[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4360-H4365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1245
HOUSING FOR OLDER PERSONS ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to
House Resolution 126 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 660.
{time} 1245
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Duncan in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 660 corrects a serious problem by amending the
Fair Housing Act to remove the significant facilities and services
requirement for seniors-only housing. Under H.R. 660, if a community
can show that 80 percent of its units have one or more occupants aged
55 or older, and meets certain other requirements, it will pass the
housing for older persons test.
When Congress amended the Fair Housing Act in 1988, it broadened the
coverage of the act to prohibit discrimination against families with
children. In covering discrimination based on familial status, Congress
recognized the need to respect the desires of some older people to live
among their peers in age-restricted communities and crafted an
exemption for senior citizens communities.
The Fair Housing Act defines ``housing for older persons'' as housing
that is occupied by persons 62 years of age or older or housing that is
intended for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older where there
are ``significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet
the physical or social needs of older persons.''
Unfortunately, this exemption has been narrowly construed and does
not offer the protection to the elderly intended by Congress in passing
the 1988 amendments. Consequently, legislation is necessary to
establish a workable and fair exemption to protect senior citizens who
wish to live in retirement communities.
The meaning of ``significant facilities and services'' has been a
source of great confusion and controversy since passage of the act.
Lack of clear guidelines have made it difficult for senior's
communities to qualify for the exemption. In addition, seniors with low
or fixed incomes are often unable to afford the amenities which might
be sufficient to qualify for the exemption.
The American Association of Retired Persons, which supports H.R. 660,
recently issued a report which states that there has been no
``successful defense of a claim of exemption for housing for older
person among the cases receiving judicial review.'' This makes it clear
beyond any doubt that the existing statutory provisions have been
inadequate to realize the original good of the Congress.
Initially, HUD issued regulations which provided little guidance to
legitimate seniors' communities seeking to avail themselves of the
statutory exemption for seniors communities. The Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 required HUD to issue a revised rule defining
``significant facilities and services.'' On July 7, 1994, HUD issued
proposed rules to define the meaning of this language.
After hearing from several thousand senior citizens in a series of
public hearings, Assistant Secretary Achtenberg announced on November
30, 1994, that HUD was withdrawing the proposed regulations for
seniors-only housing. HUD recently released new regulations for comment
which establish a broad checklist of potential services and facilities,
and allow self-certification by communities that they are eligible for
the exemption.
While these new regulations are a step in the right direction,
significant uncertainties remain. Despite the good faith efforts of HUD
to provide reasonable guidance, it has become clear that the only way
to finally solve this problem is for Congress to take action.
The heart of the legislation, section 2, amends the Fair Housing Act
to remove the significant facilities and services requirement. The
major inquiry that H.R. 660 requires in order to determine whether a
facility or community qualifies for housing for older persons is
whether, in fact, the community is comprised of individuals 55 years of
age or older. This section also requires the housing facility or
community to publish and adhere to policies and procedures
demonstrating the intent to provide housing for occupancy by the 55 and
over age group at an 80-percent level.
Section 3 of the bill creates a defense against the imposition of
money damages for compliance where a person has relied in good faith on
the application of the exemption relating to housing for older persons.
This section allows an individual to raise a defense which may prevent
the imposition of money damages, where he or she relies, in good faith,
on the existence of an exemption for housing for older persons and it
is later found that the exemption did not apply.
H.R. 660 will bring needed relief to thousands of senior citizens who
live in fear that they will be sued for violating the Fair Housing Act
because they are living in a facility or community that is designated
as seniors-only. It will relieve their fear that their exemption will
be taken from them and they will lose the right to live among other
older adults in an age-restricted community.
This legislation strikes a reasonable compromise--protecting the
rights of families with children and the security and peace of mind of
senior citizens.
I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Shaw]
for his leadership on this issue. He has diligently pursued this matter
for a number of years. Without his hard work, this legislation would
not have moved forward.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for
his support in moving this legislation to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, today's housing for older persons
amendment to the Fair Housing Act provides a true measure of relief for
those moderate- and low-income senior citizens who have convinced us
that some of the compliance requirements of the current Fair Housing
Act are too onerous.
In this connection, I join with the American Association of Retired
Persons in support of this amendment, which eliminates the burdensome
significant facilities requirement that senior communities currently
have to demonstrate that they have available to be considered seniors-
only housing.
I would be remiss if I did not state explicitly that I give pause
before I support any change in civil rights laws which weakens that
kind of a law in any way, but in this narrow case, I believe in the
careful balance which the Fair Housing Act must strike between the
legitimate interests of our seniors to maintain age-specific
communities for themselves and against the need of families to find
decent housing, in 1988, this Congress struck the balance a little too
harshly against seniors. And all
[[Page H4361]] we have done in this bill is make a modest adjustment.
The only concern that I had about a provision in this bill which
permits a good faith defense against liability for monetary damages in
housing discrimination lawsuits prompted me to offer an amendment
unsuccessfully to delete the defense from the bill. I did not succeed
in that effort, but I was satisfied with the considerable narrowing of
the defense that the Committee on the Judiciary adopted, mainly because
of the efforts extended by the gentleman from Massachusetts, the
ranking minority member of this committee.
So we have an improvement, and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development has done a good job of promulgating regulations which
clarify the significant facilities requirement as they were required to
do in 1988 and again in 1992.
The statutory requirement of the significant facilities remains too
expensive, too onerous for many of our senior, moderate- and low-income
housing communities. It is for that reason that I urge support for this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes and 30 seconds
to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I also thank him for his leadership in getting this to the House,
and I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking
minority member. I also want to recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], who had a hearing on this last year, when he
was chairing the committee, and made a commitment at that time that
this would come back to the floor, which the new majority has honored.
So I very much appreciate this. It is a bipartisan piece of
legislation, and it is one that I think is well thought out. And I
think it is very protective of the rights of families and of children.
In 1988, Congress passed the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988,
which attempted to bar discrimination based on familial status. The
1988 act tried to provide an adequate exemption for those housing
communities or developments intended as senior or retirement
communities. Up until then, States regulated senior housing through
State legislation.
The 1988 act requires communities that qualify as senior housing
under the provision, to quote from the rule, that ``at least 80 percent
of the households have in residence at least one person 55 years of age
or older,'' and to provide ``significant facilities and services
designed to meet the needs of older persons.'' Significant facilities
is currently the most problematic requirement for exemption from the
familial status provision. Seniors' communities throughout the country
have been faced with a barrage of lawsuits challenging their
qualifications under this provision. This litigation is costly and
burdensome to the communities and unwelcome to the seniors who reside
in them. No seniors community which has been challenged in court has
ever retained its exemption.
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 required HUD to
issue a revised rule defining the term ``significant facilities.'' On
July 7, 1994, HUD issued proposed regulations to define the meaning of
``significant facilities.'' On November 30, 1994, HUD withdrew the
proposed regulations. Once again, HUD has attempted to provide a rule
to define ``significant facilities'' and has released new regulations.
Unfortunately, as drafted, the new rules will impose expensive and
unnecessary burdens on seniors-only housing communities. For example, a
provision that requires a staff member assigned to read to the elderly.
H.R. 660 will make it easier for adult communities to satisfy the
Fair Housing regulations. The bill would repeal the ``significant
facilities and services'' requirement that is one of the troublesome
and unreasonable tests seniors' communities have had to meet to qualify
for an exemption from the 1988 Fair Housing Act.
Under this bill, if a community publicly states and can prove that 80
percent of its units have one or more occupants aged 55 or older and
shows an intent to serve the 55 and older population through its
advertising, rules and regulations, it passes the adults-only housing
test. These two tests are sufficient to protect families with children
against discrimination.
I want to be perfectly clear on what I am not trying to do. I am not
repealing the protection for persons discriminated against based on
familial status, but merely trying to establish communities around the
country. The Fair Housing Amendments Act recognized that senior have a
right to live in bona fide retirement communities if they choose. It is
time the legal language reflects that worthy goal.
I believe, however, that these most recent guidelines are vague and
still fail to provide a reasonable certainty of compliance for senior
communities that attempt to comply with the 1988 act.
I believe older Americans deserve to have the senior-only housing
option preserved. The should not be required to add requirements of
communal and rehabilitative services that are not appropriate to the
active lifestyle of some senior-only communities.
The elimination of the significant facilities from the 1988 act is of
vital concern to seniors throughout Florida and indeed throughout the
country. It is vital to every apartment building, every condominium
association and every homeowners' association that wishes to retain the
senior-only status. I have heard from and continue to hear from
hundreds of my constituents about this issue. I continue to receive
calls from other States as well, so this is definitely not a problem
unique to Florida.
Let's take this opportunity today to provide peace of mind for senior
citizens in 55 and older communities by passing H.R. 660. Let's provide
assurances that they can continue to live in their 55 and older
retirement communities without having to pay for expensive facilities
and services they don't want and don't need. Let us pass this final
portion of the Contract With America which responds to the outcry from
senior citizens on this issue from every corner of the country.
{time} 1300
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the name of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Barney Frank, has been mentioned many times already in
this debate.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I feel a little bit like
the character in the Moliere play who learned that he was speaking
prose all his life without knowing it. I find that I am here advocating
a part of the contract. That is not a posture I have previously found
myself in very often. I did not know that this was part of the
contract. It just goes to show that even a stopped clock can be right
twice a day.
This is an important piece of legislation. What we did in 1988 was,
sensibly, to try to protect children, families with children against
discrimination. As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], who is the
author of this pointed out, this in no way weakens or repeals that
substantive legislation.
What we are dealing with here is basically how you establish a
certain fact. We recognize, first, that the general principle should be
that you do not discriminate against families with children in the sale
or rental of housing.
Second, we did not mean that this ruled out the ability to create a
community of people who were older. Older people, like the rest of us,
differ in their tastes and preferences. Some of them want to live just
like everybody else. Others, by the time they reach a certain age, do
not ever want to hear another ball bouncing against a wall, they do not
want to be awakened by music they do not understand at midnight. They
want to be able to get up at 6 o'clock in the morning and not worry
about waking up other people. People's patterns in life can change.
Congress sensibly said in 1988, and President Reagan agreed, let us
have a protection for children, but let us also say that we can have a
separate situation for older people only. To define that, people put in
at the time, trying to prevent abuse, a requirement that you had to
have special facilities for the elderly. That is wrong, I think now,
for a couple of reasons.
[[Page H4362]] First of all, it suggests that if the average age in a
place is in the sixties, that automatically means that they are people
who cannot get around very well, that they need special facilities.
There are communities of people in their sixties and seventies and
eighties who do not need any special facilities. Some do, some do not.
Beyond that, and this is where I have found this to be a problem, it
is especially a burden on people who live in manufactured housing. In
the district I represent, there are a number of very attractive
communities of older people in manufactured housing, people living in
separate units. They may have one building which is kind of a community
room, but they do not have the kind of facilities that you might find
in a high-rise building. They have found themselves at a disadvantage.
It is to the credit of Assistant Secretary Roberta Achtenberg at HUD
that, given this set of rules, she has shown a great deal of
flexibility and understanding in interpreting them. She had one
proposal which people pointed out was problematic, and she withdrew it,
as has been noted, and she deserves credit for that.
She then came out with a second proposal. I agree with the gentleman
from Florida, her second proposal was a considerable improvement.
Indeed, I believe that given the framework of the statute, it was about
as good as it could be. Therefore, it is not a criticism of her that we
have said ``You have done a pretty good job of trying to be flexible
within the statute, but there is a problem with the statute
itself.
That is what this is here to amend. Therefore, we should be very
clear, this is not a repeal of the protection for children, this is not
any weakening of the substantive rules. It does remove one piece of
evidence that you have to have to qualify for an exemption in the law.
which remains essentially unchanged.
Finally, I want to note, and I appreciate the good words of the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] about my efforts, the original
bill as it came forward or as it came to committee had some language
which we thought was too broad in terms of a good faith effort.
What we do here is to say if you are an individual citizen, you are
not going to be held to a very high, sophisticated standard in terms of
dollars, but if you are a real estate professional, we can hold you to
a somewhat higher standard, so we put real estate professionals on
notice that they have to be fully cognizant of the facts. If they are
not cognizant of the facts and are found to have been deceptive, they
might pay a penalty, but that does not apply to individuals.
I think it is a very reasonable piece of legislation, and I thank the
gentleman from Florida and others for letting us bring it forward.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for this important
legislation, which injects some commonsense changes into the Federal
fair housing law. I want to congratulate the chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on Judiciary, the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Charles Canady, and his chief counsel,
Kathryn Hazeem, as well as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
the Constitution, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, and his
chief counsel, Robert Raben; in addition, the gentleman from Michigan,
Mr. Conyers, John Conyers, the ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Judiciary, for their very supportive conduct on this bill.
It has pretty much all been said, and I do not want to repeat it, but
I ought to mention that this legislation will protect innocent real
estate agents and condominium board Members against personal liability
for money damages stemming from this seniors only provision if they
have acted in good faith.
The American Association of Retired Persons strongly supports
enactment of H.R. 660 as a means of providing needed clarity in the
law.
Housing discrimination should not be tolerated in our society, but
there have been numerous instances where implementation and
administration of the fair housing law has prompted unnecessary
confusion and strife. This bill is a step toward fairness,
accommodation, and common sense for senior citizens and the communities
where they live. I certainly urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman]
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, it sounds like there is a Florida day today out here on
the floor. I have to tell the Members, this piece of legislation has
really created in our State some, obviously, notoriety here, because it
has been an issue that we have heard about for a couple of years now.
I am just delighted that the House is going to consider the necessary
changes in the Fair Housing Act. I want to, along with my other
colleagues, congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for
bringing this legislation forward, not only this year but also last
year.
I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for
having the hearing last year and setting part of this stage so we could
move in this year to consider this legislation before the House.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is also appropriate to say that this is a
Florida delegation-sponsored piece of legislation in a bipartisan
spirit, and again, and I cannot tell the members how important it is to
our seniors in our State. It is just so important.
We have talked about that ever since the 1988 amendments to the Fair
Housing Act were signed into law there has been confusion and
controversy that have surrounded the definition of ``significant
facilities and services'' in senior citizen housing. The provision
would require senior communities to provide these facilities and
services designed to meet the special needs of senior citizens.
In a footnote here, I have to tell the Members, I will invite any
Member down to my district, and I can assure them that some of these
things are not necessary. Some of them have more spirit and more drive
than many of us sitting in Congress today, and they are out dancing and
doing the kinds of things that we like to see people enjoy in their
years as they get a little older.
However, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed
this rule on this definition, and they first published it last year,
which only added to the problem. Then HUD came in, to their credit, and
held public hearings. They had one in the State of Florida in Tampa.
I have to tell the Members, hundreds of my constituents drove to
Tampa to be heard on this important issue. I think when they came back
and once they saw some of the activity that took place, they felt like
they had been heard.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, what we have heard today is that
there are sometimes things that cannot just be corrected through a rule
or regulation, that we really do have to make changes in the law, which
is what I think we are here today for, is to make sure that the changes
that are made protect this, and so HUD can go about what they intended
to do in their rule recently, and that is give them the tools to do
this correctly.
Again, I just want to add my support, and hope that my colleagues on
this side will support H.R. 660.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 660, the Housing for Older
Persons Act. Stop bureaucrats down at the Department of Housing and
Urban Development from harassing those who live in seniors-only
housing.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important issue for older Americans in
my district. They should have the opportunity to live with other
friends and neighbors which are sharing in the
[[Page H4363]] same life experiences of retirement in the type of
community they choose.
In 1990, the Congress passed amendments to the Fair Housing Act
intended to protect seniors-only housing from familial status lawsuits.
However, bureaucrats down at the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, appointed by President Clinton, are not allowing these
Americans to follow the law. There is a nebulous requirement that
seniors housing include significant facilities and services. HUD has
given this term an ominous and expensive definition, that costs
thousands of dollars for seniors-only housing in my district.
A clear example of how the Federal Government has wreaked havoc in
housing for older persons took place in my own home State. Late last
year, seniors at the Windmill Pointe Village Club Association of
Orlando, FL, were forced to pay more than $440,000 in damages and
penalties for practicing familial discrimination.
Mr. Chairman, mandating such services as illustrated in the latest
regulations issued by HUD will require housing complex owners to
double, triple or quadruple rents in mobile home parks or housing
complexes. Unless the House of Representatives acts on this bill, the
potential of high rents could effectively ban low- and moderate-income
elderly from seniors-only housing.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and end this
attack on our seniors.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the record on passage of the Fair Housing Act
Amendments of 1988 is clear--Congress specifically recognized the need
to protect housing for older persons as a valuable resource for the
elderly. Unfortunately, the record is equally clear that the statutory
exemption that we crafted requiring significant facilities and services
is not working. No community which has been challenged in court has
ever retained its exemption. The significant facilities and services
requirement imposes expensive and unnecessary requirements on
communities seeking an exemption. Seniors communities across the
country live in fear that they will have their exemption revoked--or
worse--that they will have to use the precious dollars that they have
set aside for their retirement to defend themselves in a lawsuit in
which they face the unlimited resources and legal firepower of the
Federal Government.
The most recent rulemaking by HUD marks the third time that the
executive branch has tried to issue regulations to give clear guidance
without imposing expensive and burdensome requirements. I think
Assistant Secretary Achtenberg has made an admirable effort in
attempting to craft flexible regulations, but no amount of rulemaking
can save a flawed statute. The best recourse available to us is to
amend the law and stop the intimidation of senior citizens--especially
those with fixed and low incomes--who can neither afford the expense of
significant facilities and services nor lawsuits to defend their right
to live their retirement years in peace and security.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Stearns].
{time} 1315
Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 660, the Housing
for Older Persons Act. I wish to thank my good friend and colleague the
gentleman from Florida, Clay Shaw, for his work on this issue. His
efforts on behalf of the seniors of this country are commendable. I
also want to recognize the chairman of the full committee, Chairman
Hyde, and the chairman of the subcommittee, another Florida colleague,
Chairman Canady, both of whom have been instrumental in the fight for
fairness for seniors.
The Fair Housing Act of 1988 created a burdensome and intrusive
regulation regarding seniors-only housing. The significant facilities
and services language has caused far too many problems for the seniors
of our country. As you all know, I have worked on this issue since I
came to Congress 7 years ago. In 1992, I amended section 919 of the
Housing and Community Development Act, requiring that HUD simplify and
clarify the exemption language. This year HUD finally published the new
rule. The rule does simplify the requirements and ease the burden on
housing communities, but does not alter the questionable and confusing
facilities and services language. In other words, seniors still face a
legal hurdle for doing nothing more than trying to freely live in their
own communities.
It has become clear that a full repeal of the questionable
regulations is the best solution to this problem. Only by removing the
ambiguous language regarding significant facilities and services can we
truly protect the rights of seniors. If we pass this bill, there will
finally be a clear and concise test, by which seniors only housing
facilities can know whether they qualify for the exemption.
Housing discrimination should not be tolerated by our society, and it
certainly should be encouraged by legislation. But, the Fair Housing
Act does just that: instead of making it easier for seniors to live in
their own communities it has created a legal pitfall that assumes
seniors are guilty until proven innocent. The act has actually
discouraged seniors from exercising their right to live where they
want. The Fair Housing Act has been anything but fair.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 660. This legislation will
provide the fairness and accommodation our Nation's seniors deserve. No
longer will they be treated as second-class citizens; no longer will
they be punished simply for their age. Finally they will enjoy the
fairness promised to them in the Fair Housing Act. Finally they will
regain the right to live in peace. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 660.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Bono].
Mr. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 660, the Housing for
Older Persons Act of 1995. In my district, particularly in communities
like Hemet and San Jacinto, thousands of seniors suffer from oppressive
and unfair regulations when it comes to seniors-only housing.
The bill would repeal the significant facilities requirement that is
one of the tests senior communities have had to meet to qualify for an
exemption from the 1988 Fair Housing Act. This will bring needed relief
to not only my district, but to seniors throughout the country.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 660 and end the discrimination
against seniors.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
660, the Housing for Olders Persons Act, legislation of which I am a
proud cosponsor.
I am delighted to tell my colleagues that this legislation creates no
new programs, expands no bureaucracies, helps our seniors--and will
cost us virtually nothing.
It merely clears up some of the tortured ``logic'' of federal
regulation touched off when the Congress sought to amend the Fair
Housing Act in 1988. It was a classic example of the law of unintended
effects.
In a good-faith effort to prohibit housing discrimination, the
Federal Government managed to virtually prohibit senior citizen
retirement communities. The more loopholes the Congress sought to open
to allow these communities to safety slip through this vague and ill-
written law. The more bureaucratic hurdles and hoops were created by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
These communities were forced to supply ``significant facilities and
services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of
older persons.'' Unfortunately, HUD chose not to define what these
services or facilities should be. Seniors communities often sunk
hundreds of dollars into service improvements only to be denied HUD
certification anyway.
Last year, under pressure from citizens across the country, HUD
attempted to clarify this requirement. Instead, it merely added 59 more
pages of proposed rules and regulations.
HUD suggestions for costly congregate dinning facilities, daily meal
delivery and other services regardless of whether they were needed or
already available elsewhere led to even more confusion and frustration.
Last month, HUD tried again to clear the bureaucratic swamp it had
created following another round of citizen complaints. Again, no
[[Page H4364]] specific requirements were offered, but 12 categories of
suggested facilities were advanced--including, as was reported in the
Wall Street Journal, ``Bingo clubs, bowling trips and TAI-CHI
classes.''
It is obvious to me that the only way we are going to drain this
swamp is by wiping this outlandish requirement for significant
facilities and services off the books entirely--which is what the bill
before us does.
I urge my colleagues to strike a blow for fairness and against mind-
numbing, bureaucratic nonsense by voting for this legislation today.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R.
660, the Housing for Older Persons Act, which is legislation I have
cosponsored to once and for all specify with certainty which housing
communities qualify as adult-only communities.
The Fair Housing Act of 1988 prohibited housing discrimination based
on familial status. Congress, however, was very clear in providing
exemptions for adult-only communities. Unfortunately, in the 7 years
since enactment of the law, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development has been unable to issue regulations that adequately set
out the requirements for adult-only communities that are to be exempted
from the act. The result has been great uncertainty among the residents
of these communities, volunteers serving in homeowner associations, and
real estate agents who sell or rent homes.
It is an issue that has generated great interest among the residents
of many, many senior retirement communities across the 10th
Congressional District of Florida which I have the privilege to
represent. Their concern was heard by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development in a public hearing last October in Tampa. Hundreds
of Tampa Bay area residents turned out to share these concerns and as a
result, HUD announced late last year that it was again withdrawing
proposed regulations to clarify which communities are exempt from the
Fair Housing Act's requirements.
The primary concern I raised in my testimony at that hearing, which
was echoed by the many residents of senior housing communities, is
HUD's proposed requirement that these communities provide ``significant
facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or
social needs of older persons.'' The lack of a clear definition for
significant facilities has created havoc in housing communities
throughout our Nation, and particularly in Pinellas County, FL. Without
some clarification, these communities have been unable to complete the
process by which they receive exemptions from the act's familial status
discrimination provisions. Regulations promulgated by the Department in
1991 did not clearly define what facilities and services are required
to meet this test, and throughout the past 4 years, HUD officials have
admitted they are unable to provide a specific list of these
requirements.
The result is that many housing communities have not been able to
determine with certainty whether they qualify for the exemption.
Because HUD has no certification process, the only way this issue can
be determined is through the courts. Therefore, communities find
themselves in limbo until they are challenged in court and their
exemption is approved or rejected. A number of housing communities
throughout our Nation have been challenged in court by HUD and have had
their senior-only status overturned.
Congress recognized the problems created by the original 1991
regulations and in October 1992 enacted legislation requiring the
Department to issue revised regulations to more clearly define the
significant facilities required for communities to retain their senior
status. Unfortunately, HUD's latest proposed regulations, issued on
March 14, one again fail to clear up the confusion and uncertainty
caused by past drafts.
As I have said in cosponsoring legislation in the 101st, 102d, 103d,
and this 104th Congress to correct this problem, we must take
legislative action to provide a definitive solution if HUD cannot solve
the problem and ease the confusion through the regulatory route. The
legislation before us today, which I cosponsored, simply deletes the
significant structures and services requirement from the law. This
enables housing communities to definitively determine whether or not
they qualify for the 55-and-older exemption from the familial status
discrimination provisions. The sole remaining criteria is whether or
not 80 percent of a housing community's residents are 55 or older.
Mr. Chairman, the problem we seek to solve today is not only
important to the people of the many adult communities I represent, but
to the hundreds of volunteers who serve as directors for the countless
housing communities which remain uncertain whether they are in
compliance or in violation of Federal law.
This is a good legislative solution to a long overdue problem and I
urge the support of my colleagues.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 660, the
Housing for Older Persons Act. This legislation will at long last put
to rest a burdensome bureaucratic requirement that senior's housing
communities provide significant facilities and services for senior care
in order to meet the Fair Housing Amendment Act's adult-only housing
test.
I, along with every Member of this body, have heard from literally
hundreds of seniors who fear their community will no longer be able to
qualify as a senior's community. Every attempt at clarification by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development of what is meant by
significant facilities has led to even greater confusion. The most
recent set of regulations issued in March are a nightmare. HUD has
decided that in order to qualify as seniors housing, critical services
such as tai-chi and bowling trips must be provided.
Clearly, it is time we acknowledge that the Congress erred during the
1988 expansion of the Fair Housing Act when it mandated that seniors
communities provide significant facilities. James Bovard put it best
when he wrote in the March 20 edition of the Wall Street Journal: ``We
don't need Federal bingo mandates for our senior citizens. The real
issue in this controversy is how much power politicians and bureaucrats
should have to forcibly veto Americans' freedom of association.''
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 660.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 660, the
Housing for Older Persons Act. In 1988, Congress amended the Fair
Housing Act to prohibit discrimination in housing against families with
children providing an exemption in the case of housing for older
persons in order to allow senior citizens to live in age-restricted
housing, such as retirement communities.
Unfortunately, since enactment of the 1988 amendments, controversy
has surrounded the definition of seniors-only housing which requires
significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the
physical or social needs of older persons in order for a specific
facility to qualify for the exemption. Some seniors' communities have
been faced with housing discrimination lawsuits, due in part to
confusion about the types of facilities and services that must be
provided in order for a community to qualify.
H.R. 660 removes the significant facilities and services requirement
that a seniors community must meet in order to qualify for the
exemption and instead allows communities to demonstrate only that it is
intended to provide housing for persons 55 and older, and that 80
percent of the housing units are occupied by one or more persons in
this age group.
The Older Persons Act also establishes a good faith defense against
liability for monetary damages in housing discrimination lawsuits which
involve the exemption. This defense protects individuals, such as
members of condominium boards, from lawsuits if they acted on a good
faith belief that the seniors community qualified for the exemption.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 660 removes the uncertainty from current law and
protects the legitimate right of seniors to live in communities
designed for them. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and each section is considered as having been
read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Housing for Older Persons
Act of 1995''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HOUSING FOR OLDER PERSONS.
Subparagraph (C) of section 807(b)(2) of the Fair Housing
Act (42 U.S.C. 3607(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) that meets the following requirements:
``(i) The housing is in a facility or community intended
and operated for the occupancy of at least 80 percent of the
occupied units by at least one person 55 years of age or
older.
``(ii) The housing facility or community publishes and
adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate the
intent required under clause (i), whether or not such
policies and procedures are set forth in the governing
documents of such facility or community.
``(iii) The housing facility or community complies with
rules made by the Secretary for the verification of
occupancy. Such rules shall allow for that verification by
reliable
[[Page H4365]] surveys and affidavits and shall include
examples of the types of policies and procedures relevant to
a determination of compliance with the requirement of clause
(ii). Such surveys and affidavits shall be admissible in
administrative and judicial proceedings for the purposes of
such verification.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:
SEC. 3. GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT AT COMPLIANCE DEFENSE AGAINST
CIVIL MONEY DAMAGES.
Section 807(b) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3607(b))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Good Faith Reliance.--(A) A person shall not be held
personally liable for monetary damages for a violation of
this title if such person reasonably relied, in good faith,
on the application of the exemption under this subsection
relating to housing for older persons.
``(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person engaged
in the business of residential real estate transactions may
show good faith reliance on the application of the exemption
by showing that--
``(i) such person has no actual knowledge that the facility
or community is not, or will not, be eligible for such
exemption; and
``(ii) the facility or community has certified to such
person, in writing and on oath or affirmation, that the
facility or community complies with the requirements for such
exemption.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the bill?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McInnis) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 126, he reported the bill
back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 424,
nays 5, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 297]
YEAS--424
Abercrombie
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--5
Becerra
Berman
Bryant (TX)
Scott
Watt (NC)
NOT VOTING--5
Ackerman
Chapman
Dickey
Frost
Reynolds
{time} 1341
Mr. WATT of North Carolina changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________