134 Cong Rec H 4898 - Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988

134 Cong Rec H 4898, *

Congressional Record -- House

Wednesday, June 29, 1988

100th Cong. 2nd Sess.

134 Cong Rec H 4898

REFERENCE: Vol. 134 No. 98

TITLE: FAIR HOUSING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1988

SPEAKER: Mr. BRYANT; Mr. BURTON of Indiana; Mr. COELHO; Mr. CONYERS; Mr. EDWARDS of California; Mr. FEIGHAN; Mr. FISH; Mr. FRANK; Mr. GEKAS; Mr. GERKAS; Mr. HYDE; Mr. LEWIS of Georgia; Mr. McCOLLUM; Mr. MFUME; Mr. SCHEUER; Mr. SCHUMER; Mr. SENSENBRENNER; Mr. WALKER

TEXT:
Text that appears in UPPER CASE identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the House on the floor.

[*H4898] The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 477 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 1158.

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 further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1158) to amend title VIII of the act commonly called the Civil Rights Act of 1968, to revise the procedures for the enforcement of fair housing, and for other purposes, with Mr. Olin [Chairman pro tempore] in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June 23, 1988, pending was an amendment to section 6, offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield briefly to me?

Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. I will take just a moment.

I would just like to point out to my colleagues and to the chairman that we are well along on this bill. We have one or two major amendments left. Just about all of the amendments offered today were carefully considered by the full Committee on the Judiciary.

We also have an agreement with the National Association of Realtors, with the National Association of Home Builders and with other organizations who used to be in opposition to the fair housing bill. We have a wonderful compromise that satisfies both sides, and I would expect that the bill should not take too long. This is where we are now, and we will take up now the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

MODIFICATION OFFERED BY MR. FISH TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MC COLLUM

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida speaks in terms of page 7, striking out lines 3 and all that follows through line 3 on page 8. That refers to the committee bill and not to the amendment in the nature of a substitute dated May 4, 1988.

[*H4899] Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the beginning of the McCollum amendment read: "Page 5, strike out line 12 and all that follows through line 17 on page 6," inasmuch as it is the amendment in the nature of a substitute that is before this body.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish]?

There was no objection.

The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Amendment as modified, offered by Mr. McCollum: Page 5, strike out line 12 and all that follows through line 17 on page 6 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(C) a failure to design and construct multifamily dwellings, constructed for first occupancy after the date that is 30 months after the date of enactment of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, in such a manner that --

"(i) the public use and common use portions of such dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons; and

"(ii) at least 10 percent of such dwellings (but not less than one unit) are, or can be adapted to be, accessible to and usable by handicapped persons, as required by the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards adopted pursuant to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.

Page 8, line 8, strike out "(3)(C)(iii)" and insert in lieu thereof "(3)(C)(ii)".

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today to the fair housing bill deals with the rehabilitation section of the bill, and it deals with the requirement that is in the bill right now that mandates that 100 percent, all, 100 percent of all new units constructed in multifamily housing, which means four or more units to an apartment or four or more units to a condominium, no matter whether that construction is private or public, 100 percent of all units to be constructed in the future in the United States be constructed in a certain way to supposedly help the handicapped.

I say supposedly because I am all for there being apartments and condominiums constructed to help the handicapped, without any question. The issue before us today though is twofold. One is whether or not the construction required in the bill is adequate to really help the handicapped, and I submit that it is not; and No. 2, whether we need or should we have the requirement that all apartments and condonimium units be built in this way to help the handicapped.

For example, under the language of this act, as it is now drafted, there is no requirement that the national standard of Federal accessibility or the ANSI standard, which is an alternative, actually be followed. My amendment would require that in those apartments and those condominium units that are constructed and required under my amendment that the Federal standards be adhered to strictly. That means that under the present language in the bill a person who is wheelchair bound would not necessarily have an apartment constructed for him that he could even turn the wheelchair around in the kitchen or the bathroom.

Under my amendment, by using the Federal standards and the national standards that are strictly adhered to, those bathrooms and those kitchens would have to be constructed with enough space and enough room that one could turn a wheelchair around in it. Under the standards that the bill has in it now, there is no requirement that the refrigerators be built such that the freezer, the top part of an upright refrigerator, be instead down so that a wheelchair person can get hold of that freezer door. There is also no requirement that a stove in the kitcken have all of the handles and the knobs in front of it instead of the back of it where a wheelchair bound person cannot reach it. And there is no requirement in this bill as it is now drafted that a wheelchair bound person would have one of these apartments constructed so that the cabinetry and the light switches in the kitchen areas and so forth would all be adjustable so that he could reach them.

There is a noble intent in the bill to do this, but unfortunately it does not do it because it spells out in four different places in the bill specific ways to comply with this bill, but then it leaves an alternative that says if one could comply with the national standards that exist, the building code standards on handicapped, that will meet these, but one does not have to do that. And the report language in the bill makes it very clear that that is not the case and not the requirement.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, in the language of the committee report on page 27 it talks about the features in the kitchen, and so forth. The committee report says, and I quote:

The Committee intends that such space be usable by handicapped persons, but this does not necessarily require that a turning radius be provided in every situation. This provision also does not require that fixtures, cabinetry or plumbing be of such a design as to be adjustable.

What I am submitting to my colleagues today is that by the McCollum amendment we would be requiring that every apartment unit that must be constructed for the handicapped be actually usable by the handicapped and meet those Federal standards. That means that the stove that is installed has to be usable by the handicapped. That means that the refrigerator that is in the kitchen can be usable by a wheelchair bound, handicapped person, and that means that the space in the kitchen or the bathroom has to be big enough so that a handicapped, wheelchair bound person can turn around, and that the fixtures and the cabinetry and so forth are adjustable, not that they have to be built that way, but that they are adjustable for that use. In doing that, what we would do as well, and I think it is very significant, is to reduce from 100 percent of all of the apartments that have to be constructed in this country to meet whatever design we put in this legislation and that we put a minimum mandatory 10 percent of all those apartments and condominiums. That is the same 10 percent required currently in public housing, in 202 elderly housing under our law.

It seems to me that is a perfectly legitimate and logical percentage to have. We have about 6 million or 7 million maybe handicapped persons of one type or another in this country but only about 600,000 or 700,000 who are wheelchair bound. We build quite a sizable number of apartments and new condominiums every year. It does not seem to me, nor to anyone I think who really looks at this, that it is necessary that we have every single apartment or condominium built with this larger square footage that would be necessary, and if it were built that way it would simply drive the price of the apartment up to the renter and to the condominium buyer, and in fact the bill as it is now written does that to some extent.

If it were to go to the full standards and to make this meaningful and truly helpful to all of the handicapped, including wheelchair bound, it would be considerably more expensive, which is why the bill did not go that far. So what I am doing is taking the best I can possibly do with this to make those apartments that are built to be suitable, be realistically usable by the handicapped, but reducing the number down from the 100-percent requirement to 10 percent, which is already in the law for public housing. I suggest to my colleagues that this is the best method to be fair, to have this bill protect the handicapped, to protect the apartment dweller, and the renter, and to protect the persons building in the construction of this particular type of unit.

I would urge my colleagues to look very carefully at the amendment.

It has been carefully crafted, carefully worked on, and I submit to you significantly better and an improvement to the existing language in the bill.

I urge its adoption.

[Mr. FISH addressed the committee. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

Mr. COELHO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COELHO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

[*H4900] (Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BRYANT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I RISE TO SUPPORT THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1988, H.R. 1158. THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, ON WHICH I AM PRIVILEGED TO SERVE, RESPONSIBLY DECIDED THAT THIS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION EXTENDS FAIR HOUSING PROTECTION TO ALL HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING THOSE WITH SUCH CONDITIONS AS EPILEPSY, CANCER, AIDS, OR THE HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS [HIV] WHICH CAUSES AIDS, UNLESS THERE IS A DIRECT THREAT TO THE HEALTH OR SAFETY OF OTHER PERSONS.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS LEGISLATION IS TO CLARIFY THE APPLICATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT WITH REGARD TO HOUSING DISCRIMINATION. SADLY, THERE ARE THOSE IN OUR SOCIETY WHO CHOOSE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE HANDICAPPED, JUST AS THERE ARE THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHERS BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN OR THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS -- CONCEPTS THAT ARE ANATHEMA TO MOST AMERICANS.

THAT AMERICA AND THE WORLD ARE IN THE MIDST OF AN AIDS CRISIS IS SIMPLY FURTHER TESTIMONY TO THE NEED FOR THIS LEGISLATION. ALTHOUGH SOME WOULD HAVE OUR FELLOW CITIZENS BELIEVE OTHERWISE, AIDS CAN STRIKE HETEROSEXUALS AND HOMOSEXUALS ALIKE, HEMOPHILIC CHILDREN AND DRUG ADDICTS ALIKE. THE EXPERTS ALL AGREE THAT THIS DEBILITATING DISEASE, FOR WHICH THERE IS NOT YET A CURE, CANNOT BE CONTRACTED FROM CASUAL CONTACT. WHAT THE OPPONENTS OF THIS AMENDMENT SUGGEST IS THAT IT SHOULD BE THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONDONE THE RIGHT OF A LANDLORD TO DENY DECENT HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES TO AN INNOCENT CHILD WHO HAS CONTRACTED AIDS THROUGH A BLOOD TRANSFUSION, AS WELL AS TO ANY OTHER TRAGIC VICTIM OF HIV.

THE EXPERTS ALL AGREE THAT EDUCATION, COUNSELING, AND AVOIDANCE OF UNNECESSARY RISKS ARE THE BEST WAYS OF PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF THIS AWFUL DISEASE, NOT MINDLESS DISCRIMINATION THAT FEEDS THE FEARS, WHICH PRESIDENT REAGAN'S COMMISSION ON THE HIV EPIDEMIC HAS INDICATED ARE THE GREATEST BARRIERS TO PREVENTION CAMPAIGNS.

THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION [AMA], THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL HEALTH OFFICIALS [ASTHO], THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES [NAS] IN ITS AUTHORITATIVE 1986 REPORT ON AIDS, AND VIRTUALLY ALL RESPECTED PUBLIC HEALTH LEADERS HAVE ENDORSED VIGOROUS ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 AND ENHANCED PROTECTION FROM HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

IN FACT, THE ASTHO'S NOVEMBER 1987, "GUIDE TO PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICES: AIDS CONFIDENTIALITY AND ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PRINCIPLES INTERIM REPORT" CONCLUDES THAT "HIV-RELATED DISCRIMINATION, ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED, IS OCCURRING AND IS A MAJOR OBSTACLE TO SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC HEALTH STRATEGIES TO STOP THE AIDS EPIDEMIC" AND THAT "IN GENERAL, THE PRESENCE OF AIDS, ARC, OR HIV SEROPOSITIVITY SHOULD NOT BE GROUNDS FOR DENYING OR TERMINATING EMPLOYMENT OR TREATING SEROPOSITIVE EMPLOYEES DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES."

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AMA IN ITS 1987 "PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF AIDS -- AN INTERIM REPORT" SAID:

THE AMA BELIEVES STRONGLY THAT AIDS VICTIMS AND THOSE WHO TEST POSITIVELY FOR THE ANTIBODY TO THE AIDS VIRUS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED UNFAIRLY OR SUFFER FROM ARBITRARY OR IRRATIONAL DISCRIMINATION IN THEIR DAILY LIVES. *** A SOUND ANTI-DISCRIMINATION APPROACH DOES NOT ALLOW REFLEXIVE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AIDS VICTIMS BASED ON FEAR OR STEREOTYPES OR PREJUDICE. NOR DOES IT REQUIRE THAT ALL EMPLOYERS OR OTHER FEDERAL FUND RECIPIENTS AUTOMATICALLY ACCOMMODATE A PERSON AFFLICTED WITH A COMMUNICABLE DISEASE. INSTEAD, BASED ON AN INDIVIDUALIZED ANALYSIS OF THE NATURE AND DURATION OF THE HANDICAP AND THE NATURE AND DURATION OF THE COMMUNICABILITY, A FEDERAL FUND RECIPIENT MUST MAKE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BASED ON REASONABLE MEDICAL JUDGMENTS, GIVEN THE STATE OF MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME. THIS [IS A] SOUND FRAMEWORK FOR CAREFULLY BALANCING THE TWO COMPETING CONCERNS -- THE RIGHT OF THE VICTIM TO BE FREE FROM IRRATIONAL ACTS OF PREJUDICE AND THE RIGHT OF OTHERS TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF DISEASE. ***

THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT ABOUT AIDS. IT IS ABOUT WHETHER WE, AS A SOCIETY, ARE WILLING TO CONDONE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. COMPASSION AND JUSTICE DEMAND THAT ALL AMERICANS BE, AS THE AMA REPORT OBSERVED, "FREE FROM IRRATIONAL ACTS OF PREJUDICE."

HOW WE VOTE ON THIS LEGISLATION WILL REFLECT WHETHER WE BELIEVE IGNORANCE AND DISCRIMINATION SHOULD PREVAIL OR WHETHER WE ARE COMMITTED TO A PUBLIC POLICY THAT VALUES AWARENESS AND FAIRNESS AS THE BEST MEANS OF ADVANCING THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND OUR DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.

Mr. COELHO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the McCollum amendment that is being offered to this fair housing bill. Mr. Fish and Mr. Edwards are to be commended for their leadership in guiding this bipartisan bill to the floor. The McCollum amendment, however, would ruin the balance achieved by the authors of the bill and only further the incidence of discrimination in housing.

I believe that the goals of nondiscrimination that Congress sought to achieve in the Fair Housing Act of 1968 will finally be realized with the passage of this bill. Not only does this bill contain enforcement provisions which are sorely needed, it expands protections to two classes of Americans that experience housing discrimination daily -- families with children and people with disabilities. Today, I wish to address the critical problem of housing discrimination which Americans with disabilities face.

Unfortunately, ignorance, stereotypes, and misperceptions have been used to exclude people with disabilities from the mainstream of American life. I am familiar with such prejudice because, as my colleagues know, I have epilepsy and have experienced the ignorance and fears that others have about my disability.

Nowhere is such discrimination more blatant in America today than in the sale and rental of housing to people with disabilities. The prejudice and unfounded fears of landlords, owners, and communities at large have denied housing to many of America's 43 million citizens with disabilities -- people who, like me, have epilepsy, or people who are blind or deaf, or people who have mobility impairments and use wheelchairs or veterans who have lost limbs defending our country in foreign wars. All of these individuals will now be covered under the protection of this act.

Twenty years ago Congress established a national policy that it was not acceptable to discriminate in housing practices against minorities. Our Nation's commitment to achieve fair housing for all Americans demands that we act now to eliminate housing discrimination against persons with disabilities, our largest minority.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read into the Record a letter from the National Association of Home Builders explaining why they oppose the McCollum amendment.

National Association of

Home Builders,
Washington, D.C., June 22, 1988.

Hon. Don Edwards,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Edwards: On behalf of the 155,000 member firms of the National Association of Home Builders -- representing builders, owners and managers of multifamily and single family housing -- we offer the following comments with respect to an amendment expected to be offered by Rep. McCollum (R-FL) to delete the Committee language from H.R. 1158 with respect to future multifamily housing construction requirements and establish a set-aside with increased requirements.

The proposed amendment would delete the legislative language agreed upon after several months of negotiation between disability and civil rights organizations, architects, builders and managers to achieve a reasonable balance between meeting the intent of the bill, to assure equal opportunity in housing for handicapped individuals, while minimizing both construction costs and potential issues of marketability. The bill as reported by the Committee clearly achieves this goal.

Current laws which establish a set aside of adaptable and accessible housing units result in a serious problem from all perspectives. Many handicapped individuals neither want nor need grab bars, adjustable or removable cabinetry nor other adaptive features. The result from a marketing perspective is clear: units with these features sit vacant with neither the handicapped nor the non-handicapped willing to live in them. In California, as well as other parts of the country, we have owners and managers with projects with waiting lists to occupy the non-handicapped units, while the set aside units sit vacant. Set asides are far more costly than the initial additional construction cost when the unit once built, remains vacant and generates no revenue.

The McCollum amendment which establishes a set aside with greater requirements than the Committee reported bill would result in a higher and more costly standard, thereby destroying the delicate balance between cost, accessibility, and aesthetics achieved by H.R. 1158 as reported by the Committee.

For this reason, we must oppose the McCollum amendment which undermines the uniformity that the Fair Housing Amendments Act achieves.

Sincerely,
Dale Stuard,
President.

[*H4901] I urge my coleagues to join me in defeating the McCollum amendment to send a long overdue message to all disabled Americans. By enacting this legislation we will finallly be telling Americans with disabilities that they have the right to live wherever they choose.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. I, too, was concerned about the costs associated with adapting 100 percent of the covered units for handicapped use. With a shortage of low-income housing, I did not want to enact a law that would create further disincentives to constructing such housing. Therefore, I too, explored the possibility of designating a percentage of units for handicapped use.

After working with the disability rights groups, the National Association of Home Builders, and the realtors in my district who are currently operating under a similar, but more stringent New York law, I am convinced that the bill's minimal requirements for accessibility are the only way to go. The four requirements in H.R. 1158 represent a carefully crafted compromise between the relevant groups, and are endorsed by the National Low Income Housing Coalition. This compromise strikes the correct balance between the needs of the handicapped and the costs to society of accommodating these individuals.

The set-asides proposed by the McCollum amendment are not favored by anyone -- not the disabled community, not the builders. Such units are already required by many State and local building codes. They do not work.

First, they are expensive. The features are elaborate. With only a small percentage of units having to comply, the features will not become standardized, and therefore remain expensive.

Moreover, because these outfitted units resemble hospital rooms, they often remain vacant. There is simply no guarantee of a handicapped person to live in one of these units.

Second, not every handicapped person desires or requires such an outfitted unit. Handicaps differ. Handicaps are not always permanent. A physical disability could suddenly cripple an individual at any time of life.

Thus the bill requires that minimal features be put into place so that handicapped individuals can make further accommodations at their own reasonable expense.

And, under H.R. 1158, States and localities are free to impose more stringent standards than those required at the Federal level, if they so choose.

We are not legislating in a vacuum. We can draw upon the State and local experience. Building codes requiring the set-asides comtemplated by the McCollum amendment have been less than successful. Rigid requirements set out in the recent New York City law have proven very expensive.

The four features required by H.R. 1158 reflect that experience, and present a reasonable framework for tearing down longstanding barriers to discrimination at minimal cost.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this concerns me a great deal because I know a compromise of sorts was worked out with the builders involved. The concern I have is fairly simple. Nobody has addessed this concern. Nobody has refuted it, and nobody can. A person who is wheelchair-bound handicapped, the most severely handicapped person we have to deal with here, is not going to be benefitted by this legislation. That person cannot turn around in a kitchen or cannot turn around in a bathroom that is built under the standards that are existing in the bill as drafted. I think that is wrong.

Second, I think that the 10-percent requirement is eminently more fair than the 100 percent requirement, and it does exist in Federal law.

Third, while we are whaling around with letters here. I, too, have a letter. This is from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is jointly signed by the head of the department, the Honorable Sam Pierce, and our Attorney General, Ed Meese. The letter is dated with today's date, and it says in part:

We support your amendment as more reasonable alternative to the sweeping building code provision in H.R. 1158. Of course, the administration continues to believe that this is a matter best left to states and localities.

I did not do that because it seems to me that that was not the trust of this bill.

The letter continues as follows:

Your amendment deletes the reasonable requirement that 100 percent of new covered multifamily construction meet the accessibility standards for mobility impaired persons. Fewer than 700,000 Americans require wheelchairs for mobility. Clearly, it is burdensome and unnecessary to require that all of the 400,000 or more new multifamily units constructed each year in this country be accessible under such standard to such a small portion of the handicapped population.

The requirements in the bill are also confusing and may fail to ensure true wheelchair accessibility.

And they would. The letter then goes on to support the concept I have described in great detail. I urge my colleagues to consider this. Yes, there is some compromise with builders in this legislation. I have a lot of respect for their concerns, and an effort was reached to come up with all kinds of details. But the bottom line is that we did not do it right.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, when they vote on this, to vote their consciences. I ask my colleagues to vote for construction requirements that do require whatever units we have that have to be constructed for the handicapped to really be constructed for them, and to vote for a number that is responsible and reasonable -- 10 percent, as provided in my amendment, instead of the 100 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Olin). The question is on the amendment, as modified offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were -- ayes 78, noes 330, not voting 23, as follows:

(See Roll No. 212 in the ROLL segment.)

[*H4902] Messrs. FORD of Michigan, BERMAN, PARRIS, and TAUKE changed their vote from "aye" to "no."

Mr. STUMP, Mrs. VUCANOVICH, Mr. PACKARD, and Mr. GALLEGLY changed their vote from "no" to "aye."

So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde: On page 11, following line 8, add the following:

PROHIBITION OF PREFERENCES

Sec. 7. Title VIII of such Act is amended by adding the following section after section 804:

PROHIBITION OF PREFERENCES

"Sec. 804. a Nothing in this Act requires, permits, or authorizes any preference in the provision of any dwelling based on race, color, religion, gender or national origin."

Renumber subsequent sections accordingly.

(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply says there really should not be any discrimination either way, for or against people.

I have for years marveled at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the commentary in support thereof by the late great Senator Hubert Humphrey, who said that the act says what it means, that you cannot discriminate against people because of their race, their color or their creed.

Now we are talking about fair housing. I have great difficulty after reading the bill and listening to the debate and sitting in the Judiciary Committee trying to figure out what burdens, what responsibilities, are being imposed on real estate salesmen or brokers. Are they to provide access to housing regardless of race or color or creed, or are they to be mindful of the demographic condition of a certain community?

It seems to me under our practice in this country that we have a concept known as integrative housing, that is if you have a large housing complex, if you get over let us say 30 percent black, then the next black who applies for a unit is denied because he is beyond the quota, he is reaching the tipping point, and if too many blacks get in this building, then there will be white flight and you will not have that desirable utopian condition of perfect symmetrical integration.

Well, that is a fine concept, I suppose, if you like a little bit of discrimination for what you think is a beneficent purpose, but it is discrimination. You are preferring the white applicant over the black applicant, although the black applicant may have been on the waiting list for a long time because he does not fit into the demographic scheme of the quotas.

Now, if we are against discrimination, we should be against discrimination. We should be literally colorblind. That was how the Civil Rights Act was sold to Americans and bought by Americans. That is the idea; but if we are going to have a little bit of discrimination up to 30 percent and then we are going to have integrative housing, why do we not say so? Why do we masquerade as opposing discrimination, when we are really for some discrimination, depending on what the goals are or what the timetables are?

Now, I am certainly not a purist in all legislation. I live in the real world and I hope I continue to live in the real world; but the legislation is not real legislation when it says it is against discrimination. It is really against some discrimination. Why do we not say so? Why the hypocracy?

Now, I know the realtors cut a deal. I know that. Everybody makes tradeoffs, but I am not a part of the deal. Nobody asked me, and I am glad they did not.

I am against discrimination and I am for what the good Senator Humphrey said in debating the original Civil Rights Act. He said, "If the Senator can find any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it isn't in there."

Well, when it comes to housing, I am afraid it is in there, not in the bill, it is in some court's mind.

Now, the courts are divided on integrative housing. Legislation is supposed to set policies. It is supposed to provide guidelines for the conduct of the citizens of this country. Instead, we talk in terms of fair housing. I do not know what it means. Does it mean nondiscrimination? How can you prefer somebody because of the color of their skin? That is discrimination, or I do not understand the English language.

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It simply says that nothing in this act requires, permits or authorizes any preference in the provision of any dwelling based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.

Martin Luther King wrote a book, "Why We Can't Wait." Well, why should a black have to wait to get into a housing project or a housing development because he is above the 30-percent tipping quota? He should not have to wait if he is next in line.

So, Mr. Chairman, I submit this is a sensible amendment and I urge its support.

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[*H4903] Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] that I, too, knew Senator Humphrey very well. I would guarantee that he would also be against this amendment.

The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] attempts to deal with the issue of race conscious marketing methods to promote integration. That is called, Mr. Chairman, integration maintenance.

Now, we considered this in great depth in the committee, although we did not have any hearings on it, we did not examine the issue. We know how complicated it is. We did not know the scope, the operation or the effect of these programs. There are a few in the United States.It is a very controversial issue with strong feelings on both sides.

We agreed in the compromise orally that we will have a thorough review before the House attempts to address this issue.

We have agreed, I have agreed as the chairman, to hold hearings in either Cleveland or Chicago where there are some units that have programs of integration maintenance.

Again, both the civil rights community and the National Association of Realtors support the idea of holding hearings later this year and oppose the amendment offered by the the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. If in a housing area you reach the tipping point of 30 percent, as the gentleman from Illinois alluded to in his remarks, and a black family does want to get housing in that unit and they are first in line, is the white family picked over them?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. That is one of the issues that we will address in the hearings. There are strong proponents of each side of integration maintenance. It is an issue that we are not going to solve in this debate today, and I ask your patience. We are going to look into it. It is an issue of debate in the United States today.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, all I want to know, is that the case today? If it reaches that tipping point today and a black family is next in line for housing, are they discriminated against because the white family is preferred over them to keep that balance?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. This is currently the subject of a lawsuit in Federal Court. There is not any definite answer to that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a "no" vote on the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois is necessary to be added to this bill at this time. If I had any confidence that the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights would affirmatively address this problem, I would not be rising in support of the amendment today; however, according to last year's report of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights had 71 bills referred to it and did not report out a single bill that was referred to the subcommittee. This subcommittee on which I serve as the ranking Republican member has a reputation of being a graveyard for proposals such as this one.

I think it is important enough to bring up to the floor of the House of Representatives to have a vote.

Now, contrary to what the gentleman from California said, we have never debated this subject at all in the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, much less at length.

The hearings in Chicago which were agreed upon by the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] came about only as the result of my threatening to object to granting the Judiciary Committee permission to sit several months ago; so these hearings are coming about only because the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] has been dragged into this kicking and screaming. I think given that kind of attitude, if we defer action on this amendment today we will never see it again. We will never hear of it again and we ought to vote on it.

Now, on the merits of the Hyde amendment, the gentleman from Illinois has hit the nail on the head. In Chicago and in Cleveland, many in the housing business are caught in a catch-22 situation where they will be sued if they do and sued if they do not. That is not what the fair housing law is all about. The Fair Housing Law is designed to give guidance with penalties so that discrimination will not be the law of the land in the sale or rental of housing. That means that this law must be clear, and when there are situations that exist where a real estate firm or an individual real estate sales person will be sued by one group if they take one position on the question of integration maintenance or will be sued by another group, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, if they take the other position, then the law needs clarification.

Given the track record of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, this is the only opportunity that the House will have to clarify this law. We should not blow that opportunity. We should vote in favor of the Hyde amendment.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think, first of all, we should explore what are the purposes and the foundations of the fair housing law, and indeed they are to prevent discrimination in housing, but they are also intended, that law is intended to expand options, to expand alternatives to those who have been the victims of discrimination and those who are now in the various protected classes. That has been the goal of various integration maintenance programs.

As I am sure the gentleman from Illinois will acknowledge, there are in fact very few communities in the entire country that have integration maintenance, or as they are alternatively called, affirmative marketing programs.

There is very much a conflict or a tension between these local programs and local and State laws and the Federal law. It is a tension that we have to resolve, but frankly, I would have to say cannot be resolved by the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Illinois.

Cleveland has had, as has Chicago and in New York and a handful of other communities, an experience over a period of time of very aggressive fair housing programs. That has led us to more complicated programs that fall under the ambit of integration maintenance or affirmative marketing programs.

These programs today, in response to the question of the gentleman from Indiana, would not necessarily say to a black family that if 30 percent of the housing project is now occupied by blacks that that next black family would be prohibited from moving in. That may be the result, and in fact if I recall the facts of the Starratt City decision, those were almost the similar facts in that case; but that is not necessarily the result that would follow.

The amendment that we have before us would not only decimate integration maintenance programs, or affirmative marketing programs of that nature, it also would eliminate other integration maintenance programs, or affirmative marketing programs, that are attempting to use local programs and local incentives to bring either white families into traditionally black communities, or black families into traditionally white communities.

I do not think that it is fair to characterize the chairman of the subcommittee as agreeing kicking and screaming to a series of hearings on this issue. In fact, he has been very cooperative with me and other Members who have raised concerns about the tension that exists between local programs and Federal law and recognizes that the fair housing law that we have [*H4904] before us is not adequate to deal with the complexity of this issue.

We have a great deal of debate, not only in the committee and the Congress over this issue, but civil rights organizations themselves have a great deal of debate.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate everything the gentleman says. I know the gentleman lives with this problem somewhat in his district. I just have difficulty.

We are dealing with a fair housing bill, and so fair housing, especially discrimination in fair housing, is what this bill is all about. I would think we would be more honest, if we had a section in the bill, saying none of the above applies to bona fide integrated maintenance projects or something like that. Then we are admitting that a little discrimination is OK in certain areas. Of course, that runs into the Constitution, which says that no person shall be deprived of equal protection of the law.

All of these things trouble me. I am against discrimination. One has to be for discrimination if one opposed my amendment, even though it is for a good purpose in some communities where it can be abused in others.

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FEIGHAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago, I was a developer of the Capitol Park project in Washington, DC, SW. It was the first project that was ever built in this country in a southern city, which Washington was at the time, designed for integrated occupancy. We opened it up and announced it was going to be an integrated project. We did all right from 1959 to 1960. We had a good balance.

When President Kennedy got elected in 1960 and brought in all kinds of outstanding black professionals from all over the country, they found that they had no place to rent in Washington in a quality project but us, and they were referred by white rental agents all over Washington -- "You would not be confortable here," wherever "here" was, "but go on down to the Capitol Park project. You would be very welcome there." So they did in droves.

The percentage of black occupants kept going up and up and up and up until it finally hit the 50-percent point. I sat down with my friend, Robert C. Weaver, who was a consultant to me before, on that project, before he became Secretary of HUD, and I said, "Bob, what do I do?" He said, "Let some of those applications fall behind a filing cabinet for a month or two."

At that time we called it enlightenment management practices. The goal was to create and maintain an integrated project. All of the blacks who had applied ultimately got in, but a few of them had to wait a few months while we tried our best to maintain the integrated balance.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Olin). The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Feighan] has expired.

(At the request of Mr. Hyde and by unanimous consent, Mr. Feighan has allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FEIGHAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I take it my good friend from New York is for quotas, and I know they probably worked out in his project, but it is still discrimination.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Illinois has come to the conclusion that those who would support integration maintenance are then supporting a form of discrimination. We are waiting, I think, really, for the Supreme Court to tell us whether or not that is the case. In the Starratt City decision, the Supreme Court said yes, in fact, that is the case, that is in fact discrimination, that is the type of discrimination that the fair housing laws do not condone. That is not necessarily an appropriate description of all other forms of integration maintenance or affirmative-marketing programs.

Cleveland was recently identified as the second most segregatged large city in the country. That is not a recognition that we are particularly proud of, but it is one that we are working to remedy. We are remedying it through affirmative marketing and through integration maintenance programs.

This amendment would devastate alternatives of that nature for communities like ours that are working hard at bringing about integrated communities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this demonstrates a couple of things. One is the wisdom in the committee in avoiding dealing with this question and instead wanting more information about the subject before legislating; and second, how confusing it is, and then the merits of this matter should be the result of field hearings and much more in-depth study.

Mr. Chairman, the reason for the amendment, we are told, is that it will go further to end discrimination, whereas, with the practice as it is, it allows some discrimination. You would think that the NAACP's national legislative director would be aware of this, or you would think that the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights with no less than 185 component membership would be aware of this. Yet, both Althea T.L. Simmons, of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and Ralph G. Neas, executive director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, have signed a letter dated today, and I will just read one paragraph:

We believe that the issue of "integration maintenance" should be explored during hearings and thoroughly understood by the Congress before legislative action is taken. Thus, an amendment to be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives at this time is not the proper way to address this matter. For these reasons, we hope that the amendment will be withdrawn or not agreed to.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for reading that letter, because we have here, after 20 years, the leadership conference, comprised of the NAACP and the Urban League, our labor unions, other civil rights organizations, our religious associations, joined with realtors and builders, and we absolutely, deliberately, in subcommittee left this provision of integrated maintenance out. Integration maintenance cannot be resolved here, and I accuse the maker of this amendment of creating mischief. This is a deliberate mischievous product in which he now associates with Dr. Martin Luther King and Senator Humphrey, and I would like to tell the Members that the chairman of this committee Mr. Edwards, has not put down integration maintenance. Nor has he picked it up.

The committee position in this bill is neutral on the subject, and as the gentleman from New York has pointed out, we are going to have hearings. We need not rush to judgment on this floor and deal with this matter.

I urge that it be soundly rejected.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my good friend from Michigan that it may be mischievous to him, but I just do not believe in reverse discrimination. I think if one discriminated against somebody, that is terrible; if one discriminated for somebody, that is terrible.

I am in love with the words of the Constitution that say equal protection of the law, and that is all I am interested in. If that is mischievous, I am sorry. It is not my intention to be mischievous. It is my intention to have fair housing mean fair housing both ways one looks at it.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the problem with all of the gentleman's good intentions, which are as good as mine, and mine [*H4905] are as good as his, is that we are not here to dispose of this. I am not arguing against or for this proposal. What we are trying to say to the gentleman, sir, is that the subcommittee has not disposed of it. So the gentleman's good intentions on this floor at this time is not an appropriate way for a deliberative body to deal with this matter. That is all we are saying.

We are going to have hearings.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] has expired.

(At the request of Mr. Hyde and by unanimous consent, Mr. Fish was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my dear friend from Michigan that if he were in the political minority in this House, he would know how awfully tough it is to try to get a bill up in a subcommittee that the chairman does not care for, to try to get it out of the committee, to try to get it through the Committee on Rules, to try to get a vote on it, to try to get a discharge petition signed. It is impossible.

When a vehicle comes along where one gets a chance, however frustrating, to express oneself on, a Member takes that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] means to have hearings on this just like on so many other issues, but one must grab the train when it goes through the station.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask one question. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Is the gentleman aware of how many bills went through the subcommittee last year that were referred -- to the gentleman who just spoke, from Michigan?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CONYERS. Am I aware of the number of bills that went through the subcommittee?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That were referred to it.

Mr. CONYERS. I am not.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, one of the members of the committee just told me that out of 71 that were referred to it, none were reported out.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I can tell that gentleman that that is probably a pretty big error. We have had a number of bills reported out. The chairman of this subcommittee has been out on the floor with measure after measure.

I would just ask that the integrity of the chairman of this committee should not be impugned. He has agreed to hold hearings. He is coming to Cleveland and/or Chicago. We want to look at integration maintenance. He has not spoken out either for it or against it. It would seem to me then that we ought to just leave it out.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] has again expired.

(At the request of Mr. Sensenbrenner and by unanimous consent, Mr. Fish was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the quote that I made about the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights having 71 bills referred to it and none reported out came from the 1987 report of the Committee on the Judiciary to the House of Representatives. Zero for 71 is not a very good batting average.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] has again expired.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise, first of all, because I am a little bit shocked. I happen to live at the Capitol Park Apartments. I have for about 12 years. I now live in a condominium in that area. I am somewhat shocked to find out that I may have been permitted to live there at the expense of someone who is black. I think that would be terribly wrong if that was the case.

I think that if we have come up with a euphemism called integration maintenance that really means quotas, and some of us, because our skin was white, benefited from that quota system, that is terribly wrong. I do not care whether it was for benign purposes or not. That is discrimination, and it should not be permitted.

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the gentleman has to have anything weigh on his conscience. At the time we practiced what was then referred to as enlightened management practices was during the rent-up of that project, from approximately 1958 to 1963, especially during 1961 and 1962, those great first Kennedy years, when thousands of well-educated, talented black professionals came to Washington and found there was only one apartment that would take them. That was a very interim business that we did. No black who applied failed to get in. A few of them had to wait a few months, but what it did was establish the quality of that project as a successful, integrated project, which it has been for the ensuing 25 years, and I think there was a very clear, demonstrable, identifiable social good connected as a result of those so-called enlightened management practices.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman just explained to us why we needed to pass a Civil Rights Act in 1964, because what the gentleman just said is that during that startup period from 1958 to 1963, that project was practicing discrimination, pure and simple, and that is what we tried to wipe out when we passed the civil rights law in 1964, to end discrimination.

The gentleman from Illinois was absolutely right when he talked about that law and what was said about that law when it was passed by this Congress. It was said that we were eliminating discrimination, period, that we were not going to try to discriminate amongst people based upon race, color, religion, gender, or national origin, that is what the civil rights law was all about.

Let me make my point. We have now seen some of those things turned on their head, and today, I must admit I had never heard this term before, this new term of integration maintenance, which really means quotas.

I mean, I have been fascinated by this particular kind of debate on the floor. One of my colleagues described the gentleman from Illinois as offering a mischievous amendment, because he said the gentleman from Illinois now associates himself with Martin Luther King.

In 1964 many of us associated ourselves with Martin Luther King, because we thought it was right to end discrimination. Why have we now turned that on its head? What in the world, in the language of this amendment, bothers people here?

Let me read this amendment. This amendment says, "Nothing in this act requires, permits or authorizes any preference" -- any preference -- "in the provision of any dwelling based in race, color, religion, gender or national origin."

Please, someone, tell me what is wrong in that language. I thought that is precisely what we did in 1964 in the Civil Rights Act. Those are precisely the kinds of things we were trying to achieve then, it seems to me.

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will tell him what is wrong with the language.

Mr. WALKER. Sure, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from New York if he can tell me what I just read there is wrong. Will the gentleman tell me what in that language is wrong?

Mr. SCHEUER. The language, Mr. Chairman, is not constructive.

Mr. WALKER. No, the gentleman is not telling me what is wrong with the language. He is telling me his opinion of what is happening on the floor.

[*H4906] Mr. SCHEUER. The reason it is wrong, and the reason that not a single black leader in this country supports the amendment, and the reason that every civil rights leader black or white supports the so-called enlightened management practices is because they think establishing a project as an integrated project is good, is a social, moral and ethical good, and since every black who applies will get in, that that is a constructive result.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Olin). The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALKER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chariman, the vice of what the gentleman's enlightened management practices is, is that he, the landlord, decides whether someone gets in based on the color of their skin.

Mr. WALKER. Precisely.

Mr. HYDE. Whether it is 50 percent, or 33 percent, or 30 percent, not the law, not the Constitution, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Scheuer] will decide whether you, sir, can rent in my project based on the color of your skin.

That is pernicious, not mischievous, pernicious, in my opinion, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman from Illinois.

Let me also make another point. The fact is that in 1964 when all these things were being argued, many people who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 opposed it because they said look, we are better able to handle these problems without the Federal Government getting involved in these things, and all of the blacks in some of those Southern States where we have practiced discrimination, they are better off for it. We have given them good schools, we have got the separate but equal schools down there, and they were better off. That is exactly the argument, I tell the gentleman, that there was some kind of good to be achieved by discrimination in our society. I am amazed that 20 years later we would come back to this floor and have people arguing that there is a good to be derived from discriminating against people on the basis of their race. I think that is appalling. I do not care how many groups support that kind of idea, it is still a bad idea. It was bad in 1964, it was bad in 1984 and it is bad in 1988, and we ought to be adopting amendments like this, because the gentleman from New York, who tried to respond to this language, cannot tell me anything that is wrong in this language.

This is exactly what we have tried to do before. I think it is exactly right that we have developed language that says that we are not going to discriminate in this act of any other act.

We ought to put this kind of language in every bill that comes through here, because we ought not be a society that discriminates against anybody. And I think it is a terrible travesty to have this kind of language described as mischievous, to be described by other people as doing harm to the bill. The fact is we do not want to deal with it here today. We want to deal with the issue later.

We have been too late in dealing with these issues all the way along, and it is high time that we deal with them now. Let us say in this bill that we do not want any racial discrimination, we do not want any sexual discrimination, we do not want any discrimination based upon national origin and all of the rest. That would be the right thing to do.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALKER. I am very glad to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman wants to say that in this bill, he can introduce language to do that.

Mr. WALKER. That is what this language says.

Mr. CONYERS. We did not want to say what this language does.

Mr. WALKER. This language has been introduced, I would say to the gentleman, and that is what this language is.

Mr. CONYERS. What that language does is knock out integration maintenance without our giving it a hearing.

Mr. WALKER. Let me reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman. Let me read to the gentleman what the language says. It does not say anything about integration maintenance. It says nothing in this act requires, permits, or authorizes any preference in the provision of any dwelling based upon race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. That is what the amendment says and that is all it says. It says no discrimination period. We ought to pass it.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has again expired.

(On request of Mr. Feighan and by unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALKER. Sure, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving me this opportunity. He raised the very valid question about what is wrong with this language, and let me give the gentleman the experience we have in Ohio and I think he will have to decide, as all Members will in their own minds, as to whether or not we are dealing with discrimination.

In Ohio if you are a first time home purchaser you can receive a lower than market interest rate. Are those individuals being discriminated for or against because as a class they are able to receive a lower than market interest rate? That is an outstanding question.

Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will allow me to reclaim my time, the gentleman is not giving me any kind of an answer based upon race. He is telling me about experiences, and I asked about the language. I asked about language that we are being asked to vote on, and I am asking what is wrong with this language. The gentleman is not answering my question.

Mr. FEIGHAN. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to continue.

Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Similarly, in the greater Cleveland community there are certain communities that have decided that it is in their best interest to offer lower than market interest rates to black families who will move into predominantly white communities. Is that discrimination? It is certainly an incentive. The question remains: Is it discrimination?

The U.S. Supreme Court has not decided on that type of integration maintenance or affirmative marketing plan as to whether or not discrimination is at play. They have made the decision in the Starratt City.

Mr. WALKER. Let me say to the gentleman from Ohio what he has just described to me, if it is in fact based upon race, it is in fact discrimination. It may be for the best purposes the gentleman can imagine, but it is in fact discrimination, and that is what I said I thought we said in 1964 was wrong, and now the gentleman is simply saying to me there are times when we define that it may be all right.

I do not think that we ought to have a society that steps outside the idea of the Constitution of equal protection under the laws. The gentleman is not describing to me something which is equal protection under the laws. He is describing to me pure and simple discrimination.

I think it is time that we have developed language like this that goes back to the original idea of 1974.

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the good will by which the gentleman from Illinois has offered his amendment, and I agree with my colleague from Michigan that it is not a matter of necessarily saying one person has a bad will and another has a good will. I appreciate also this outpouring of compassion from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as it relates to the denial of opportunity, particularly opportunity as it relates to housing in this particular area.

I am sort of interested at the number of associations that I have seen take place on this floor with the [*H4907] remarks of Dr. Martin Luther King, who I am sure certainly would have appreciated them in 1963 when he came to this great city to make the point that he had to make concerning housing discrimination and a lot of other things.

Let me say this, though, however, we are not here really to take a position simply because we have been asked as a matter of courtesy by the NAACP, by the Conference on Civil Rights, by major labor organizations, by major religious organizations not to take a position today. They are simply saying you may be right or you may be wrong, but let us have an opportunity nationally to just spend a little more time to reexamine the problem.

I may support the gentleman's amendment at a given time if in fact those sorts of hearings yield to me at least an understanding that it is the correct thing to do. I may in fact not do that. But I think that we certainly should take into consideration the request of these organizations that have toiled long and hard in this area, that we simply pause and not be reactive but proactive in such a way that we try to make sure we take advantage of every opportunity to in fact look at this problem for just a little longer.

I believe that if we are going to create opportunities in housing we create opportunity through construction so that peopole have a place to in fact live in. We are talking about opportunity. Let us create educational opportunities as well. If we are talking about opportunities, let us talk about the creation of job opportunities by job creation.

But let us at least defer, I would hope this one time, to the perfectly legitimate request of these organizations who have simply come to us and said we are not trying to say that the gentleman is right or that the gentleman is wrong, but that we would appreciate a little more study of the issue.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MFUME. I am more than happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and want to underscore what the gentleman said. The court case that is now on its way up to the Supreme Court involving Starratt City is in my district. Starratt City is the largest and the most successful housing project that is integrated in the entire country. If one walks through the streets of Starratt City, and sees in a city like New York that has racial problems and racial divisions the kind of harmony that has come about through such a program as all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have mentioned, I would wager that the gentleman on that side of the aisle would not offer their amendment, because Starratt City works. it is people of all creeds and all races working together, and it is a beautiful sight. It gives me hope about the future of race relations in America, and it has been brought about by a program that we are talking about here that the gentleman's amendment would cut out.

I would further add, to underscore the gentleman's point, that all of the organizations that have fought for racial harmony and racial equality, the NAACP in New York and all of the various other organizations, have supported what Starratt City is doing. And we find it so ironic that in New York City, one of the truly integrated areas that is working, the Justice Department brings a lawsuit against that area, not against the areas where there is so much racial discrimination, where there are either no blacks or no whites living together. But the one area where it is working, where a dream has been realized, we are finding them under legal assault. I find that amazing. I find it appalling. I find it like taking something that we treasure and saying no for some kind of ideological reason.

If this amendment passes it will wipe out the dream of Starratt City, wipe out the dream of so many other places.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and urge my colleagues to think about the day-to-day consequences in urban America of passing this amendment, the day to day consequences of having integrated programs and integrated projects work.

Mr. GERKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland has wisely stated that at the very least this amendment offers some controversy enough to warrant further hearings and further consideration. I am wondering whether in the cause of trying to do what is right the gentleman would support a motion to have the Committee rise and then develop a proper, full response to this amendment?

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] has expired.

(On request of Mr. Gekas and by unanimous consent, Mr. Mfume was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, then without doing harm to the general purpose of the fair housing bill and the momentum which has been built on this project, to allow a full-fledged response and hearings or whatever is required to see whether or not this particular amendment would be suitable in the framework of the total legislation.

Would the gentleman from Maryland then vote in favor of a motion to have the Committee rise, then go into the proper mode for having a full hearing on it, and then come back on the floor fully supportive of either position?

Mr. MFUME. I certainly support the hearing aspect of it, and again I want to underscore and underline it because I think it is important. I think, however, getting this bill through the House is equally as important, and I would not be supportive of allowing the Committee to rise, pushing the issue aside and not moving on what we are here to do.

Mr. GEKAS. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. MFUME. Yes, go ahead, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GEKAS. What we are talking about here is fair housing.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] has again expired.

(On request of Mr. Gekas and by unanimous consent Mr. Mfume was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, the fair housing bill is well greased now. It can be in a matter of moments voted on to final passage. Even though other Members will have amendments which will be defeated, it is going to pass, and it is going to pass fast, and it is going to become law very soon. We will not be doing damage to the movement, to the momentum that has been built up by allowing further consideration of this important amendment which the gentleman himself acknowledges has at least controversial merit about it, to allow for consideration of it and then come back to the floor, and like that, at the snap of your fingers, this would be passed and we will have fully debated one of the great issues evolving out of this fair housing bill.

Mr. MFUME. Let me say I am flattered that the gentleman thinks that my support of such a motion would in fact cause it to carry, and if for that purpose we could reach that agreement I would do that. However, I cannot guarantee that the gentleman's motion will carry. But I appreciate the flattery, and yes, if that is what the gentleman is saying, let us reach an agreement on this issue, I would be more than happy to support the gentleman in that instance.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] has again expired.

(On request of Mr. Frank and by unanimous consent, Mr. Mfume was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend I understand his feelings, but this bill requires passage here, and under the Constitution passage in the Senate. While it may be that we will within a few hours, after amendments which the gentleman has kindly announced in advance will be offered knowing they will be defeated, get out of here, none of us can control [*H4908] the course of debate in the other body, which means if we were to delay this for 3, 4, or 5 weeks, with the July 4 holiday coming up and the conventions, we would then get in the situation where extended debate could take place in the other body, and we could go for a year without passing the bill.

So the notion that by rising and having a lengthy process of hearing and consideration we would not be slowing the bill down, if it only required passage in the House that would be a different story. But there is, for better or for worse, the Senate and, delaying this by 3 or 4 weeks, given the occasional propensity of the Senate to take longer on the bill than we do, it would be fatal.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Olin). The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] has again expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Mfume was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)

Mr. MFUME. Let me just say again to the gentleman from Illinois who offered the amendment, as I said in the preface of my remarks, I appreciate the good will that he has offered it. I appreciate also the good will of the opposition, particularly as noted from my colleague from the State of Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I would again urge consideration of the request of the NAACP, the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, major labor and religious organizations that in fact we conduct hearings nationwide before moving to a consensus one way or the other on what I consider to be a very important piece of legislation.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].

The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were -- ayes 139, noes 265, not voting 27, as follows:

(See Roll No. 213 in the ROLL segment.)

Messrs. GRANDY, ASPIN, KOLBE, PASHAYAN, YOUNG of Alaska, FLIPPO, and ACKERMAN changed their vote from "aye" to "no."

Mr. LENT changed his vote from "no" to "aye."

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Olin). Are there further amendments to section 7?

If not, the Clerk will designate section 8.

The text of section 8 is as follows:

SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT CHANGES.

Title VIII is amended --

(1) by redesignating sections 815 through 819 as sections 816 through 820, respectively; and

(2) by striking out sections 810 through 813 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT; PRELIMINARY MATTERS

"Sec. 810. (a) Complaints and Answers. -- (1)(A)(i) An aggrieved person may, not later than one year after an alleged discriminatory housing practice has occurred or terminated, file a complaint with the Secretary alleging such discriminatory housing practice. The Secretary, on the Secretary's own initiative, may also file such a complaint.

"(ii) Such complaints shall be in writing and shall contain such information and be in such form as the Secretary requires.

"(iii) The Secretary may also investigate housing practices to determine whether a complaint should be brought under this section.

"(B) Upon the filing of such a complaint --

"(i) the Secretary shall serve notice upon the aggrieved person acknowledging such filing and advising the aggrieved person of the time limits and choice of forums provided under this title;

"(ii) the Secretary shall, not later than 10 days after such filing or the identification of an additional respondent under paragraph (2), serve on the respondent a notice identifying the alleged discriminatory housing practice and advising such respondent of the procedural rights and obligations of respondents [*H4909] under this title, together with a copy of the original complaint;

"(iii) each respondent may file, not later than 10 days after receipt of notice from the Secretary, an answer to such complaint; and

"(iv) the Secretary shall make an investigation of the alleged discriminatory housing practice and complete such investigation within 100 days after the filing of the complaint (or, when the Secretary takes further action under subsection (f)(2) with respect to a complaint, within 100 days after the commencement of such further action), unless it is impracticable to do so.

"(C) If the Secretary is unable to complete the investigation within 100 days after the filing of the complaint (or, when the Secretary takes further action under subsection (f)(2) with respect to a complaint, within 100 days after the commencement of such further action), the Secretary shall notify the complainant and respondent in writing of the reasons for not doing so.

"(D) Complaints and answers shall be under oath or affirmation, and may be reasonably and fairly amended at any time.

"(2)(A) A person who is not named as a respondent in a complaint, but who is identified as a respondent in the course of investigation, may be joined as an additional or substitute respondent upon written notice, under paragraph (1), to such person, from the Secretary.

"(B) Such notice, in addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (1), shall explain the basis for the Secretary's belief that the person to whom the notice is addressed is properly joined as a respondent.

"(b) Investigative Report and Conciliation. -- (1) During the period beginning with the filing of such complaint and ending with the filing of a charge or a dismissal by the Secretary, the Secretary shall, to the extent feasible, engage in conciliation with respect to such complaint.

"(2) A conciliation agreement arising out of such conciliation shall be an agreement between the respondent and the complainant, and shall be subject to approval by the Secretary.

"(3) A conciliation agreement may provide for binding arbitration of the dispute arising from the complaint. Any such arbitration that results from a conciliation agreement may award appropriate relief, including monetary relief.

"(4) Each conciliation agreement shall be made public unless the complainant and respondent otherwise agree and the Secretary determines that disclosure is not required to further the purposes of this title.

"(5)(A) At the end of each investigation under this section, the Secretary shall prepare a final investigative report containing --

"(i) the names and dates of contacts with witnesses;

"(ii) a summary and the dates of correspondence and other contacts with the aggrieved person and the respondent;

"(iii) a summary description of other pertinent records;

"(iv) a summary of witness statements; and

"(v) answers to interrogatories.

"(B) A final report under this paragraph may be amended if additional evidence is later discovered.

"(c) Failure to Comply With Conciliation Agreement. -- Whenever the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe that a respondent has breached a conciliation agreement, the Secretary shall refer the matter to the Attorney General with a recommendation that a civil action be filed under section 814 for the enforcement of such agreement.

"(d) Prohibitions and Requirements With Respect to Disclosure of Information. -- (1) Nothing said or done in the course of conciliation under this title may be made public or used as evidence in a subsequent proceeding under this title without the written consent of the persons concerned.

"(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make available to the aggrieved person and the respondent, at any time, upon request following completion of the Secretary's investigation, information derived from an investigation and any final investigative report relating to that investigation.

"(e) Prompt Judicial Action. -- (1) If the Secretary concludes at any time following the filing of a complaint that prompt judicial action is necessary to carry out the purposes of this title, the Secretary may commence and maintain a civil action for appropriate temporary or preliminary relief pending final disposition of the complaint under this section. The Secretary shall promptly notify the Attorney General of the filing of any action pursuant to this subsection. Any temporary restraining order or other order granting preliminary or temporary relief shall be issued in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The commencement of a civil action under this subsection does not affect the initiation or continuation of administrative proceedings under this section and section 812 of this title.

"(2) Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that a basis may exist for the commencement of proceedings against any respondent under sections 814(a) and 814(c) or for proceedings by any governmental licensing or supervisory authorities, the Secretary shall transmit the information upon which such belief is based to the Attorney General, or to such authorities, as the case may be.

"(f) Referral for State or Local Proceedings. -- (1) Whenever a complaint alleges a discriminatory housing practice --

"(A) within the jurisdiction of a State or local public agency; and

"(B) as to which such agency has been certified by the Secretary under this subsection;

the Secretary shall refer such complaint to that certified agency before taking any action with respect to such complaint.

"(2) Except with the consent of such certified agency, the Secretary, after that referral is made, shall take no further action with respect to such complaint unless --

"(A) the certified agency has failed to commence proceedings with respect to the complaint before the end of the 30th day after the date of such referral;

"(B) the certified agency, having so commenced such proceedings, fails to carry forward such proceedings with reasonable promptness; or

"(C) the Secretary determines that the certified agency no longer qualifies for certification under this subsection with respect to the relevant jurisdiction.

"(3)(A) The Secretary may certify an agency under this subsection only if the Secretary determines that --

"(i) the substantive rights protected by such agency in the jurisdiction with respect to which certification is to be made;

"(ii) the procedures followed by such agency;

"(iii) the remedies available to such agency; and

"(iv) the availability of judicial review of such agency's action;

are substantially equivalent to those created by and under this title.

"(B) Before making such certification, the Secretary shall take into account the current practices and past performance, if any, of such agency.

"(4) During the period which begins on the date of the enactment of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and ends 40 months after such date, each agency certified for the purposes of this title on the day before such date shall for the purposes of this subsection be considered certified under this subsection with respect to those matters for which such agency was certified on that date. If the Secretary determines in an individual case that an agency has not been able to meet the certification requirements within this 40-month period due to exceptional circumstances, such as the infrequency of legislative sessions in that jurisdiction, the Secretary may extend such period by not more than 8 months.

"(5) Not less frequently than every 5 years, the Secretary shall determine whether each agency certified under this subsection continues to qualify for certification. The Secretary shall take appropriate action with respect to any agency not so qualifying.

"(g) Reasonable Cause Determination and Effect. -- (1) The Secretary shall, within 100 days after the filing of the complaint (or, when the Secretary takes further action under subsection (f)(2) with respect to a complaint, within 100 days after the commencement of such further action), determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur, unless it is impracticable to do so, or unless the Secretary has approved a conciliation agreement with respect to the complaint. If the Secretary is unable to make the determination within 100 days after the filing of the complaint (or, when the Secretary takes further action under subsection (f)(2) with respect to a complaint, within 100 days after the commencement of such further action), the Secretary shall notify the complainant and respondent in writing of the reasons for not doing so.

"(2)(A) If the Secretary determines that reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur, the Secretary shall, except as provided in subparagraph (C), immediately issue a charge on behalf of the aggrieved person, for further proceedings under section 812.

"(B) Such charge --

"(i) shall consist of a short and plain statement of the facts upon which the Secretary has found reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur;

"(ii) shall be based on the final investigative report; and

"(iii) need not be limited to the facts or grounds alleged in the complaint filed under section 810(a).

"(C) If the Secretary determines that the matter involves the legality of any State or local zoning or other land use law or ordinance, the Secretary shall immediately refer the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action under section 814, instead of issuing such charge.

"(3) If the Secretary determines that no reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur, the Secretary shall promptly dismiss the complaint. The Secretary shall make public disclosure of each such dismissal.

"(4) The Secretary may not issue a charge under this section regarding an alleged discriminatory housing practice after the beginning of the trial of a civil action commenced by the aggrieved party under an Act of Congress or a State law, seeking relief with respect to that discriminatory housing practice.

[*H4910] "SUBPOENAS; GIVING OF EVIDENCE

"Sec. 811. (a) In General. -- The Secretary may, in accordance with this subsection, issue subpoenas and order discovery in aid of investigations and hearings under this title. Such subpoenas and discovery may be ordered to the same extent and subject to the same limitations as would apply if the subpoenas or discovery were ordered or served in aid of a civil action in the United States district court for the district in which the investigation is taking place.

"(b) Witness Fees. -- Witnesses summoned by a subpoena under this title shall be entitled to the same witness and mileage fees as witnesses in proceedings in United States district courts. Fees payable to a witness summoned by a subpoena issued at the request of a party shall be paid by that party or, where a party is unable to pay the fees, by the Secretary.

"(c) Criminal Penalties. -- (1) Any person who willfully fails or neglects to attend and testify or to answer any lawful inquiry or to produce records, documents, or other evidence, if it is in such person's power to do so, in obedience to the subpoena or other lawful order under subsection (a), shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

"(2) Any person who, with intent thereby to mislead another person in any proceeding under this title --

"(A) makes or causes to be made any false entry or statement of fact in any report, account, record, or other document produced pursuant to subpoena or other lawful order under subsection (a);

"(B) willfully neglects or fails to make or to cause to be made full, true, and correct entries in such reports, accounts, records, or other documents; or

"(C) willfully mutilates, alters, or by any other means falsifies any documentary evidence;

shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

"ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT; HEARING PROCESS

"Sec. 812. (a) Conduct of Hearing. -- An administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 of title 5, United States Code, shall conduct a hearing on the record with respect to a charge issued under section 810 of this title.

"(b) Service of Copies of Charge. -- After the Secretary issues a charge under section 810, the Secretary shall cause a copy thereof to be served --

"(1) on each respondent named in such charge, together with a notice of opportunity for a hearing on the record at a place (in the vicinity in which the discriminatory housing practice is alleged to have occurred or to be about to occur) and at a time (not less than 30 days after the service of such charge) specified in such notice; and

"(2) on each aggrieved person.

"(c) Rights of Parties. -- At a hearing under this section, each party may appear in person, be represented by counsel, present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and obtain the issuance of subpoenas under section 811. Any aggrieved person may intervene as a party in the proceeding. The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to the presentation of evidence in such hearing as they would in a civil action in a United States district court.

"(d) Expedited Discovery and Hearing. -- (1) Discovery in administrative proceedings under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible, consistent with the need of all parties to obtain relevant evidence.

"(2) A hearing under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible, consistent with the needs and rights of the parties to obtain a fair hearing and a complete record.

"(3) The Secretary shall, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, issue rules to implement this subsection.

"(e) Resolution of Charge. -- Any resolution of a charge before a final order under this section shall require the consent of the aggrieved person on whose behalf the charge is issued.

"(f) Effect of Trial of Civil Action on Administrative Proceedings. -- An administrative law judge may not continue administrative proceedings under this section regarding any alleged discriminatory housing practice after the beginning of the trial of a civil action commenced by the aggrieved party under an Act of Congress or a State law, seeking relief with respect to that discriminatory housing practice.

"(g) Hearings, Findings and Conclusions, and Order. -- (1) The administrative law judge shall commence the hearing under this section no later than 120 days following the issuance of the charge, unless it is impracticable to do so. If the administrative law judge is unable to commence the hearing within 120 days after the issuance of the charge, the administrative law judge shall notify the Secretary, the aggrieved person on whose behalf the charge was filed, and the respondent, in writing of the reasons for not doing so.

"(2) The administrative law judge shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within 60 days after the end of the hearing under this section, unless it is impracticable to do so. If the administrative law judge is unable to make findings of fact and conclusions of law within such period, or any succeeding 60-day period thereafter, the administrative law judge shall notify the Secretary, the aggrieved person on whose behalf the charge was filed, and the respondent, in writing of the reasons for not doing so.

"(3) If the administrative law judge finds that a respondent has engaged or is about to engage in a discriminatory housing practice, such administrative law judge shall promptly issue an order for such relief as may be appropriate, which may include actual damages suffered by the aggrieved person and injunctive or other equitable relief. Such order may, to vindicate the public interest, assess a civil penalty against the respondent --

"(A) in an amount not exceeding $10,000 if the respondent has not been adjudged to have committed any prior discriminatory housing practice;

"(B) in an amount not exceeding $25,000 if the respondent has been adjudged to have committed one other discriminatory housing practice during the 5-year period ending on the date of the filing of this charge; and

"(C) in an amount not exceeding $50,000 if the respondent has been adjudged to have committed 2 or more discriminatory housing practices during the 7-year period ending on the date of the filing of this charge;

except that if the acts constituting the discriminatory housing practice that is the object of the charge are committed by the same natural person who has been previously adjudged to have committed acts constituting a discriminatory housing practice, then the civil penalties set forth in subparagraphs (B) and (C) may be imposed without regard to the period of time within which any subsequent discriminatory housing practice occurred.

"(4) No such order shall affect any contract, sale, encumbrance, or lease consummated before the issuance of such order and involving a bona fide purchaser, encumbrancer, or tenant without actual notice of the charge filed under this title.

"(5) In the case of an order with respect to a discriminatory housing practice that occurred in the course of a business subject to a licensing or regulation by a governmental agency, the Secretary shall, not later than 30 days after the date of the issuance of such order (or, if such order is judicially reviewed, 30 days after such order is in substance affirmed upon such review) --

"(A) send copies of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the order, to that governmental agency; and

"(B) recommend to that governmental agency appropriate disciplinary action (including, where appropriate, the suspension or revocation of the license of the respondent).

"(6) In the case of an order against a respondent against whom another order was issued within the preceding 5 years under this section, the Secretary shall send a copy of each such order to the Attorney General.

"(7) If the administrative law judge finds that the respondent has not engaged or is not about to engage in a discriminatory housing practice, as the case may be, such administrative law judge shall enter an order dismissing the charge. The Secretary shall make public disclosure of each such dismissal.

"(h) Service of Findings and Conclusions and Order. -- The Secretary shall cause the findings of fact and conclusions of law made with respect to an order issued under subsection (g), together with a copy of such order, to be served on each aggrieved person and each respondent in the proceeding.

"(i) Finality of Order; Review. -- (1) An order of the administrative law judge is the final order for purposes of judicial review under this title.

"(2)(A) Any party aggrieved by an order of the administrative law judge granting or denying in whole or in part the relief sought may obtain a review of such order under chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code.

"(B) Notwithstanding such chapter, venue of the proceeding shall be in the judicial circuit in which the discriminatory housing practice is alleged to have occurred, and filing of the petition for review shall be not later than 30 days after the order is entered.

"(j) Court Enforcement of Administrative Order Upon Petition by Secretary. -- (1) The Secretary may petition any United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the discriminatory housing practice is alleged to have occurred or in which any respondent resides or transacts business for the enforcement of the order of the administrative law judge and for appropriate temporary relief or restraining order, by filing in such court a written petition praying that such order be enforced and for appropriate temporary relief or restraining order.

"(2) The Secretary shall file in court with the petition the record in the proceeding. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the parties to the proceeding before the administrative law judge.

"(k) Relief Which May Be Granted. -- (1) Upon the filing of a petition under subsection (i) or (j), the court may --

"(A) grant to the petitioner, or any other party, such temporary relief, restraining order, or other order as the court deems just and proper;

"(B) affirm, modify, or set aside, in whole or in part, the order, or remand the order for further proceedings; and

"(C) enforce such order to the extent that such order is affirmed or modified.

[*H4911] "(2) Any party to the proceeding before the administrative law judge may intervene in the court of appeals.

"(3) No objection not made before the administrative law judge shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection is excused because of extraordinary circumstances.

"(l) Enforcement Decree in Absence of Petition for Review. -- If no petition for review is filed under subsection (i) before the expiration of 45 days after the date the administrative law judge's order is entered, the administrative law judge's findings of fact and order shall be conclusive in connection with any petition for enforcement --

"(1) which is filed by the Secretary under subsection (j) after the end of such day; or

"(2) under subsection (m).

"(m) Court Enforcement of Administrative Order Upon Petition of Any Person Entitled to Relief. -- If before the expiration of 60 days after the date the administrative law judge's order is entered, no petition for review has been filed under subsection (i), and the Secretary has not sought enforcement of the order under subsection (j), any person entitled to relief under the order may petition for a decree enforcing the order in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the discriminatory housing practice is alleged to have occurred.

"(n) Entry of Decree. -- The clerk of the court of appeals in which a petition for enforcement is filed under subsection (l) or (m) shall forthwith enter a decree enforcing the order and shall transmit a copy of such decree to the Secretary, the respondent named in the petition, and to any other parties to the proceeding before the administrative law judge.

"(o) Attorney's Fees. -- In any administrative proceeding brought under this section, or any court proceeding arising therefrom, the administrative law judge or the court, as the case may be, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. The United States shall be liable for such fees and costs to the extent provided by section 504 of title 5, United States Code, or by section 2412 of title 28, United States Code.

"ENFORCEMENT BY PRIVATE PERSONS

"Sec. 813. (a) Civil Action. -- (1)(A) An aggrieved person may commence a civil action in an appropriate United States district court or State court not later than 2 years after the occurrence or the termination of an alleged discriminatory housing practice, or the breach of a conciliation agreement entered into under this title, whichever occurs last, to obtain appropriate relief with respect to such discriminatory housing practice or breach.

"(B) The computation of such 2-year period shall not include any time during which an administrative proceeding under this title was pending with respect to a complaint or charge under this title based upon such discriminatory housing practice. This subparagraph does not apply to actions arising from a breach of a conciliation agreement.

"(2) An aggrieved person may commence a civil action under this subsection whether or not a complaint has been filed under section 810(a) and without regard to the status of any such complaint, but if the Secretary or a State or local agency has obtained a conciliation agreement with the consent of an aggrieved person, no action may be filed under this subsection by such aggrieved person with respect to the alleged discriminatory housing practice which forms the basis for such complaint except for the purpose of enforcing the terms of such an agreement.

"(3) An aggrieved person may not commence a civil action under this subsection with respect to an alleged discriminatory housing practice which forms the basis of a charge issued by the Secretary if an administrative law judge has commenced a hearing on the record under this title with respect to such charge.

"(b) Appointment of Attorney by Court. -- Upon application by a person alleging a discriminatory housing practice or a person against whom such a practice is alleged, the court may --

"(1) appoint an attorney for such person; or

"(2) authorize the commencement or continuation of a civil action under subsection (a) without the payment of fees, costs, or security, if in the opinion of the court such person is financially unable to bear the costs of such action.

"(c) Relief Which May Be Granted. -- (1) In a civil action under subsection (a), if the court finds that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur, the court may award to the plaintiff actual and punitive damages, and subject to subsection (d), may grant as relief, as the court deems appropriate, any permanent or temporary injunction, temporary restraining order, or other order (including an order enjoining the defendant from engaging in such practice or ordering such affirmative action as may be appropriate).

"(2) In a civil action under subsection (a), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. The United States shall be liable for such fees and costs to the same extent as a private person.

"(d) Effect on Certain Sales, Encumbrances, and Rentals. -- Relief granted under this section shall not affect any contract, sale, encumbrance, or lease consummated before the granting of such relief and involving a bona fide purchaser, encumbrancer, or tenant, without actual notice of the filing of a complaint with the Secretary or civil action under this title.

"(e) Intervention by Attorney General. -- Upon timely application, the Attorney General may intervene in such civil action, if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance. Upon such intervention the Attorney General may obtain such relief as would be available to the Attorney General under section 814(e) in a civil action to which such section applies.

"ENFORCEMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

"Sec. 814. (a) Pattern or Practice Cases. -- Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights granted by this title, or that any group of persons has been denied any of the rights granted by this title and such denial raises an issue of general public importance, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States district court.

"(b) On Referral of Discriminatory Housing Practice or Conciliation Agreement for Enforcement. -- (1)(A) The Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States district court for appropriate relief with respect to a discriminatory housing practice referred to the Attorney General by the Secretary under section 810(g).

"(B) A civil action under this paragraph may be commenced not later than the expiration of 18 months after the date of the occurrence or the termination of the alleged discriminatory housing practice.

"(2)(A) The Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States district court for appropriate relief with respect to breach of a conciliation agreement referred to the Attorney General by the Secretary under section 810(c).

"(B) A civil action may be commenced under this paragraph not later than the expiration of 90 days after the referral of the alleged breach under section 810(c).

"(c) Enforcement of Subpoenas. -- The Attorney General, on behalf of the Secretary, or other party at whose request a subpoena is issued, under this title, may enforce such subpoena in appropriate proceedings in the United States district court for the district in which the person to whom the subpoena was addressed resides, was served, or transacts business.

"(d) Relief Which May Be Granted in Civil Actions Under Subsections (a) and (b). -- (1) In a civil action under subsection (a) or (b), the court --

"(A) may award such preventive relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person responsible for a violation of this title as is necessary to assure the full enjoyment of the rights granted by this title;

"(B) may award such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including monetary damages to persons aggrieved; and

"(C) may, to vindicate the public interest, assess a civil penalty against the respondent --

"(i) in an amount not exceeding $50,000, for a first violation; and

"(ii) in an amount not exceeding $100,000, for any subsequent violation.

"(2) In a civil action under this section, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. The United States shall be liable for such fees and costs to the extent provided by section 2412 of title 28, United States Code.

"(e) Intervention in Civil Actions. -- Upon timely application, any person may intervene in a civil action commenced by the Attorney General under subsection (a) or (b) which involves an alleged discriminatory housing practice with respect to which such person is an aggrieved person or a conciliation agreement to which such person is a party. The court may grant such appropriate relief to any such intervening party as is authorized to be granted to a plaintiff in a civil action under section 813.

"RULES TO IMPLEMENT TITLE

"Sec. 815. The Secretary may make rules (including rules for the collection, maintenance, and analysis of appropriate data) to carry out this title. The Secretary shall give public notice and opportunity for comment with respect to all rules made under this section.".

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

(Mr. SCHEUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, we have had a very spirited debate on the last amendment, and that controversy and that sense of spirit have impregnated the debate on fair housing for the last 25 years.

I hold a picture in my hand that dates back to almost the beginning of the fight for fair housing. I do not know if the cameras can zoom in this close. This picture which I hold in my hand is of an historic event that took place 25 years ago this month. It is a picture of a group at the Civil Rights [*H4912] Leadership Conference gathered in the Rose Garden of the White House.

Some of the people in this picture are: Vice President Lyndon Johnson, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King. Jim Farmer, the head of CORE, the president of the National Council of Jewish Women, the head of SNICK at that time, a young Atlantan by the name of John Lewis, and standing right next to John Lewis, is a young housing developer and one of the leaders of the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing, Jim Scheuer, a New York developer.

John and I have worked actively in the civil rights battle ever since. We are both proud to have been in on the beginning. I honor the role that John Lewis has played.

Both John Lewis and I have a sense of deep satisfaction in what we are doing today. We came from a very uncertain start back in June 1963. We were all convened in the Rose Garden of the White House to get President Kennedy to sign an Executive order prohibiting discrimination in housing, to reach that goal with a so-called single stroke of the pen. But there were problems. There were political problems and there were other problems, and it did not get signed.

The progress since then has been difficult. It has been controversial; it has been emotion laden. Just as the debate was this afternoon, it has been episodic, and it has been incremental. We have taken two steps forward and one step back. But here 25 years later, we have arrived at a very beautiful point in time.

This is a great, fine bill, embodying the best in America. It provides the opportunity to go to an administrative judge or to a Federal district court judge and get a real result. It is decent, it is fair, and it is in the best traditions of America.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to have played a minor role over these 25 years, and I know my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, who was there at the beginning, is proud of his role, a very major role.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCHEUER. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, with great pleasure and great pride.

(Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York, for yielding. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] for bringing this bill before us.

Mr. Chairman, during the past few years we have strived to create an open society, and we have made great strides toward the realization of this dream. The legislation we are considering today breaks another link in the chains that have bound our society to the ravages of discrimination. I am very proud to be associated with this legislation.

Today we are considering a fair housing measure which not only protects our Nation's minorities, but it protects the needs of those with disabilities and families with children.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to say just a few words about my colleague from New York. He was with the civil rights movement in 1963 when we visited the White House to urge President Kennedy to issue an Executive order banning discrimination in public housing and other Federal housing programs. He was there during the signing of the Fair Housing Act in 1968. He not only talks, but he is a man of action, and I commend him for his efforts over the years.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Scheuer was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. The most visible signs of racial discrimination are no longer with us. In the past 25 years we have witnessed a nonviolent revolution, not just the removal of racial barriers, but a revolution of values and a revolution of ideas. The face of this Nation has been changed forever.

Mr. Chairman, what we do here today with the passage of this measure will be a significant step on the long and continuous journey on the road to an open society. With the passage of this measure we are saying to the American people that we must look out for the common good, that we are one people, one Nation, one community, one house, the American house.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Scheuer], my good friend, for yielding this time to me.

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards].

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Scheuer] for yielding this time to me, and I want to say how honored we are today to have the two gladiators from the sixties, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Scheuer] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], and it is very appropriate that they are here today because this is the first major civil rights bill in many a year, and it is a fine bill.

Mr. Chairman, I know when this day ends in 1, 2, 3, 4 hours; we do not know yet, it will be a bright day and a grand day for this House of Representatives.

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards]. I want to express my sense of admiration and affection for the gentleman for the outstanding leadership role he has played in the civil rights field for a quarter of the century that he has been here, and I congratulate him for this remarkable achievement that we are about to vote on today, and I congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] for his equally stellar role.

Mr. Chairman, I think America can be proud of two such exemplary exponents of everything good that we stand for, Republican and Democrat, standing together giving marvelous leadership to this cause.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. Olin). The Committee will rise informally to receive a message.

ROLL:
[Roll No. 212]

AYES -- 78

Archer
Armey
Badham
Baker
Ballenger
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bliley
Boulter
Brown (CO)
Burton
Combest
Craig
Crane
Dannemeyer
Darden
DeLay
Dickinson
Dornan (CA)
Dreier
Edwards (OK)
Fields
Gallegly
Gekas
Goodling
Gregg
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Herger
Huckaby
Hunter
Hyde
Ireland
Konnyu
Kyl
Lancaster
Latta
Lent
Lewis (FL)
Lipinski
Livingston
Lott
Lowery (CA)
Lukens, Donald
Lungren
Marlenee
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
Miller (OH)
Moorhead
Nielson
Oxley
Packard
Petri
Quillen
Ravenel
Rhodes
Roberts
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shumway
Shuster
Slaughter (VA)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Denny (OR)
Smith, Robert (NH)
Stenholm
Stump
Swindall
Vander Jagt
Vucanovich
Walker
Whittaker
Wylie
Young (FL)

NOES -- 330

Ackerman
Akaka
Alexander
Andrews
Annunzio
Anthony
Applegate
Atkins
AuCoin
Barnard
Bates
Beilenson
Bennett
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Boehlert
Boggs
Boland
Bonior
Bonker
Borski
Bosco
Boucher
Boxer
Brennan
Brooks
Broomfield
Brown (CA)
Bruce
Bryant
Buechner
Bunning
Bustamante
Byron
Callahan
Campbell
Cardin
Carper
Carr
Chandler
Chapman
Chappell
Clarke
Clay
Clement
Clinger
Coats
Coble
Coelho
Coleman (MO)
Coleman (TX)
Collins
Conte
Conyers
Cooper
Coughlin
Courter
Coyne
Crockett
Daub
Davis (IL)
Davis (MI)
DeFazio
Dellums
Derrick
DeWine
Dicks
Dingell
DioGuardi
Donnelly
Dorgan (ND)
Dowdy
Downey
Durbin
Dwyer
Dymally
Dyson
Early
Eckart
Edwards (CA)
Emerson
English
Erdreich
Espy
Evans
Fascell
Fawell
Fazio
Feighan
Fish
Flake
Flippo
Florio
Foglietta
Foley
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank
Frenzel
Frost
Gallo
Garcia
Gaydos
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gradison
Grandy
Grant
Gray (IL)
Gray (PA)
Green
Guarini
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hammerschmidt
Harris
Hatcher
Hawkins
Hayes (LA)
Hefley
Hefner
Henry
Hertel
Hiler
Hochbrueckner
Holloway
Hopkins
Horton
Houghton
Hoyer
Hubbard
Hughes
Hutto
Inhofe
Jacobs
Jeffords
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Jones (NC)
Jontz
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kastenmeier
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kolter
Kostmayer
LaFalce
Lagomarsino
Lantos
Leach (IA)
Leath (TX)
Lehman (CA)
Lehman (FL)
Leland
Levin (MI)
Levine (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lloyd
Lowry (WA)
Lujan
Luken, Thomas
Madigan
Manton
Markey
Martin (IL)
Martin (NY)
Martinez
Matsui
Mavroules
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDade
McEwen
McGrath
McHugh
McMillan (NC)
McMillen (MD)
Meyers
Mfume
Michel
Miller (CA)
Miller (WA)
Mineta
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Morella
Morrison (CT)
Morrison (WA)
Mrazek
Murphy
Murtha
Nagle
Natcher
Neal
Nelson
Nichols
Nowak
Oakar
Oberstar
Obey
Olin
Ortiz
Owens (NY)
Owens (UT)
Panetta
Parris
Pashayan
Patterson
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Penny
Pepper
Perkins
Pickett
Pickle
Porter
Price
Pursell
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Richardson
Ridge
Rinaldo
Ritter
Robinson
Rodino
Roe
Rogers
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roukema
Rowland (CT)
Rowland (GA)
Roybal
Russo
Sabo
Savage
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Scheuer
Schneider
Schroeder
Schuette
Schulze
Schumer
Sharp
Shays
Sikorski
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter (NY)
Smith (IA)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Robert (OR)
Snowe
Solarz
Solomon
Staggers
Stallings
Stangeland
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Sundquist
Swift
Synar
Tallon
Tauke
Tauzin
Taylor
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (GA)
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Traxler
Udall
Upton
Valentine
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walgren
Watkins
Waxman
Weber
Weldon
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wolpe
Wortley
Wyden
Yates
Yatron
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING -- 23

Anderson
Aspin
Biaggi
Cheney
de la Garza
Dixon
Hayes (IL)
Jones (TN)
Kemp
Mack
MacKay
Mica
Moody
Myers
Ray
Saiki
Smith (FL)
Spence
Spratt
St Germain
Stratton
Sweeney
Weiss
[Roll No. 213]

AYES -- 139

Archer
Armey
Badham
Baker
Ballenger
Barnard
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boulter
Broomfield
Brown (CO)
Buechner
Bunning
Burton
Byron
Callahan
Coats
Coble
Coleman (MO)
Combest
Coughlin
Courter
Craig
Crane
Dannemeyer
Daub
Davis (IL)
DeLay
DeWine
Dickinson
Dornan (CA)
Dreier
Edwards (OK)
Emerson
Fawell
Fields
Florio
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gingrich
Gradison
Gregg
Hall (TX)
Hammerschmidt
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hiler
Holloway
Hopkins
Hughes
Hunter
Hutto
Hyde
Inhofe
Ireland
Jenkins
Kasich
Konnyu
Kyl
Latta
Leath (TX)
Lent
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Livingston
Lott
Lowery (CA)
Lujan
Lukens, Donald
Lungren
Madigan
Marlenee
Martin (IL)
Martin (NY)
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McEwen
McGrath
McMillan (NC)
Michel
Miller (OH)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Nichols
Nielson
Oxley
Packard
Parris
Petri
Porter
Quillen
Regula
Rhodes
Ridge
Ritter
Roberts
Rogers
Roukema
Saxton
Schaefer
Schulze
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shumway
Shuster
Skeen
Slaughter (VA)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Denny (OR)
Smith, Robert (NH)
Smith, Robert (OR)
Solomon
Stangeland
Stenholm
Stump
Sundquist
Swindall
Tauke
Taylor
Thomas (GA)
Vander Jagt
Vucanovich
Walker
Weber
Weldon
Whittaker
Wolf
Wortley
Wylie
Young (FL)

NOES -- 265

Ackerman
Akaka
Alexander
Andrews
Annunzio
Anthony
Applegate
Aspin
Atkins
AuCoin
Bartlett
Barton
Bates
Beilenson
Bennett
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Boehlert
Boggs
Boland
Bonior
Bonker
Borski
Bosco
Boucher
Boxer
Brennan
Brooks
Brown (CA)
Bruce
Bryant
Bustamante
Campbell
Cardin
Carper
Carr
Chandler
Chapman
Chappell
Clarke
Clay
Clement
Clinger
Coelho
Coleman (TX)
Collins
Conte
Conyers
Cooper
Coyne
Crockett
Darden
Davis (MI)
DeFazio
Dellums
Derrick
Dicks
Dingell
DioGuardi
Donnelly
Dorgan (ND)
Dowdy
Downey
Durbin
Dwyer
Dymally
Dyson
Early
Eckart
Edwards (CA)
English
Erdreich
Espy
Evans
Fascell
Fazio
Feighan
Fish
Flake
Flippo
Foglietta
Foley
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank
Frenzel
Frost
Garcia
Gaydos
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Grandy
Grant
Gray (IL)
Gray (PA)
Green
Guarini
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harris
Hatcher
Hawkins
Hayes (LA)
Hefner
Henry
Hertel
Hochbrueckner
Horton
Houghton
Hoyer
Hubbard
Huckaby
Jacobs
Jeffords
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Jones (NC)
Jontz
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kastenmeier
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kolter
Kostmayer
LaFalce
Lagomarsino
Lancaster
Lantos
Leach (IA)
Lehman (CA)
Lehman (FL)
Leland
Levin (MI)
Levine (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Lowry (WA)
Luken, Thomas
Manton
Martinez
Matsui
Mavroules
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDade
McHugh
McMillen (MD)
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (WA)
Mineta
Moakley
Mollohan
Morella
Morrison (CT)
Morrison (WA)
Mrazek
Murphy
Murtha
Natcher
Neal
Nelson
Nowak
Oakar
Oberstar
Obey
Olin
Ortiz
Owens (NY)
Owens (UT)
Panetta
Pashayan
Patterson
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Penny
Pepper
Perkins
Pickett
Pickle
Price
Pursell
Rahall
Rangel
Ravenel
Richardson
Rinaldo
Robinson
Rodino
Roe
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Rowland (CT)
Rowland (GA)
Roybal
Russo
Sabo
Savage
Sawyer
Scheuer
Schneider
Schroeder
Schuette
Schumer
Sharp
Shays
Sikorski
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter (NY)
Smith (FL)
Smith (IA)
Snowe
Solarz
Staggers
Stallings
Stark
Stokes
Stratton
Studds
Swift
Synar
Tallon
Tauzin
Thomas (CA)
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Traxler
Udall
Upton
Valentine
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walgren
Watkins
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Wilson
Wise
Wolpe
Wyden
Yates
Yatron
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING -- 27

Anderson
Bentley
Biaggi
Cheney
de la Garza
Dixon
Gejdenson
Goodling
Hayes (IL)
Jones (TN)
Kemp
Lewis (CA)
Mack
MacKay
Markey
Mica
Moody
Myers
Nagle
Ray
Saiki
Spence
Spratt
St Germain
Sweeney
Weiss
Williams