[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.
  

                          ____________________