[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.
  

                          ____________________