile
home park. It was a trailer park in those days. But it was a way of
life that was very important in their final years of their lives. So it
means so much to so many people in my district.
But the problem was in the 1988 legislation, when they put in
legislation where they have the words significant and specific, that is
significant facilities and services that are specifically designed,
that is a dream word to the bureaucrats and lawyers here in Washington,
to be able to define what is significant and what is specific. And they
had a grand old time doing it.
Last summer, last July, they came out with 60 pages of regulations to
interpret this one sentence. They had hearings. I have to commend HUD,
they went around the country to hold hearings. They had one in Tampa.
They had almost 3,000 people at this hearing in Tampa that I attended,
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] was present there, and they
started explaining about congregate meals and all these expensive
things that is going to make these senior-only facilities not capable
of maintaining and following the regulations. It was a disaster, and
actually they realized it.
So when Assistant Secretary Altenberg came to the area, she actually
saw these mobile home parks and said, ``Golly, I didn't realize what it
means to be in these senior-only programs.'' So they came back and
changed them.
So I commend HUD for doing that, and I commend my colleague the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Sterns], for being on top of this issue and
encouraging HUD to get manageable, understandable, and livable
regulations.
But they came back and they changed the regulations and just issued
them a few weeks ago, and it is much better, a big improvement. But it
is still micro-management and getting into the affairs and lives of our
senior citizens, and it is wrong. Fortunately, this was included in our
Contract With America, and I thank my colleagues on the Republican side
for including it in the contract. There is wide bipartisan support here
in the House of Representatives.
Unfortunately, the administration just does not get it yet. At a
Committee on the Budget meeting recently, Secretary Cisneros was trying
to defend why we need to have these regulations. They just do not get
it yet. The AARP just 2 weeks ago finally got the message and came over
to support the Clay-Shaw bill that we are going to be voting on
shortly. Thank goodness we have got it this far. At least we have the
AARP to say hey, the election last November meant something.
So I am glad to say we are keeping our promises, we are going to vote
to approve this, we are going to get Washington out of the lives of our
senior citizens back in senior communities, and we are going to let
seniors go on and enjoy their retirement years in these senior
communities.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 660.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished
new Member, the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much
for this time.
Mr. Speaker, I realized that so much of what I thought I would have
to come do when I got here, others were starting to work on before I
got here, and it was really nice to find that out. When I was first
deciding to run, I was a write-in candidate, one of the first issues
that hit me in this Pennsylvania barrage was the elderly in my
community. We have a lot of those folks that live in mobile home parks,
and they had received 60 pages of proposed regulations to micro-manage
their lives and how their parks were going to be managed. And they said
we are going to elect you to send you back there to do something,
because this is government at its worse. Not only that, if we do all of
these costly things they want to our mobile home park, it will cost us
so much money, and most of us are on fixed incomes. Can you not get
those people back there to stop doing this to us?
I thought, is that not interesting? They did not really believe
government was doing it for them. They felt government was doing it to
them. Then I got here and thought it is getting better. They have
backed off a little bit. They revisited the regulations.
Then I just looked through the new regulations. The new regulations
are just cousins of the old regulations. They might think they are
better, but they are really not. And it comes to this: If this place
does not tell the bureaucracies how to operate, they will operate on
their own, and they will take away freedoms from people. They will
micro-manage their life. Bureaucracy always does. It will raise the
cost of senior citizen housing by their meddling.
So this is a great bill. I am real thankful for it. It is nice to
know we all do not have to work on everything, that this effort went on
before, and I want to thank those that worked on it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on
the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________