    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         PROTECTING RENTERS DURING THE
                         PANDEMIC: REVIEWING REFORMS TO
                      EXPEDITE EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE

    =======================================================================

                                VIRTUAL HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 10, 2021

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

                               Serial No. 117-45

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    45-862 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

                     MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman

    CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York         PATRICK McHENRY, North Carolina,
    NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York             Ranking Member
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York           BILL POSEY, Florida
    DAVID SCOTT, Georgia                 BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
    AL GREEN, Texas                      BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan
    EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri            ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              ANDY BARR, Kentucky
    JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut            ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                FRENCH HILL, Arkansas
    JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio                   TOM EMMER, Minnesota
    JUAN VARGAS, California              LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
    JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey          BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
    VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas              ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia
    AL LAWSON, Florida                   WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
    MICHAEL SAN NICOLAS, Guam            TED BUDD, North Carolina
    CINDY AXNE, Iowa                     DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana
    AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts       ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    RITCHIE TORRES, New York             JOHN ROSE, Tennessee
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin
    ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina           LANCE GOODEN, Texas
    RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan              WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina
    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania         VAN TAYLOR, Texas
    ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York   PETE SESSIONS, Texas
    JESUS ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
    NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
    JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts

                       Charla Ouertatani, Staff Director

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on:
        September 10, 2021...........................................     1
    Appendix:
        September 10, 2021...........................................    67

                                   WITNESSES
                           Friday, September 10, 2021

    Morris, Kadeem, Supervising Attorney, Community Legal Services of
      Philadelphia...................................................     5
    Salazar, Margaret, Executive Director, Oregon Housing and
      Community Services (OHCS); and Vice Chair, National Council of
      State Housing Agencies (NCSHA).................................     7
    Schwartz, David, CEO, Chairman & Co-Founder, Waterton; and Chair,
      National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC)....................     9
    Winn, Gilbert, Chief Executive Officer, WinnCompanies............    12
    Yentel, Diane, President and CEO, National Low Income Housing
      Coalition (NLIHC)..............................................    11

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared statements:
        Morris, Kadeem...............................................    68
        Salazar, Margaret............................................    73
        Schwartz, David..............................................    83
        Winn, Gilbert................................................    99
        Yentel, Diane................................................   107

                           PROTECTING RENTERS DURING
                            THE PANDEMIC: REVIEWING
                              REFORMS TO EXPEDITE
                          EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE

                                  ----------

                           Friday, September 10, 2021

                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Financial Services,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:09 p.m., via
    Webex, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the committee]
    presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Waters, Sherman, Green,
    Cleaver, Perlmutter, Foster, Gottheimer, San Nicolas, Axne,
    Adams, Dean, Ocasio-Cortez, Garcia of Illinois, Garcia of
    Texas, Williams of Georgia, Auchincloss; McHenry, Posey,
    Huizenga, Wagner, Barr, Williams of Texas, Hill, Emmer, Zeldin,
    Loudermilk, Davidson, Kustoff, Gonzalez of Ohio, Rose, Steil,
    Timmons, Taylor, and Sessions.
        Chairwoman Waters. The Financial Services Committee will
    come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to
    declare a recess of the committee at any time.
        As a reminder, I ask all Members to keep themselves muted
    when they are not being recognized by the Chair. The staff has
    been instructed not to mute Members, except when a Member is
    not being recognized by the Chair, and there is inadvertent
    background noise.
        Members are also reminded that they may only participate in
    one remote proceeding at a time. If you are participating
    today, please keep your camera on, and if you choose to attend
    a different remote proceeding, please turn your camera off.
        Today's hearing is entitled, ``Protecting Renters During
    the Pandemic: Reviewing Reforms to Expedite Emergency Rental
    Assistance.''
        I now recognize myself for 4 minutes to give an opening
    statement.
        From the very beginning of this pandemic, I have sounded
    the alarm about the urgent need for congressional action to
    avert a massive spike in our national eviction crisis. As Chair
    of this committee, I understand the devastating impacts that
    evictions have on families, and I also understand how much
    landlords, particularly small, mom-and-pop landlords, are
    struggling because of unpaid rent.
        I also recognize that evictions increase the spread of
    COVID, and have the potential to seriously set back our
    national economic recovery. That is why I have worked around
    the clock on this issue.
        I am reminded, as I have worked on this issue, that we have
    extended the moratorium between the Congress of the United
    States and the CDC 6 times. Thankfully, due to the hard work of
    this committee, in 2020 Congress passed $25 billion in
    emergency rental assistance and provided an extension of the
    Federal eviction moratorium.
        Several months later, under the leadership of President
    Biden, Democrats passed an additional $21.6 billion in
    emergency rental assistance as part of the American Rescue Plan
    Act.
        But our work is not done. I am very concerned about data
    showing that State and local governments have only used 11
    percent of the $46.6 billion in emergency rental assistance
    funds that are available. There is no question that the funds
    are not reaching landlords and renters quickly or widely
    enough.
        In addition, the Supreme Court's action along partisan
    lines to lift the CDC's eviction moratorium puts millions at
    risk of eviction, even as the Delta variant causes a deadly
    resurgence of the virus.
        That is why I have introduced new legislation, the
    Expediting Assistance to Renters and Landlords Act of 2021,
    which is designed to make sure that individuals and families
    are not put out of their homes while this virus continues to
    harm communities across the country.
        This bill would allow landlords to apply directly for back
    rent they are owed, even if a renter is unresponsive, as long
    as the landlord provides notice and meets other conditions,
    including a requirement that tenants may not be evicted for at
    least 120 days, and that the landlords would be paid for those
    120 days following the first request for assistance.
        The legislation would also require grantees receiving
    emergency rental assistance funds to accept attestations from
    tenants, and to provide funds directly to tenants when the
    landlord is unresponsive or refuses to participate.
        The legislation also gears up outreach. Working very
    closely with the Treasury, we have come up with many ways to
    modify these applications. So the legislation, again, also
    gears up outreach to increase public awareness of the
    availability of emergency rental assistance funds, providing
    funding for mailings, radio, TV, and internet ads, and ensures
    that grantees have the resources and help to get the funds out
    the door.
        These steps and others in the bill will cut down barriers
    preventing the robust rental assistance funding that Congress
    has provided from reaching renters.
        Today, we will also discuss legislation that Ranking Member
    McHenry has introduced regarding rental assistance.
        While I have some serious concerns with the ranking
    member's bill, I believe that we are aligned in our goal to
    expedite assistance to those in need, so I want to work with
    him, and I am hopeful that we can work together and that this
    could be a bipartisan bill. I look forward to discussing both
    bills with our panel of experts today.
        I now recognize the ranking member of the committee, the
    gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McHenry, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding
    today's hearing, and thank you for those encouraging words of
    outreach now that we are 5 months past when committee
    Republicans filed our bill, the Renter Protection Act. And I
    want to thank you for attaching that bill, which is supported
    by every Republican on the committee, to this hearing.
        The bill makes common-sense reforms to Treasury's rental
    assistance programs to get help to renters and landlords now.
    It is a bill we should have considered months ago, before the
    eviction moratorium expired, and before renters and landlords
    had the rug pulled out from underneath them.
        Committee Republicans have been raising the alarm since it
    became clear that the Treasury Department was failing to get
    renter relief out the door. To state the obvious, the Emergency
    Rental Assistance Program isn't working.
        Congress gave the Treasury Department more than $46 billion
    to help renters and property owners survive the pandemic. Back
    in May, I asked Treasury to provide basic data that would help
    us understand where all that money is and why it hasn't reached
    renters. They couldn't answer those questions. And they still
    can't.
        We had a hearing late in July with the HUD Secretary, who
    was profoundly unprepared to answer basic questions about this
    important program. We asked, ``Is rental assistance money being
    used to help COVID-impacted families?'' and she told us, ``I
    have no idea.'' Let me repeat that. The HUD Secretary said, ``I
    have no idea.'' That is unacceptable.
        The whole process has been unacceptable. It has been 2
    months since the Federal eviction moratorium expired, and
    several weeks since the Supreme Court struck down President
    Biden's last-minute extension, and here we are, again, asking,
    why isn't the program working and how can we fix it?
        Is Secretary Yellen here? No. Did the Majority invite her?
    No. And she is in charge of deploying these moneys. Committee
    Republicans did invite her, and to no one's surprise, she
    didn't agree to come. And, again, she didn't come to answer
    these basic questions that we all have, on both sides of the
    aisle.
        Three days ago, Democrats finally put forward their
    alternative. You may have not heard or read about it, so I will
    summarize it for you: more red tape; more bureaucracy; and more
    delays. Simply put, the Democrats' bill will not fix the Biden
    Administration's abject failure.
        Here is what we should be doing. First, we should
    consolidate all of the rental assistance programs into one
    easy-to-manage program for localities to administer.
        Second, we need to reform the program so that money goes to
    property owners to settle back debts, so that families can stay
    in their homes.
        Third, we need to make it easier for property owners to
    participate on behalf of residents.
        And finally, we have to require grantees to move faster,
    for example, by accepting bulk applications.
        It seems like Democrats in Washington forgot that the
    purpose of the program is to pay back rent. This isn't
    difficult. To get the program back on track, it simply requires
    that our solutions be targeted, timely, and tied to COVID. But
    the bill put forward by Democrats would only make things worse,
    not better.
        So, instead of actually solving problems today, there will
    be more finger-pointing at the previous Administration by my
    Democrat friends, and more proposals to empower liberal
    activists by my Democrat friends, and zero plans to hold the
    Biden Administration accountable for their failures, which is
    very typical of my Democrat friends right now. This is a shame.
        Since it appears our bill won't get a fair shake in this
    committee this morning, I filed a discharge petition for the
    Renter Protection Act. I would encourage every Member to sign
    onto it.
        And with that, I look forward to the panel, and I yield
    back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Much of what the
    ranking member is saying needs to be done, is in this bill.
        The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, is recognized for
    one minute.
        Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. The legislation being discussed at
    this hearing, the Expediting Assistance to Renters and
    Landlords Act of 2021, proposes several changes to Emergency
    Rental Assistance (ERA) 1 and ERA 2 which will ensure that the
    Federal emergency rental assistance funding that we fought so
    hard for on this committee is continuing to reach those who are
    in need.
        As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to surge, far too many
    American families have been, and will be subject to the horrors
    of an eviction. Many small landlords who have invested their
    retirement incomes now have to worry about whether or not their
    property will go into foreclosure.
        Like many of you, I have been frustrated at the slow pace
    at which State and local governments have been implementing the
    Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and there is no time to
    waste in making the reforms necessary to get funds out the door
    as quickly and efficiently as possible.
        I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, and I
    want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your leadership, and
    for convening this hearing. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. You are so welcome.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hill, for
    one minute.
        Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Where is Secretary Yellen? It has been 5 months since the
    Treasury Secretary testified before our committee. Yet, the
    Biden Administration seems to feel no sense of urgency to help
    renters and mom-and-pop landlords who need it most, no sense of
    responsibility to answer to Congress, and no sense of shame
    over a complete mishandling of the Emergency Rental Assistance
    Program.
        Instead, we have the distinguished chairman from South
    Carolina, Mr. Clyburn, browbeating governors and trying to
    shift blame to them from the Treasury Secretary. It is a
    mistake, and we are hurting over a million families who are
    estimated to be evicted in the next couple of months.
        Republicans have a better solution, the Renter Protection
    Act, which would simplify the needlessly-complicated Rental
    Assistance Program, get the money out faster, and actually help
    the people that Congress intended to help: those who lost their
    jobs and got behind on their rent due to COVID-19.
        If my friends across the aisle are serious about a
    solution, I urge my friends to include the Renter Protection
    Act in Monday's committee action.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
        I want to welcome today's distinguished witnesses to the
    committee. First, we have Mr. Kadeem Morris, a supervising
    attorney with Community Legal Services of Philadelphia.
        Second, we have Ms. Margaret Salazar, the executive
    director of the Oregon Housing and Community Services
    Department.
        Third, we have Mr. David Schwartz, the CEO, chairman, and
    co-founder of Waterton, and the chair of the National
    Multifamily Housing Council.
        Fourth, we have Ms. Diane Yentel, the president and CEO of
    the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
        Now, I will recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
    Lynch, to introduce our last witness.
        Mr. Lynch?
        Is Mr. Lynch on the platform?
        Okay. Well, while we are waiting for Mr. Lynch, who wanted
    very much to introduce this witness, I will move on, and I will
    introduce Mr. Gilbert Winn, the CEO of WinnCompanies.
        Each of you will have 5 minutes to summarize your
    testimony. You should be able to see a timer on your screen
    that will indicate how much time you have left, and a chime
    will go off at the end of your time. I would ask you to be
    mindful of the timer, and quickly wrap up your testimony if you
    hear the chime. And without objection, your written statements
    will be made a part of the record.
        Mr. Morris, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to present
    your oral testimony.

      STATEMENT OF KADEEM MORRIS, SUPERVISING ATTORNEY, COMMUNITY
                     LEGAL SERVICES OF PHILADELPHIA

        Mr. Morris. Good afternoon. My name is Kadeem Morris, and I
    am a supervising attorney in the housing unit of Community
    Legal Services of Philadelphia. Community Legal Services helps
    more than 10,000 people per year with legal problems that
    threaten their home, health, and income, and more than 2,300
    households per year who are facing evictions due to the COVID-
    19 pandemic.
        I would like to thank Chairwoman Maxine Waters and the
    members of the House Committee on Financial Services for
    inviting me to speak today.
        The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the pre-existing
    housing crisis in the United States, causing more people to
    join the ranks of the housing insecure. The ability to access
    safe and affordable housing is not guaranteed in the United
    States. However, the collateral consequences when a family is
    evicted are clear and immediate.
        The faces of the evicted are the faces of the vulnerable
    members of society. Studies have found that single mothers,
    most commonly Black and Brown, make up the majority of those
    affected by evictions and forced moves, the grim reality in
    Philadelphia, where 71 percent of the annual eviction cases are
    filed against communities of color.
        The pandemic has exacerbated difficulties for these
    communities, mainly Black, Brown, seniors, and people living
    with disabilities. These communities are most likely to have
    lost income during the pandemic, putting them at greater risk
    of an eviction filing and subsequent homelessness and housing
    instability beyond the pandemic.
        The health consequences combined with the financial
    hardship of having your job disappear has shattered the already
    shaky foundation upon which vulnerable families stood. People
    who were struggling to make ends meet before the pandemic were
    forced to make the bitter choice of risking their health and
    the health of the families that they live with by working
    during the pandemic and potentially contracting the virus, or
    facing the long-term consequences of unemployment and increased
    household expenses.
        In Philadelphia, the effects of delivery of rental
    assistance to vulnerable households has prevented displacement
    and, as a result, prevented the community spread of COVID-19.
        The Philadelphia Eviction Diversion Program partners with
    the City's Emergency Rental Assistance Program to ensure that
    people are able to access assistance for the benefit of both
    landlords and tenants. Through targeted outreach and supportive
    services, Philadelphia was able to build a rental assistance
    program that could preserve the landlord/tenant ecosystem.
        The demographic data provided by the City of Philadelphia
    demonstrates that rental assistance dollars are reaching
    vulnerable communities: 65 percent of the families assisted
    were Black or African American; 60 percent of the applicants
    were female; and over 70 percent of the households served had a
    household income below 30 percent of the area median income.
        Landlords who were struggling with their mortgages were
    paid, and tenants who were behind on their rent were not
    displaced.
        The Eviction Diversion Program provides a forum by which
    landlords and tenants can meet and discuss issues without the
    pressure of a court filing. The program also uses highly-
    skilled, impartial mediators to create a forum where landlords
    and tenants can resolve issues, and tenants are automatically
    assigned a housing counselor who works with them throughout the
    process, assisting them with the rental assistance application,
    and coordinating any other supportive services.
        For rental assistance programs to operate effectively,
    administrators cannot create additional hoops for tenants and
    landlords to have to jump through. If the stated goal of the
    program is to prevent evictions of vulnerable households, the
    municipalities and other administrators should limit the amount
    of paperwork and forms of verification that tenants and
    landlords need to submit.
        Under the American Rescue Plan, households who have not
    experienced a change in income, but have experienced an
    increase of expenses, are eligible to apply. This opens the
    door for a significant portion of the population, including the
    elderly and disabled, to participate in the program.
        Increased expenses during the pandemic are reflected in the
    cost of food, cost of transportation, and often, the cost of
    burying family members who have suffered from COVID. These
    vulnerable households are bearing the increased costs without
    an increase in income, and most are unable to afford market-
    rate rent based on their income.
        Sadly, H.R. 3913, the Renter Protection Act, proposes to
    limit the usage of the unspent funds under the American Rescue
    Plan. If getting the money out to landlords and tenants is a
    top priority, the Federal Government should not take any steps
    to limit the flexibility that is currently given to program
    administrators, and set up both programs and supportive
    services that gets the money paid out.
        The proposed changes outlined in the Emergency Rental
    Assistance Program in H.R. 5196, the Expediting Assistance to
    Renters and Landlords Act, are vital to the survival of the
    landlord/tenant ecosystem.
        Providing flexibility for landlords to apply without
    tenants who are unresponsive, requiring grantees to inform
    those tenants that their arrearage has been paid, and that they
    are covered by the 120-day eviction prohibition places
    landlords and tenants on even footing by allowing tenants to
    self-advocate with the information.
        The satisfaction of outstanding money judgments and the
    sealing of cases are vital, as evictions have long-term
    consequences.
        In closing, I would like to encourage the Federal
    Government to take steps to adopt the proposed changes outlined
    in H.R. 5196, and make it easier and create additional
    flexibility for agencies to administer their rental assistance
    programs. Thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Morris can be found on page
    68 of the appendix.]
        Chairwoman Waters. Next, we will go to Ms. Salazar. You are
    now recognized for 5 minutes to present your oral testimony.

       STATEMENT OF MARGARET SALAZAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OREGON
    HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (OHCS); AND VICE CHAIR, NATIONAL
               COUNCIL OF STATE HOUSING AGENCIES (NCSHA)

        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member
    McHenry, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today. For the record, my name is
    Margaret Salazar, and I am the executive director of the Oregon
    Housing and Community Services Department, and I also serve as
    the vice chair of the National Council of State Housing
    Agencies (NCSHA).
        My agency, like 27 other State housing finance agencies
    (HFAs), serves as a Statewide administrator of the Emergency
    Rental Assistance Program. Every month, State ERA
    administrators have increased the rate at which they have
    distributed assistance. States delivered more than $1.6 billion
    in the month of August, the highest level of any month to date.
        State programs, on average, have funded more than one-third
    of the applications that they have received, with many funding
    50 percent or more.
        The ERA Program has provided a lifeline to more than 1
    million vulnerable renters, and made thousands of landlords
    whole. Since the beginning of this calendar year, my agency,
    OHCS, has obligated more than $204 million in rental
    assistance.
        This is the equivalent of our entire ERA 1 allocation, but
    it represents a combination of both State and Federal funds. Of
    this total, nearly $35 million is Federal ERA assistance.
        In the last month, our agency has taken bold action to
    speed up application processing. We have hired more than 60
    temporary staff, and brought on an outside vendor to boost
    capacity for our local partners on the ground. We have created
    self-attestation forms, disseminated informational videos, and
    translated materials into multiple languages. We have partnered
    with community-based organizations to increase outreach and
    support, particularly in communities of color.
        But there are limits to what ERA can achieve as currently
    authorized. We agree with Chairwoman Waters that legislation is
    needed to further reform this program, to greatly strengthen
    its effectiveness.
        NCSHA supports Chairwoman Waters' Expediting Assistance to
    Renters and Landlords Act. We also encourage you to make
    several additional statutory improvements to further strengthen
    the program, which are in my written statement.
        Any ERA program reforms must reflect the fundamental
    balances that agencies at all levels of government must strike.
    The first is balancing renter protection with landlord
    participation. NCSHA has repeatedly acknowledged the
    extraordinary efforts of landlords to keep tenants safely
    housed during this pandemic. While some landlords have declined
    to participate in rental assistance programs, others have been
    unable to do so, because a tenant is not responsive or has
    vacated the unit, leaving the landlord with unpaid arrears.
        We support the provisions in Chairwoman Waters' proposal,
    to allow landlords to apply for ERA on behalf of tenants even
    if the landlord is unable to gain the renters' consent, or
    because the tenant is not responsive or has vacated the
    property.
        The second important balance is between equity, efficiency,
    and accountability. ERA administrators have been accused of
    unnecessarily prioritizing documentation requirements to
    prevent fraud over the urgent need to make rental assistance
    available. But even with the new flexibilities in U.S. Treasury
    rules as of 2 weeks ago, the ERA statute and Treasury
    requirements still impose significant accountability on ERA
    administrators.
        Our experience in the field tells us that verbal assurances
    from U.S. Treasury will not guide Federal agency oversight,
    either through Federal or State or local audits.
        State and local officials are on the line for meeting this
    unprecedented emergency, and we are acting in good faith while
    we work to balance urgency and accountability.
        We support the provisions in Chairwoman Waters' proposal
    that would provide a safe harbor to grantees so that they would
    not be subject to liability, to repay assistance provided in
    good faith, relying on the attestation of the tenant.
        The third balance is between current and coming demand. My
    team in Oregon and my colleagues around the country are
    committed to helping as many eligible renters, as quickly as
    possible. We understand the urgency. The unevenness of the
    economic recovery and the clear demand for the program suggest
    that ERA will become even more needed in the months ahead.
        In addition, there are indications that utility arrearages
    remain substantial. Estimates of unpaid utilities range from
    $10 billion to $30 billion.
        We also support the provision in Chairwoman Waters'
    proposal that would extend the time period during which an
    individual household may receive ERA assistance to up to 24
    months.
        The Administration has accurately said that the launch of
    ERA required building a new national infrastructure for rental
    assistance and eviction prevention that did not previously
    exist.
        Additional improvements to the ERA statute can help build
    out that infrastructure for an even greater impact.
        Thank you, and I will be glad to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Salazar can be found on page
    73 of the appendix.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Ms. Salazar.
        Mr. Schwartz, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present your oral testimony.

       STATEMENT OF DAVID SCHWARTZ, CEO, CHAIRMAN & CO-FOUNDER,
       WATERTON; AND CHAIR, NATIONAL MULTIFAMILY HOUSING COUNCIL
                                 (NMHC)

        Mr. Schwartz. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry,
    and members of the committee, it is my privilege to appear
    before you today to speak on behalf of the multifamily rental
    housing industry, the National Multifamily Housing Council, the
    National Apartment Association, and our nation's 40 million
    apartment households on the urgent reforms needed to the
    Emergency Rental Assistance Program, or ERAP.
        My name is David Schwartz, and I am CEO and chairman of
    Waterton, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, with regional
    offices throughout the United States. Waterton is a real estate
    investment and property management company with a focus on U.S.
    multifamily properties.
        I am also the current chair of the National Multihousing
    Council, or NMHC.
        Our country has faced unprecedented challenges for the past
    18 months, creating significant hardships for America's renters
    and jeopardizing the stability of the housing sector. We
    commend the work of this committee in creating the Emergency
    Rental Assistance Program, and appreciate your continued work
    to ensure the ability of ERAP to serve those in need.
        Throughout this crisis, rental housing owners and operators
    have continuously worked to address the needs of our residents,
    employees, and communities, deploying various means to
    accommodate the housing challenges presented by COVID-19,
    despite their own financial uncertainty and economic losses.
        The apartment industry knows better than anyone the
    importance of providing a safe, secure place to call home, and
    it is a responsibility we do not take lightly.
        But the housing industry cannot shoulder COVID-relief
    efforts alone. Moreover, housing providers were severely
    impacted by eviction moratoriums which just merely shifted the
    economic hardships of the pandemic to housing providers.
        One-size-fits-all Federal moratoriums were, and are,
    unsustainable, and fail to address the underlying financial
    distress of residents.
        Instead, ERAP is a critical stabilizer for residents and
    housing providers alike, and the most effective mitigation tool
    at our disposal. This is why it is urgent to focus on
    implementing workable solutions for renters and housing
    providers facing barriers and delays in the distribution of
    vital rental assistance funds.
        The apartment industry is playing a key role in helping
    execute the Rental Assistance Program and to secure benefits
    for their residents. Given the widely varying nature of rental
    assistance programs, and the multijurisdictional footprint of
    many apartment firms, this necessitates a significant
    commitment of resources and staff to vet dozens, or even
    hundreds of programs, with differing eligibility, application,
    and distribution policies.
        We applaud this committee's focus on reforming the program,
    and appreciate that H.R. 5196, the Expediting Assistance to
    Renters and Landlords Act of 2021, and H.R. 3913, the Renter
    Protection Act of 2021, address many of our concerns.
        My written testimony provides detailed recommendations for
    unlocking the flow of ERAP funds and addressing barriers to the
    delivery of relief to those in need.
        In particular, we support efforts to help jurisdictions
    ramp up delivery of rental assistance benefits, including
    streamlining onerous application documentation requirements,
    ensuring eligibility aligns with those residents in need of
    support, leveraging housing provider capabilities to assist
    with application processes, and embracing practices and
    technologies with proven operational success.
        Importantly, we caution against the imposition of new
    program requirements unrelated to the accelerated distribution
    of funds that further or create new barriers to participation
    in ERAP programs.
        Instead, we urge a singular focus on those efforts that can
    lessen the burden of program administrators and applicants
    while improving the outflow of benefits.
        There is also a pressing need to address the ability to
    secure ERAP funds when residents are unwilling or unable to
    cooperate with the application process. Congress must enable
    housing providers to apply for rental assistance on behalf of
    residents who are unresponsive, have vacated units, or are
    otherwise unavailable.
        Without action to address ERAP's current limitations and
    increased participation in the program, renters are faced with
    further uncertainty and a mounting debt cliff, while housing
    providers are forced to address rental losses through
    foreclosure, bankruptcy, removal of the property from the
    rental stack, and other measures with long-term market impacts.
        We are dedicated to working in partnership with
    policymakers at all levels on addressing the challenges of
    COVID-19, while advancing proven solutions for long-term
    housing affordability.
        This committee's attention to addressing the root causes of
    housing instability is vital, and we are committed to efforts
    that would bolster housing assistance to renters, increase
    housing provider participation in Federal housing programs,
    break down barriers to provision of rental housing, and
    increase housing of choice for renters.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schwartz can be found on
    page 83 of the appendix.]
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you, Mr. Schwartz.
        Ms. Yentel, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to present
    your oral testimony.

      STATEMENT OF DIANE YENTEL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL LOW
                    INCOME HOUSING COALITION (NLIHC)

        Ms. Yentel. Thank you. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member
    McHenry, and members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today.
        When the Supreme Court lifted the Federal eviction
    moratorium, it eliminated the last Federal protection keeping
    6.5 million families who were behind on their rent stably
    housed. The unprecedented resources that Congress provided for
    emergency rental assistance has yet to reach many of them. Now,
    they are at risk of losing their homes as the Delta variant
    surges.
        The urgency of getting assistance to tenants and landlords
    cannot be overstated, but many communities are spending their
    ERA allocations much too slowly. Just $7.5 billion of the first
    $25 billion of ERA has been spent or obligated. While ERA
    helped nearly 1 million households through July, at least
    another 1.2 million submitted applications but have yet to
    receive aid.
        Many others struggle to complete applications due to
    complexity, inaccessibility, or documentation requirements.
    Some programs are successfully scaling up. New Jersey,
    Virginia, Texas, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C., have all
    spent over half of their ERA 1.
        Six States have spent more than 30 percent, and several
    States have made major recent improvements. Dozens of cities
    have spent over 70 percent of their ERA 1. These programs make
    clear that success is possible.
        But they are outliers. Seventeen States and many localities
    have spent less than 10 percent of their first ERA allocation.
    Some were slowed down by State legislatures or city councils. A
    few received more ERA than needed due to Congress' faulty
    formula allocation. Many struggle with landlords' refusal to
    participate in programs.
        But the primary issue with slow ERA spending is that many
    programs are not following clear Treasury and White House
    guidance and are not adopting evidence-based best practices.
        Slow-spending ERA programs tend to do little outreach. They
    don't hire enough staff to process applications. They have long
    and complicated applications with overly burdensome
    documentation requirements.
        For example, fewer than 17 percent of programs explicitly
    allow renters to use self-attestation to document income or
    housing instability, this, despite Treasury guidance that has,
    since March, allowed self-attestation for all eligibility
    criteria.
        Only 28 percent of programs explicitly allow direct-to-
    tenant assistance, despite it being permissible and critical to
    keeping renters housed when landlords refuse to participate.
        It is unfortunately clear by now that if flexibilities and
    best practices remain optional, many programs will not adopt
    them. So, the Biden Administration should continue to use all
    available tools, including their ability to recapture and
    reallocate ERA funds, to require best practices in all
    programs.
        And Congress should consider statutory changes to turn
    flexibilities and best practices into requirements.
        Legislation introduced by Chairwoman Waters builds off of
    existing Treasury guidance, and addresses the root causes of
    slow ERA spending.
        NLIHC has deep reservations about allowing landlords to
    receive ERA without tenant involvement. The legislation
    provides important protections in such cases to lessen fraud or
    tenant harassment. These protections must remain and be
    expanded as the bill moves forward.
        Congressman McHenry's legislation would halt most program
    spending by first requiring Treasury to rescind and redo
    guidance, then requiring programs to make changes counter to
    best practices, and by prohibiting use of ERA funds for needed
    staffing or technology. The bill would ensure that the needs of
    many landlords and renters go unmet.
        There are proven and simple ways for ERA programs to
    expedite assistance: hire staff; do robust outreach; simplify
    applications; use self-attestations; and provide direct-to-
    tenant assistance.
        The best programs are already doing this. Those that aren't
    should course-correct as Texas, California, New York, and
    Connecticut have done, and as South Carolina and Arkansas
    announced recently that they will do.
        For those that don't or won't, both the Biden
    Administration and Congress should require these improvements.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Yentel can be found on page
    107 of the appendix.]
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Ms. Yentel.
        And Mr. Winn, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present your oral testimony.

          STATEMENT OF GILBERT WINN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                             WINNCOMPANIES

        Mr. Winn. Good afternoon. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member
    McHenry, and members of the committee, it is my privilege to
    appear before you today to speak on behalf of our organization,
    WinnCompanies, and the more than 300,000 residents who call our
    apartment communities home. Thank you for this invitation.
        My name is Gilbert Winn, and I am the CEO of Winn, a
    developer, owner, and manager of multifamily housing founded in
    Boston 50 years ago. WinnCompanies is the largest operator of
    affordable housing, and the sixth largest multifamily operator
    of housing in the country.
        We manage over 600 rental communities, on behalf of a
    diverse range of clients--private owners of all types,
    nonprofit groups, community development corporations, tenant-
    owned affordable co-ops, and even public housing authorities.
        We manage mixed-income communities with local housing
    programs or Federal programs like Section 8, or low-income
    housing tax credits. We manage naturally occurring affordable
    housing as well. We also manage more than 10,000 unrestricted
    market ratings.
        WinnCompanies works in 23 States, in diverse geographies,
    from the Northeast, to the South, to the West. Our company is
    also one of the nation's largest providers of housing-based
    community services.
        Why is this background important? Because it illustrates
    that we bring an informed firsthand perspective, covering
    nearly all constituencies of what is and what isn't working on
    the ground when it comes to emergency rental assistance, and
    the goals generally of housing stability and eviction
    diversion.
        As both an owner and an operator, we play a direct role on
    the ground in fulfilling the dual intent of the ERAP program,
    which is both to assist renters and to assist landlords.
        Today, I will first talk about our housing stability goals
    and the fundamental importance of rent collection in that
    endeavor. I will then detail the specific successes and
    challenges we faced in accessing the ERAP program.
        And I will conclude with our proposed revisions that we
    think should be urgently implemented to make it more efficient.
        While we are here to discuss the ERAP program, we all
    understand it is but one component of housing stability. In
    early 2020, WinnCompanies launched a holistic national housing
    stability program. The goal was to reduce non-payment rent
    evictions by 50 percent across our portfolio through a
    combination of upstream, consistent interventions.
        The result is that WinnCompanies has had zero evictions for
    nonpayment of rent since the start of the pandemic. These
    results, and our program, have been recognized by my fellow
    witnesses here at NMHC, and the National Low Income Housing
    Coalition.
        As we are all gathered here today, it should be no surprise
    that emergency rental assistance is the single-most important
    component of that housing stability program in avoiding
    evictions. We know this from experience, and we applaud this
    committee for recognizing the need for reforms.
        We understand that this $46 billion program was designed to
    assist both tenants and owners. This is not a choice between
    renters and profits. Rent is fundamental to the ability of our
    company and our clients, particularly our nonprofit owners, to
    operate and maintain existing apartment communities and to
    build affordable housing in the future. It is a virtuous
    ecosystem.
        In addition to mortgage payments and real estate taxes, as
    rent goes uncollected, variable operating costs that affect
    everybody's quality of life must be decreased, such as
    preventative maintenance, landscaping, security, trash pickup,
    and resident services.
        Staff hours at each property are cut if this happens, which
    means the paychecks of frontline workers are decreased.
        All in all, I am very proud of how the multifamily industry
    has stepped up during this pandemic. The vast majority of
    owners and operators are on the front lines, keeping homes safe
    and occupied.
        Now, in terms of ERAP, we have extended tremendous time,
    effort, and resources in order to make the rollout of the
    program as successful as possible.
        We have participated in 20 working groups across the
    country to design and administer the funds. We have
    participated in forums held by the apartment industry and the
    legal services community.
        At the State level, we have worked with leadership to
    address program glitches in portals and application processes.
    At the local level, we help convene our peers to share best
    practices.
        We have held 54 separate, 2-hour trainings to walk our team
    members through every step of their areas' individual ERA
    processes.
        In terms of tenant communication and partnership, we have
    established contacts with administrative teams, created
    marketing materials, and begun a near-constant tenant outreach
    campaign in every apartment community, including engaging with
    local churches, schools, youth organizations--
        Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Winn, your time has expired. Thank
    you very much for your testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Winn can be found on page 99
    of the appendix.]
        Chairwoman Waters. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for
    questions. Mr. Schwartz, Ms. Yentel, I am troubled by the
    number of landlords and renters who remain unaware of the
    availability of rental assistance. According to the Urban
    Institute, more than half of renters and 40 percent of
    landlords are still unaware of Federal assistance.
        I would like to share with you a little story about
    something that I was involved in just a week or so ago. I know
    a landlord with 5,000 units. I went to him to ask him what was
    going on with his rental units. He told me that only 40 percent
    of his renters had applied. I asked him why, and he said he did
    not know.
        And then I asked him, Have you ever thought about using
    your community rooms with a person, or persons, and a computer
    or so, to invite your renters to come to get assistance in
    applying for rental assistance? He said, no, they had not done
    that.
        I went a step further. I called Legal Aid, I put them
    together, and I taught him how to do the notices to pin to the
    doors to let people know that assistance was available now in
    the community area of one of the largest of his complexes, for
    them to come.
        On the first day, 90 renters showed up. Legal Aid showed up
    with organizers and one or two lawyers, and they assisted
    everybody who came that day in applying for rental assistance.
        Now, you talk a lot about what you have done, Mr. Winn.
    Have you seen anything like the operation that I just described
    to you?
        Mr. Winn. I'm sorry, Chairwoman Waters. Can you repeat
    that?
        Chairwoman Waters. Okay. Would anyone else like to respond
    to that? Ms. Yentel?
        Ms. Yentel. Yes, Chairwoman Waters, thank you. I have seen
    some communities doing that kind of robust and equitable
    outreach that you mentioned. That is exactly the kind of
    outreach that is needed in local communities.
        But there are many communities where that is not happening,
    and as you say, we are seeing a significant number of both
    landlords and tenants not being aware that emergency rental
    assistance is available in their communities, or not knowing
    how to access it.
        This could be a result of language barriers. It could be
    challenges with various access to technology, or it could be
    simply that the education, the outreach, is not happening.
        So, we urge program administrators to work with community-
    based organizations who have trusted relationships in some of
    the more marginalized communities where some of the greatest--
        Chairwoman Waters. Okay, Ms. Yentel. Thank you very much. I
    want to move on to--Mr. Schwartz, have you seen the kind of
    operation that I just described to you, where the landlords use
    their community rooms, or their space, to invite in the renters
    with notices that they put on their door, and then they get the
    assistance?
        I added to it Legal Aid, because I brought Legal Aid in to
    do it, but I think the landlords ought to be thinking about
    doing it. What do you think?
        Mr. Winn. Yes. With our own experience, and I know our
    peers, other operators in our industry are opening up business
    centers. The people in most need, the lowest income, may not
    have access to computers or WiFi.
        The application process is very cumbersome. In your State
    of California, there are 18 pages of manual input, and it is
    very complex. A lot of our residents only speak Spanish, and a
    lot of the forms are only in English, so we have to bring
    bilingual employees on our team to help them translate it.
        A lot of the forms or the websites require downloading
    paperwork, like proof of loss of job, or paycheck stubs. A lot
    of the residents don't have scanners, so we have to help them
    scan it into the system--look, we are all motivated as
    landlords to assist our residents because we benefit from the
    ERAP as much as they do. But the system is so cumbersome that
    it involves a lot of manhours, and our industry is doing a
    great job shouldering that--
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Schwartz. Do
    you think the self-attestations will help? And this is
    something we have worked on very closely with the Treasury. Do
    you think that will help?
        Mr. Schwartz. Absolutely. We are big proponents of it, with
    respect to proof of tenancy, where they don't have to download
    a copy of a lease--that is hard for a lot of our residents--
    housing instability, self-attestation income, which means you
    would have to download a paycheck stub. All of these are
    barriers, and slow the system down.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Schwartz. I'm sorry, my time is up.
        And now, I will recognize the gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. McHenry, the ranking member of the committee, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Last December,
    Congress enacted the rental emergency assistance program in a
    bipartisan way. And then in March, the Democrats did their
    partisan bill, and had a new rental assistance program.
        We have two separate rental assistance programs at this
    point, and Treasury has a set of rules that are different on
    implementing these programs.
        So my question to you, Mr. Winn, is, given how disastrous
    the rollout has been and the slow spending rates of getting
    money out the door to help renters, do you think it is better
    to combine these programs, number one; and number two, do you
    think the focus on getting people's back rent paid should be
    the primary view or the primary goal of the program?
        Mr. Winn. Yes, I agree on both. I think the consolidation
    of the programs will remove a lot of busy work and a lot of
    uncertainty for both the landlords and the residents.
        Also, the point of back rent is critical. A lot of
    landlords don't wish to participate in the program if they are
    only getting paid for the current delinquency. If somebody
    moved out and they can't get paid for that past delinquency,
    they are not going to be utilizing the program.
        And that is, in fact, what has been happening. There are
    many residents, who, when it comes time, are leaving with
    unpaid balances and are not able to complete applications.
        Mr. McHenry. Ms. Yentel, under this bill, H.R. 5196, I
    would ask how imposing both new regulatory and statutory
    conditions on landlords actually speeds up assistance to
    renters?
        Ms. Yentel. There are many ways that Chairwoman Waters'
    legislation would speed up assistance--by requiring self-
    attestation, by requiring direct-to-tenant assistance, by
    getting at the root causes of slow ERA spending.
    Unfortunately--
        Mr. McHenry. So, how is that different? Direct-to-renter
    assistance, how is that different now than under this new bill?
        Ms. Yentel. It is currently optional, and only 28 percent
    of programs utilize it. So when landlords refuse to participate
    in a majority of programs--
        Mr. McHenry. Okay. So, under this bill, Ms. Yentel, under
    5196, how do you encourage landlords to participate when you
    are putting in place new hoops to get money that they are
    legally owed? How does that actually help?
        Ms. Yentel. The only place where new hoops, as you call it,
    are put in place--I would call them essential protections for
    tenants--are where we are changing the program to allow for
    direct-to-landlord assistance without any tenant involvement at
    all. These protections are essential to--
        Mr. McHenry. Okay. But that is one change.
        Ms. Yentel. --limit tenant harassment.
        Mr. McHenry. So, how about another change here? The bill
    requires grantees to provide information to renters on how to
    sue a landlord if a landlord follows the rules and receives the
    assistance on their behalf. How does that actually encourage
    landlords to participate?
        Ms. Yentel. Well, it doesn't at all. What the legislation
    would do, again, only in cases where we are changing the
    programs to allow landlords to receive assistance without any
    tenant involvement at all, it would require assurances that the
    landlord is using those resources to pay the arrears that are
    owed, and that the tenant is no longer responsible for those
    arrears, which is why assurances--
        Mr. McHenry. So what you are saying is that providing
    information on complaints against landlords helps expedite the
    distribution of assistance to households and families? Is that
    what you are saying?
        Ms. Yentel. What I am saying is that in cases where we
    change a program and allow for a landlord to receive assistance
    without the essential protection of tenant involvement in that
    application, that there be protections for those tenants and
    that there be protections against fraud.
        Mr. McHenry. And in the real world, landlords would think
    this is a great new program to participate in, to encourage the
    people renting from them to sue them.
        Ms. Yentel, I know you have a significant involvement with
    my Democrat colleagues on housing. Were you or any of your
    staff involved in the technical drafting of H.R. 5196?
        Ms. Yentel. In the technical drafting of it? No. That is
    certainly not our job. We have advised Chairwoman Waters--
        Mr. McHenry. Advised, sure.
        Ms. Yentel. --and her staff about recommendations--
        Mr. McHenry. Okay. And as president and CEO of your
    organization, I am curious if your organization stands to
    benefit financially if this bill is enacted?
        Ms. Yentel. No.
        Mr. McHenry. So, your organization would not receive any
    dollars under Section 6 of this bill?
        Ms. Yentel. I can't speak to what Section 6 is off the top
    of my head, but we receive zero Federal funding. We have no
    Federal contracts. We don't contract with States or
    localities--
        Mr. McHenry. It is not a contract. And under this bill, it
    would change to nonprofit entities that primarily provide
    housing services would be eligible for these moneys. And so--
        Ms. Yentel. We would be eligible, and we recommended that--
        Mr. McHenry. --it raises the question. If you have
    certified--if you have testified that you will not receive a
    dime under this bill, we will make sure that we note that in
    the record.
        With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Let us remember,
    the centerpiece of this program is such that it allows
    landlords for the first time to be able to apply for the rental
    assistance, and they have 10 days in which to notify the
    tenant. And they can talk in that time, and maybe during that
    time, the renter will say, ``Well, I will do it,'' but this
    is--
        Mr. McHenry. Madam Chairwoman, is this your time or my
    time? Is this your time or my time to debate?
        Chairwoman Waters. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman
    from New York, Mrs. Maloney, who is also the Chair of the House
    Committee on Oversight and Reform, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony
    today, and thank you, Chairwoman Waters, for holding this
    timely and very important hearing.
        As we have discussed, Congress provided nearly $50 billion
    in December, and in the American Rescue Plan, to help residents
    stay safely housed, and to be able to afford their rent.
        This was necessary relief, 100-percent essential, not just
    for the health and safety of these residents during a pandemic,
    but because a mass eviction crisis would have inflicted
    needless damage to our economy and to our families.
        Last week, New York Governor Hochul signed into law
    additional protections for New York residents, and included new
    resources for landlords and tenants to access rental
    assistance. New York law also extended the State eviction
    moratorium until January 15th.
        It is no secret that the rollout of the rental assistance
    programs hasn't gone as smoothly as Congress would have wanted,
    which is why I am so glad we have a great panel, to hear about
    your experiences and ways we can further improve and streamline
    the program to better serve renters and landlords alike.
        One of the issues I have been hearing about from my
    constituents is the dual nature of the application. In effect,
    you need both the landlord and the tenant to complete the
    application to receive assistance.
        Specifically, I have heard from constituents that many have
    tried seeking assistance, but that their landlords were not
    willing to apply. And I know the reverse has also been true.
        So I would like to ask Mr. Morris, we will start with you,
    you are on the front lines helping tenants with this program.
    Is this an issue you are seeing in Philadelphia with the
    tenants you are assisting?
        Mr. Morris. Thank you for that question. It has presented
    as an issue. There are two portions of the application: the
    landlord application; and the tenant application. If the
    landlord applies on behalf of a tenant, it generates an
    affidavit that the tenant has to sign.
        I do believe that creating the additional flexibility where
    the landlord would not need to go to the tenant to get the
    affidavit signed and then submit it will allow that landlord to
    get a direct payment themselves once they have made the
    necessary efforts to inform their tenants that the program
    exists and to get them to apply for funding. But it has been an
    issue.
        Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
        Ms. Yentel, can you add, or can you speak to how this issue
    presents a problem, if it does, for tenants seeking assistance,
    and how the bill introduced by Chairwoman Waters would help
    address this problem?
        Ms. Yentel. Thank you. Requiring a program to have both
    landlord and tenant involvement when getting emergency rental
    assistance provides important safeguards against fraud and
    against tenant harassment, really important safeguards for the
    tenant.
        We have heard of cases where tenants are not able to
    complete their applications, and certainly, there have been
    cases where landlords have been refusing to accept emergency
    rental assistance when the application is approved and the
    money is presented to them.
        So, the solutions on incomplete applications by tenants
    comes back to simplifying applications, using self-attestation
    wherever possible, and requiring that all programs do these
    actions.
        On the landlord side, there is a whole variety of reasons
    why landlords seem to be refusing to participate. A solution to
    many of those challenges is to provide the assistance directly
    to the tenant, so that the tenant can pay the rent, and the
    landlord, if they don't want to be involved in a government
    program, doesn't have to be involved at all.
        Only 28 percent of programs are currently using direct-to-
    tenant assistance explicitly, and all should be required to use
    this essential safeguard as would happen under Chairwoman
    Waters' legislation.
        Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. My time has almost expired, so I
    yield back, and I thank you, Chairwoman Waters, for your
    leadership on this important program. We are working very, very
    hard to implement it on the ground across the country. Thank
    you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman
    from Missouri, Mrs. Wagner, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, but we are not
    working very hard to get this administered. Because you know
    what, the money is not getting out the door to the people who
    need it, after months and months and months and months.
        For far too long, struggling Americans, both renters and
    landlords in Missouri's 2nd Congressional District and beyond,
    have not received the assistance that Congress authorized.
        From what little data--I think the last was in July--that
    Treasury provided us since Congress has approved nearly $50
    billion in rental assistance, only $4.8 billion, or 10 percent,
    of these funds have made it into the hands of those who need it
    most.
        It is clear to the American people that the Biden
    Administration has failed to distribute billions in rental
    assistance.
        Months ago, Republicans introduced legislation to cut
    through the bureaucratic red tape, to streamline this rental
    assistance program to get this money out the door to support
    hardworking Americans.
        However, Democrat leadership completely ignored this good-
    faith effort, and I think it is critical that Treasury
    Secretary Yellen take responsibility for the program's failure,
    and appear before this committee as we have requested on
    several occasions, to no avail, so that we can better
    understand what is keeping so many of America's tenants and
    landlords from receiving these funds in a timely manner.
        Instead of working in a bipartisan fashion, and
    incorporating the much-needed provision of Ranking Member
    McHenry's legislation, Democrats have been trying to shove
    through a bill, in the 11th hour, that is full of bureaucratic
    red tape without any input from across the aisle, and are
    needlessly putting families at risk of eviction and pushing
    mom-and-pop landlords out of business.
        We are not helping renters, and we are actively hurting
    landlords.
        Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Winn, COVID hit in March of 2020, which
    was 18 complete rent cycles ago. This means there may be some
    landlords who have not been paid a full month's rent in a year-
    and-a-half. What financial impact has COVID had on landlords to
    date, Mr. Winn?
        Mr. Winn. Thank you for that question. Currently, there are
    $37 million in accounts receivable and delinquency rents across
    our portfolio. Despite all of the efforts I testified about
    that we have done, only half of the residents have actually
    received the funding that they are eligible for, and the
    tenant-consent aspect of that, we feel is the largest barrier.
        We have done the communication. We have met with them. We
    have filled out the applications. We have handed them the
    complete applications, and, yet, 15,000 of our residents who
    are eligible have not received the assistance.
        Mrs. Wagner. And yet, we are sitting on over $40 billion,
    much of which was in the CARES Act back in last December that
    is still sitting there in this fund, not distributed. It is
    disgraceful.
        What incentives do you think, Mr. Winn, would make a
    meaningful impact in helping to deliver this emergency rental
    assistance to repay those debts?
        Mr. Winn. Very quickly, it would be informed consent as
    opposed to signatures by the tenant so that landlords can apply
    on their behalf. It would be bulk applications that landlords
    are able to submit and that are mandated to be approved by the
    ERAP administrators rather than just encouraged, a combining of
    the two programs to cut out bureaucracy.
        Mrs. Wagner. Yes.
        Mr. Winn. And I would say, really, the fourth one would be
    to make sure that when a unit is vacated, that that unit is
    still eligible for rental assistance, because that is where a
    lot of the outstanding delinquencies are.
        Mrs. Wagner. Thank you. The December effort, which was a
    bipartisan CARES Act to get the money to eligible households
    quickly and efficiently, was hastily undone with the creation
    of the Democrats' Emergency Rental Assistance 2 Program in
    March. And that, and the Dems' bill, that $1.9 trillion bill,
    was a second parallel program with similar purposes but
    different rules, timelines, and incentives. And most of all,
    what is most egregious, is that it pushed the end date of the
    Biden Administration's mismanaged program out to 2025--2025. We
    need rental assistance now, not in 2025.
        We have to the fix this program's bureaucratic problems and
    come together, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back my time.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has
    expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Sherman, who is also the Chair of our Subcommittee on Investor
    Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets, for 5
    minutes. Let's get beyond political talking points. Let's
    legislate.
        Mr. Sherman. Absolutely. I think this is the hearing we
    should have, not a theatrical hearing where we bring in big
    names. And what we need is people who are on the ground who can
    help get this program to work better.
        That being said, this program is not the best example of
    government working together to help people. And those of us who
    want government to help people in need bear the rhetorical
    burden of showing that government can be effective.
        It is an emergency program, and an emergency program is one
    where you are trying to build a plane while you are flying it.
    It is not that easy to put something together in an emergency,
    but we should have done better, and I think with this hearing,
    we will.
        Mr. Schwartz, perhaps briefly you could tell us, what are
    the impediments faced by property owners when trying to utilize
    the Emergency Rental Assistance Program that have led some
    owners to not even participate in the program?
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes. We have talked about one of them, which
    is that owners would like to participate, but the resident
    doesn't want to participate, and so having that ability to
    apply on behalf of the resident is super important.
        Also, what we have seen is strings attached, like
    additional moratoriums that you accept assistance but you are
    subject to a new moratorium. Landlords are very reluctant to
    sign up for more strings attached to accepting the assistance.
    Another one is rent--or debt cancellation, where you receive
    assistance that is below what you are owed and that settles the
    debt.
        We don't want to add barriers, and those are two things
    that are in this bill that we think will make landlords
    reluctant to participate in the program. And the best solution
    to solving this is getting the ERAP dollars in the hands of the
    residents and the landlords.
        Mr. Sherman. I think, also, this crisis will determine
    whether other people get involved in investing and building new
    apartment buildings. And to put people in a position where they
    have to pay the mortgage and they can't collect the rent is not
    going to encourage people to go into this business.
        Ms. Yentel, we have almost half of the renters in this
    country paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent. We
    need to build 328,000 new apartments every year. We are not
    even close to that. The COVID crisis has slowed construction.
        What policies would you suggest to create an environment
    that incentivizes additional housing development and the
    preservation of housing we have now?
        Ms. Yentel. You are absolutely right that the pandemic
    exacerbated a preexisting affordable housing crisis. Many of
    the same renters who struggled to keep up with rent during the
    pandemic, also struggled pre-pandemic, and they will continue
    to struggle post-pandemic, unless and until Congress invests in
    long-term sustained solutions to build a housing social safety
    net in our country.
        And many of the investments that are included in the
    reconciliation bill that Chairwoman Waters released are the
    kind of investments that are needed: a major expansion of
    rental assistance to preserve our country's public housing
    infrastructure; to build more apartments affordable to lowest-
    income people through the National Housing Trust Fund; and to
    incentivize or require local governments to reduce or remove,
    eliminate restrictive local zoning that inhibits the supply of
    any kind of apartments and especially affordable apartments and
    drives up costs for everyone.
        Mr. Sherman. Everybody is for more apartments, but not near
    them. It is a problem that local government faces.
        Mr. Schwartz, many owners from large to small have been
    carrying these rental balances that they haven't collected.
    They still have to pay their mortgages, et cetera. What does
    that ultimately mean for the solvency of property owners, their
    ability to continue to be in the rental housing business, and
    should we be concerned about the overall market and systemic
    effects?
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes, we should be concerned. There have been
    no reciprocal moratoriums with property tax bills, or garbage
    collection bills. Those are all due in full. The solution to
    that is the ERAP and getting that in the hands of the
    landlords, because there is financial distress. And we have
    seen that the most with smaller landlords who can't pay their
    bills.
        Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Schwartz, the time has expired.
        The gentleman from Texas--
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Waters. --Mr. Sessions, is now recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Sessions. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much. And
    the opportunity to have our witnesses here today is
    appreciated.
        Mr. Morris, I would like to perhaps engage you first, if I
    could. The legislation, when it passes Congress, is given to an
    Administration who then offers and makes the legislation
    conform to their ability to offer guidance for things to work
    the way the legislation is designed.
        Can you please tell me your working relationship on a local
    basis with the Administration people, whether it be in HUD or
    whether it be in Treasury, about the guidance that you have
    received and what feedback you have given back to them?
        And the reason why I am asking this is because we have no
    one from the Administration who can defend themselves on this,
    so I am interested in your answers about that guidance and what
    you have told them back about making this work better.
        Mr. Morris. At least from the perspective of rental
    assistance here in Philadelphia, there was an existing
    Philadelphia eviction prevention project that had been working
    on these issues from at least 2017.
        So when the pandemic hit, we started engaging both our
    local city council and State legislative leaders and the
    Pennsylvania Housing Finance Authority, who had the first round
    of rental assistance, on making the program more effective,
    eliminating barriers that would basically discourage
    participation.
        So, we have been involved in that process through and
    through. And at least in building out rental assistance, every
    time an issue is brought forward to us by tenants or landlords
    with whom we engage, we provide that feedback to the agency and
    see how we can address that.
        Self-attestation has been a major issue, and we have gotten
    to the place where landlords or landlords' counsel can now
    provide letters to agencies that verify tenancies and show how
    much is owed without additional barriers being put in place.
    So, we have been working in constant communication with our
    local representatives to try and improve the program every step
    of the way.
        Mr. Sessions. Mr. Morris, in your locality in Pennsylvania,
    were you given the flexibility to amend what we have heard
    would be the paperwork that we heard in California is not in
    any language but English--were you given that authority and
    responsibility ahead of time to change that, or was that just
    part of the bill that said, only provide this in English for
    the application?
        Mr. Morris. I believe we were given that authority, and we
    also requested additional guidance from the Federal Government
    through Treasury for additional flexibility around how we
    administer the program. So we are in constant communication to
    make those flexibilities happen.
        I believe, just generally, in terms of language access, we
    are required to provide the application in more than English.
    We also work with the Neighborhood Action Council to make sure
    that there is an agency out in the community that can target
    individuals or create another location where someone can go and
    apply and get that assistance.
        Mr. Sessions. Yes, and thank you. And, Mr. Morris, perhaps
    you are providing the feedback today to us, which is why not
    only Mr. McHenry but also Mrs. Wagner are saying that we
    believe that what should have happened today is that we
    actually heard from the program administrators about the
    flexibility that they are providing across the country and
    following the Federal law when they see, for instance, in
    California, where the applications are in English only, as the
    testimony today was given to us.
        And this is disturbing to us, because in the State of
    Texas, and I am sure that what has happened is Ms. Yentel's
    feedback helps us to see who is successful, and there are
    characteristics of success that the Administration would see or
    those administering these programs, and then to know
    specifically what they were doing from receiving feedback after
    they see perhaps those that were more effective than others.
        And, Mr. Morris, I just want you to know that you and Ms.
    Yentel and Mr. Schwartz are providing us information, but we
    are interested in a follow-up on this. I am personally
    interested in what kind of success you are finding with
    feedback from the Treasury Department in making this work, and
    whether they actually are a hindrance or a help, whether they
    are attempting to provide you with the needed feedback that I
    would say would come from the guidance that they would need to
    have and see from across the country.
        So, Madam Chairwoman, I would request that, as Mr. McHenry
    and Mrs. Wagner have suggested, that we need to dig down with
    information about providing the guidance from a national
    perspective of not only the Secretary of the Treasury but their
    feedback about--
        Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Sessions, your time has expired.
        Mr. Sessions. --how we would make this work.
        I thank the gentlewoman, and I will yield back my time.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, who is also the Chair
    of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, is now
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Madam Chairwoman, I am very proud to associate myself with
    your legislation. Your legislation does what I have been
    calling for, which is to ensure that the rent is paid. The
    tenants will have the opportunity to access funds, but also,
    the landlords will have an opportunity to access these funds,
    and they can access funds for back rent.
        Some things bear repeating, Madam Chairwoman--Landlords can
    access funds for back rent. I think this is exceedingly
    important for, yes, all landlords, but especially for the mom-
    and-pops who have had to bear the burden of maintaining
    property over so many months now.
        So, I proudly associate myself with this program, and I
    would thank you for also looking into how we can inform people.
    A good many of the people I represent are not knowledgeable
    about programs. This program that you are providing now, this
    legislation, would inform people of what is available to them.
    I think this is most beneficial.
        And, finally, the landlords will have an opportunity to not
    only get back rent, but rent for some time out into the future.
    The total sum of months can be up to 24 months. So, this is an
    outstanding program.
        I would like to, if I may, Madam Chairwoman, mention one
    additional thing. There are many people who are still suffering
    as a result of the Community Development Block Grant Disaster
    Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds that have not been properly allocated,
    and Ms. Yentel has some knowledge of what is going on with
    CDBG-DR, because she happens to be associated with some 800
    national State and local organizations calling for codification
    of a program.
        So, Ms. Yentel, I would like to yield time to you to
    explain why there is such broad support for the codification of
    CDBG-DR and to a statute at this time.
        Ms. Yentel. Sure. Thank you, Congressman Green. The CDBG
    Disaster Recovery Grant Program is one of the most essential
    resources that communities receive after disasters, but the
    program is not permanently authorized, which means that every
    time there is a disaster, it needs to be reauthorized
    essentially through the appropriations bills, the supplemental
    bills that provide funding.
        This slows down the process pretty significantly of getting
    resources to communities, and it means that very often, the
    rules for the program get rewritten each time, creating a lot
    of uncertainty to local communities when what they most need is
    certainty and money to start helping people repair and get back
    on their feet after disasters.
        The Reforming Disaster Recovery Act, your legislation,
    would permanently authorize the bill, which would in and of
    itself mean resources would reach communities faster. It would
    also require data sharing across programs, which would help to
    identify gaps in need and ensure that those are being met. And
    it would allow for much greater public participation in
    disaster recovery efforts. Altogether, it could help to lead to
    more equitable and complete disaster housing recovery in
    communities hit by natural disasters.
        Mr. Green. A second question for you--
        Ms. Salazar. Excuse me, Mr. Green? If I may jump in on
    that, Mr. Green. I am so sorry to interrupt you.
        Mr. Green. I will yield to you.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you so much, Mr. Green. I just needed to
    note that the residents of Oregon are still waiting for
    disaster recovery dollars from last year's historic and tragic
    wildfires. So, I just wanted to lend my support to Ms. Yentel's
    statement.
        Mr. Green. Well, let me extend my sympathies to the people
    that you represent, as well as the people in Texas whom I
    represent. We have a similar circumstance, and I believe Mr.
    Cleaver would attest to a circumstance that he is having to
    negotiate as well.
        But let me just ask this of you, Ms. Salazar, since you are
    now speaking to me. This self-attestation seems to be pretty
    important, and it seems to be something that the chairwoman has
    placed in this legislation. Explain how important this self-
    attestation is?
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you so much, Mr. Green. You are
    absolutely right that tenant self-attestation has proven to be
    incredibly helpful to expedite the delivery of rental
    assistance. I will also note that it is a big shift for many
    program administrators who are charged with the important work
    of preventing fraud and running these programs with Federal and
    State and local oversight.
        And so, that is why we are supportive of the safe harbor
    provision in Chairwoman Waters' legislation that would provide
    that assurance to program administrators that self-attestation
    is appropriate, useful, and encouraged in the program.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. As I yield back, on
    a scale of 1 to 10, I would give your program, your legislation
    an 11. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you, Mr. Green.
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is now recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters.
        Mr. Winn, you were talking about your outreach, I guess
    through some church groups and others in your opening
    statement, and you got cut off. If you would like to finish it
    up now, I would be proud to give you the time.
        Mr. Winn. I appreciate that, and I will do that. So,
    despite all of that outreach, these are the statistics. To
    date, WinnCompanies has been able to work with 15,000
    households to apply for $22 million of ERAP support. Of this
    amount, $17 million has been formally approved.
        And I recount all of our efforts not to boast about what we
    did, but to make the point that despite all of these herculean
    efforts that a company of our size can actually perform, we
    still have 15,000 additional households who are eligible for
    ERAP financial support, but who have not yet participated
    because of program inefficiencies. It leads me to conclude that
    smaller landlords, without the possibility of the resources
    that we enjoy, must find themselves in an even more untenable
    and more unfair position. It leads to the conclusion that
    something needs to change.
        Despite our efforts, we, as I mentioned, and our clients
    are still carrying $37 million in delinquent rent. Within that
    universe of households, 2,400 households who are eligible for
    the assistance otherwise are not able to participate because of
    more restrictive income guidelines in certain States.
        On top of this is the 15,000 eligible households that I
    mentioned who are noncommunicative, despite our best efforts,
    and for good reasons and for understandable reasons--
    traumatized by medical or financial hardships, language
    barriers, sometimes fearing insurmountable rental
    delinquencies, or technology barriers. Some are confused by
    mixed messaging on eviction moratorium. Some simply just don't
    trust the system. Regardless, the unfortunate result is that
    too many of the very folks that the ERA Program seeks to help
    are those who are not benefiting from the program.
        So, the real-world solutions are the direct tenant
    applications with informed consent to the tenants for 10 days.
    But we also believe there shouldn't be additional restrictions
    placed on that without matching funding. Said differently, if
    there were to be an agreement that if you take these funds, you
    have to stably house residents for 120 more days, we ask for a
    requirement as rather than a suggestion that rental assistance
    funds be made available to match that obligation.
        We also want to make sure that this happens, so it is not a
    major deterrent for landlords across the country to enter into
    what is otherwise a great program. We should mandate the
    allowance of landlords to directly apply for funds and make
    sure that those are processed quickly.
        We want to make sure that the programs are combined and
    that the eligibility is raised to 24 months rather than 18
    months. And we want to make sure that there is an
    implementation mandate for bulk applications by landlords
    rather than just the allowance of it, because we have seen
    across the States we work in that many of the ERAP
    administrators will not allow bulk applications even though it
    is permitted by the legislation.
        I just want to end by saying that I believe that the work
    of this committee has been excellent. I believe these
    amendments are required. I don't believe this is a political
    issue. I believe this is a practical issue. And if we can reach
    more people, we are all better for it.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you.
        Mr. Morris. Mr. Posey--I 'm sorry, Mr. Posey, if I may just
    add to that really briefly. While I support all of the proposed
    changes that Mr. Winn has just highlighted, I think it is
    critical that tenants are informed, as the bill proposes to do,
    that something has been done on their behalf so that they can
    govern themselves accordingly and that the landlord-tenant
    relationship can be preserved on a forward-going basis.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Posey. Do any other witness want to weigh in on this?
        I have just wondered from the beginning, and I even
    mentioned it at the last hearing, why we wouldn't turn to the
    Department of Housing and Urban Development, that has a network
    in place already to deliver assistance.
        I wonder why we would create a new program in the Treasury
    to distribute rental assistance through a network of guarantees
    that are yet to be put in place. If we were going to start
    giving out free petroleum, I think the place to start would be
    through existing gas stations.
        And I see my time has expired. I yield back. Thank you,
    Madam Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
        The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, who is also the
    Chair of our Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development,
    and Insurance, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cleaver. First of all, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for
    introducing this legislation that is so desperately needed.
        And, Mr. Morris, in your statement, there is a part in
    there that I think everybody should make sure that they focus
    on, where you say something like, all around the country
    tenants and landlords are experiencing widespread delays in
    processing the rental assistance application. And you go on and
    you talk about the number of people in Philadelphia whose
    applications have not been processed and so forth. Do you
    remember that statement?
        Mr. Morris. Yes.
        Mr. Cleaver. Okay. The reason I want to focus on that is I
    think what you are suggesting, and very strongly, I think, and
    it fits in with what we are doing here, that we have to reduce
    the delays, all of the barriers. And one of them, I think that
    my experience is that the cities are trying to get the money
    out the door, but you have to make sure that the grantees and
    their partners are able to complete the application process,
    and sometimes that is a challenge.
        I think, and you may or may not agree, that anything that
    we can do to help get the money out the door, including, in
    some instances, for example, maybe getting the Hispanic
    Chamber, the Black Chamber, and the Asian Chamber all working
    to help interpret the application process for people.
        Here in Kansas City, we have run into people who say, ``I
    don't know what''--``I didn't understand that. I don't know how
    to do this.'' Or in one case, one of my staffers and I had a
    huge meeting, and somebody said, ``I didn't apply because I
    didn't know I was supposed to apply, or I thought somebody else
    would apply.''
        Shouldn't we do everything possible to make sure that--I
    think you are at 55,000 more. I don't know the exact number of
    unprocessed applications. Do you think that there are some
    things that we should include in this legislation, that I think
    are absolutely a necessity if we are going to get this program
    running at the optimum level? What do you think, sir?
        Mr. Morris. There are a few things that I would say. At
    least in the context of Philadelphia, we have already spent 85
    percent of our ERAP funding over several allocations. So, there
    is the need for more money to flow into the City to address
    those applications that are still yet to be processed, and that
    is a significant financial constraint that the program is going
    to face.
        In addition to that, making the program more flexible
    through self-attestation, which we have already talked about. I
    believe the first version of rental assistance required income
    to be verified through the Department of Labor on a Federal
    level, which created significant delays, so a lot of that money
    was not spent in a meaningful way, so to the extent that we can
    eliminate those barriers and that additional paperwork and
    create additional sites and points for people to interact with
    the program.
        Outreach is going to be very critical in this process, and
    the best way to reach people is in their communities, and that
    might require that programs invest in having someone go out to
    apartment complexes and inform them that there is a process
    available to you to apply. It might involve putting mailers--
    digital mailers in everyone's inbox, because most landlords use
    portals to communicate with their tenants at this point in
    time.
        So, there is a lot that can be done in terms of outreach,
    and there should be a kind of a no-wrong-door policy. If
    someone shows up to apply, they should be assisted. And
    documents are harder to get at this point in time, because a
    lot of the Federal agencies--the Department of Health and Human
    Services, Social Security, all of those agencies are now
    remote. So getting paperwork is a significant barrier to
    tenants, which leads to delays on the side for landlords.
        So, to the extent that we can eliminate any red tape and
    make it easier for both parties to apply and no one gets turned
    away and any lapse of information is not necessarily held
    against the tenant or a landlord, that is the best way to go
    forward, and make the program easier to use and not harder.
        Mr. Cleaver. Thank you very much. Very quickly, it is in
    the language of our legislation--not this legislation but the
    overall legislation--that municipalities can eliminate some of
    the normal requirements in order to get this out quickly.
        Many cities, including my own, I think--you can't expect
    the head of a department to do something and later be
    criticized for it--end up saying, okay, we need a 60-day period
    for a response to an RFP or something.
        There has to be a way that we get the word to all of the
    municipalities. Maybe the mayors could be the ones who actually
    sign for the participation of this program so they can
    understand that the regular processes are relaxed in order to
    get the money out quickly. Is that--
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you so very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Cleaver. Your time has expired.
        Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. You get a 13 from
    my perspective. Mr. Green didn't go high enough. It is a 13.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you so very much.
        Mr. Huizenga, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        And I appreciate my friend, Mr. Cleaver, getting into some
    substance of these bills. And I do want to commend the Chair
    for attempting to deal with some issues that we have some
    mutual concerns about, and I want to start off with what I
    think are some unified views of some of the problems.
        We all agree that in 2020, when Congress appropriated this
    money for the ERA 1, it was to eliminate rental arrears
    accumulated by COVID-impacted low-income households. And then
    there is, of course, the additional $21.55 billion in ERA 2 in
    March of 2021.
        I think we actually all pretty much agree as well that
    there was a failure to get money out the door that not only put
    renters at risk of eviction, but it also hurt mom-and-pop
    landlords, who are more likely to own and operate affordable
    rental units.
        The other thing I think that is pretty unifying is that
    Treasury--we all understand Treasury has failed to responsibly
    administer more than $46 billion of Congress-appointed funds
    and to eliminate these arrears. That is why we are sort of in
    this spot.
        Here is where maybe we diverge and we don't agree as much.
    Many of us view that the changes made in this program by the
    Biden Administration actually may have punished landlords and,
    frankly, scared many of them out of the program. Many of us
    also believe that Secretary Yellen has failed to take
    responsibility for the program's failures and shortcomings,
    disregarding requests to have opportunities to have these
    questions addressed to her by this committee and by others and
    by allowing her to bypass the statutory obligations to testify.
        And, frankly, many of us believe that, instead of fixing
    the program, the proposed changes would create even more
    bureaucracy, add new burdens, and will scare off more
    landlords, steer funds away from COVID-impacted low-income
    households, and remove protections to combat fraud.
        Now, I understand that there is a real need that we all
    have to deal with this, and I will take the Chair's request to
    say that we need to legislate. I will note that I can see if
    the Trump Administration had so badly bungled this program,
    there would be a natural desire of my friends on the other side
    to hold them accountable, and that is what we are here trying
    to do with the Biden Administration.
        So, let's talk a little bit about the bills themselves.
    And, again, I commend the Chair for addressing specifically the
    ability of landlords to go and get some remuneration when their
    tenants won't sign off. Now, here is the key: Some
    remuneration. And in my view, I believe this has been a legal
    taking. The takings clause, the takings concept is, you forced
    me to do something that legally I didn't have to do, but you
    forced me to do it, so therefore, you need to owe me and you
    owe me the obligation of what I legally own.
        In the Chair's particular bill, it requires landlords who
    submit applications without a signature of a tenant to accept
    any amount awarded to them as satisfaction of the entirety of
    the back rent that is owed back to March 2020.
        It requires landlords who accept assistance, including
    arrearages, without renter consent to agree to an individual 4-
    month eviction moratorium for that tenant beginning upon the
    date the assistance is received, so an additional 4 months.
        It binds landlords who do not accept assistance without
    renter consent to comply with, ``any conditions,'' imposed by
    the Secretary to ensure that renters, ``remain stably housed,''
    with no end date for such conditions. It requires grantees to
    prioritize applications of tenants over those of landlords
    submitting with no-signature applications.
        It requires landlords who receive assistance to, ``set
    aside and vacate any past eviction order from an assisted
    tenant,'' and to, ``agree to seal any eviction filing, meaning
    it never happened.'' We can't acknowledge that.
        It removes accountability in protections that exist to
    combat fraud. It prohibits grantees from requiring applicants
    to submit proof of a written lease. It removes the tenant
    income verification by a landlord. We could go on and on. And,
    again, while I commend the other side for realizing we have an
    issue, it seems to me these handcuffs really are not going to
    get to that final goal and objective.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. Mr. Huizenga, your time has
    expired. Thank you so very much.
        The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is now recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Foster. Am I audible and visible here?
        Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Foster, we can hear you.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you.
        Mr. Morris, I was glad to learn that Philadelphia is
    proudly one of the cities that has legislated a right to
    counsel for tenants facing evictions. This is obviously
    monumental in a city where over 90 percent of tenants facing
    evictions were legally unrepresented, compared to 81 percent of
    landlords who typically have attorneys.
        So, although the pandemic has cast an unforeseeable and
    incomparable skew on the success of such a program, I imagine
    that ensuring legal representation for tenants facing evictions
    would greatly reduce the level of unjust evictions or evictions
    in general.
        So, Mr. Morris, can you speak about the extreme importance
    of having legal representation in eviction cases? And more
    broadly, could you explain why organizations like Community
    Legal Services, Inc., or the Legal Services Corporation
    nationally, are vital to protecting marginalized people,
    especially during times like this?
        Mr. Morris. Thank you for that question, and I would be
    happy to. I think it is critical, especially now in the context
    of the COVID-19 pandemic, that tenants be informed of their
    rights and protections that exist in any sort of eviction case.
        Evictions have long-term consequences for tenants beyond
    just being displaced. If you displace a family, you displace a
    child out of school, you potentially displace an adult out of
    work, and you can pack a family in poverty for generations to
    come, because the cost of a forced move is both what you owe to
    the landlord that is evicting you, the cost of relocation and
    the cost of finding new housing, and any collateral
    consequences that come from being displaced in that period.
        To the extent that a tenant can be informed and given the
    ability to self-advocate just as a bare minimum, to know that
    you have rights as it relates to funds that have been received
    on your behalf, your landlord has been paid and made whole and
    you are allowed to stay, that is critical information that
    tenants otherwise often don't know unless they are connected
    with legal services or other representation.
        Sometimes, there are city protections or ordinances that
    come into play that require landlords to meet certain standards
    of housing, just like minimum housing standards that tenants
    have to live in and then pay rent. If those standards are not
    being met, then the landlords should not be able to use the
    court to both collect rent and evict a tenant out of those
    types of housing units.
        And with the affordable housing crisis that is going on in
    the United States, it is critical now more than ever that
    tenants are equally as informed or have access to
    representation, because a courtroom is a traumatic place. You
    enter a courtroom where you know that you owe someone a debt.
    Your perspective is, I don't have the ability to pay this
    money, but I also have nowhere to go with me, my children, and
    everyone else in my household on a normal day, and then you add
    the pandemic to that and that is significantly more of a
    pressing issue.
        And as has been shown, and as I put in my testimony, the
    majority of people facing evictions in the City of Philadelphia
    are single parents, most predominantly Black and Brown females
    who are already living in poverty, and the poverty is
    exacerbated by the loss of income. They are more likely to work
    in industries where there is sporadic unemployment or these
    industries have been directly impacted by the pandemic. They
    are forced to be frontline workers or workers who are at a
    greater risk just by health morbidities for getting COVID-19
    and taking that into their household where they may have
    vulnerable family members.
        So the goal is always to empower tenants to be able to make
    decisions, and to the extent that we can balance the playing
    field and create greater flexibility for those tenants, that is
    always the goal. No one knows more than an individual who is--
        Mr. Foster. Yes, excuse me. So, you would consider that
    adequate funding for Legal Services Corporation for the
    explicit purpose of assisting tenants during this sort of
    situation is really an essential element for ensuring fair
    housing infrastructure?
        Mr. Morris. It is essential, and it is highly critical for
    the continued success of the rental assistance program, because
    someone has to be there to assist tenants in holding landlords
    accountable, not from the perspective of making sure that
    landlords can't use the court system, but making sure that they
    comply with any requirements that have been put in place that
    protect tenants and allow them to remain housed in the long-
    term.
        Mr. Foster. Yes. And do you think that having an
    expectation of legal representation on both sides of an
    eviction dispute is likely also to be a useful gate in
    preventing fraud, just that you have a lawyer who has his law
    license on the line if he aids and abets fraud? Are we likely
    to get a lot of the fraud concerns addressed that way as well?
        Mr. Morris. I believe you will get a lot of the fraud
    concerns addressed that way, and you will avoid a tenant
    feeling unsure or unsafe about trying to communicate with their
    landlord with the threat of a large balance hanging over their
    head if they have an advocate that can stand with them and
    ensure their legal protection.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Foster. Your
    time has expired.
        The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, is now recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        And I would like to echo the sentiments of Ranking Member
    McHenry and some of my other colleagues that I am troubled that
    Secretary Yellen is not here to testify on this program. The
    Majority invited Secretary Fudge to testify before the
    committee almost 2 months ago, which was somewhat informative
    but gravely insufficient for the gravity of the situation.
        Here we are today with another hearing on the same topic to
    discuss why less than 11 percent of the funds appropriated by
    Congress almost a year ago have been used to support renters
    and landlords, yet the responsible party remains absent from
    our witness lineup.
        Congress directed Treasury to be the primary steward of
    these funds and to operate the program in such a way that it is
    just struggling renters and landlords. Yet, despite her direct
    responsibility for this bungled operation, Secretary Yellen has
    not testified before this committee, and the Majority has not
    even invited her to do so.
        While I am sure our witnesses today will be able to provide
    some helpful insight, we do need answers from the ultimate
    decision-maker and the party responsible for this total mess,
    and that is Secretary Yellen.
        Another preliminary comment, and this is maybe a different
    take from my colleagues on both my side of the aisle and on the
    other side of the aisle, yes, we need to expedite the emergency
    assistance. That is why Congress passed it. But I hear a lot of
    talk in today's hearing about landlords, about tenants, and
    they have very important interests. But there is someone that
    nobody has been talking about here in this hearing, and that is
    the hardworking taxpayer and the taxpayers' sons and daughters
    and granddaughters and grandsons who are incurring mountains of
    debt with this exploding welfare state.
        And I think what we are really talking about and hearing
    about today is not just the incompetence of the Biden
    Administration itself, but this program proves that big
    government welfare programs are ineffective and they are a
    recipe for waste, fraud, and abuse. The breathtaking
    incompetence that we see here and the waste and the delays and
    the open invitation for fraud is a direct indictment of
    expansion of the Federal welfare bureaucracy.
        Now, I want to ask Mr. Winn a question here. Feedback we
    have heard from landlords across the country, including small
    landlords who own only a handful of properties, suggests that
    the ERA programs are difficult to access because of
    bureaucratic red tape and preconditions that disincentivize
    participation.
        Mr. Winn, how can we improve the ERA programs to make them
    more accessible for small landlords? How might the changes
    under the Majority's bill, which actually adds reds tape for
    landlords, affect participation in the program?
        Mr. Winn. I believe that, as always, there is some solution
    in the middle. And I believe that the changes in the Majority
    bill by and large can help as long as we are not also adding
    restrictions. What I mean by that is, the bulk application
    processes where a landlord can say, a small landlord can say,
    all of my eight tenants can apply for assistance, I can submit
    as a landlord directly self-attestation about things like
    income. That will greatly cut down on the red tape.
        Mr. Barr. Yes, I hear you, and I am sympathetic to bulk
    applications and landlord applications. But, again, I am going
    to return--and I want to expedite these funds. And you haven't
    heard this today from any Members on either side of the aisle,
    but I am concerned about the taxpayer. This self-attestation
    idea concerns me a lot.
        The taxpayer is--we are talking about nearly $50 billion,
    and we are going to just allow landlords and tenants to just
    self-attest without any documentation of income or job? We have
    10.5 million unfilled job openings in America, and the reason
    is that we are paying people to not work.
        We can't just continue to ask the taxpayers to subsidize
    people to live on the taxpayers' dime. Why can't we have just
    simple documentation, allow landlords to apply for tenants,
    have sole protections for taxpayers who are getting fleeced?
        Mr. Winn. I would say, one of the aspects of the original
    bill is also audits that are allowed at the State or
    administrative level. So to your point of fraud, I think that
    if people are committing fraud, those audits hopefully will
    catch that.
        Mr. Barr. Let me just say, in conclusion, that the solution
    to the Biden Administration's incompetence is not to dishonor
    taxpayers by making waste, fraud, and abuse in this program
    even easier. Taxpayers need to have confidence that the renters
    who can afford rent are not just taking advantage of this
    program, reducing funds available for those who actually are
    eligible and who actually are experiencing housing instability.
    And I think some of these reforms in the chairwoman's bill make
    fraud not just likely but guaranteed.
        And, with that, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Paying these
    landlords is not waste, it is not fraud, and it is not abuse.
        I will now call on Mr. Casten, the gentleman from Illinois,
    who is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        And thank you to our witnesses. I have learned a ton
    through this hearing, and I appreciate you all taking the time
    to do this.
        Some of my questions are COVID-specific, and some of them
    are about sort of the broader sort of landlord-tenant issues
    that are going on. And, Mr. Winn, I would like to start with
    you, if I could. If I have heard you right, you said you have
    $37 million in accounts receivable delinquency in your books?
        Mr. Winn. [Nonverbal response.]
        Mr. Casten. I see you nodding, okay. I will take that as a
    yes. Help me understand, how much did that increase during
    COVID? How much were you carrying 18 months ago compared to the
    $37 million now?
        Mr. Winn. That is a good question. It has fluctuated. The
    $37 million that goes across our entire portfolio, including
    our clients, has fluctuated. It is definitely higher post-COVID
    than it was pre-COVID. We have seen statistically about a 5-
    percent drop in rental receipts because of COVID, and on a
    portfolio of 100,000 apartments, that can add up pretty
    quickly.
        One of the interesting things to note is that the average
    balance of a tenant in our portfolio is $1,400 of delinquency,
    which is interesting because it is a fairly low number, but
    that is also because of the affordable nature of our portfolio.
    I would imagine if someone's portfolio was skewed to the
    market, that probably doubles to about $3,000.
        Mr. Casten. I seem to be frozen. Can you all hear me still?
        Chairwoman Waters. We can hear you now.
        Mr. Casten. Can you all still hear me?
        Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Casten, you are on.
        Mr. Casten. Sorry. We were frozen there for a second.
        Can you estimate--are we talking about a 5-percent
    increase? A 10-percent increase? How much has it gone up during
    COVID, just a quick answer, if you could?
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes. And I can answer too from our
    portfolio's experience, but one thing I would say is our
    delinquency is about 3 times as high during COVID as it was
    before.
        Mr. Casten. Okay. Since you picked up, Mr. Schwartz, and I
    apologize for my IT issues here, how much of that are you
    carrying on your books? When you borrow, you have this asset on
    your books for whatever that receivable is. How much is either
    your bank or your auditor--how much are they typically writing
    that down? Are you carrying 80 cents on the dollar, 50 cents on
    the dollar? How much are they writing off?
        Mr. Schwartz. We have the job, our accounting department,
    of how much do we write off. We are being optimistic that we
    won't have to write much of it off because of emergency rental
    assistance, and so we are reluctant to write off that right
    now. But if we don't get the assistance, we will have to write
    that off.
        Mr. Casten. Okay. Ms. Yentel, then, speaking broadly,
    beyond COVID, particularly for low- and moderate-income
    tenants, let's say they get behind, they miss a payment, they
    have lost their job and then they get it back, how often are
    they able to become current, and how often are those tenants
    just sort of carrying that debt sort of in perpetuity even
    though they are staying current on their rent?
        Ms. Yentel. Right. It is a really good, important question,
    because many of the tenants who are behind on rent are very low
    or extremely low income. They worked before the pandemic,
    during the pandemic, and will be working after the pandemic.
    They are many of the frontline workers who initially lost their
    jobs or lost hours of work. They lost wages. They fell behind
    on rent.
        Even as they are employed now, it is difficult even pre-
    pandemic. Many of them work at the lowest-wage jobs. They are
    not able to make rent. They are certainly not able to pay back
    arrears that are owed without assistance.
        Many tenants during the pandemic made a lot of really
    difficult tradeoffs. They borrowed money. They paid rent on
    their credit cards. They stopped buying store-bought food,
    which is why we saw such an increase in food pantries.
        Mr. Casten. I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to get just
    two more questions in.
        Either Ms. Yentel or Mr. Morris, just quickly, can you
    comment on what impact does that have on their credit score? If
    they are carrying this rent that they can't pay even though
    they are staying current going forward, is that a permanent hit
    on their credit score when they first prepay utilities, and
    what does that mean practically?
        Ms. Yentel. Yes. Yes, there are all kinds of harmful
    impacts that come both from carrying debt and having poor
    credit scores. It makes it more difficult for them to get loans
    that they might need in the future. They use credit cards again
    to pay for things that they don't have the cash for. And
    evictions as well are--a single eviction filing on a tenant's
    record stays with them for years and harms their ability to get
    affordable housing in the future.
        Mr. Casten. I am out of time, but as you can just tell, and
    I would welcome all of you to follow up, I am trying to make
    this connection, and I don't know what this is, but for all of
    you on both sides of this, if the landlords are carrying bad
    debt that is affecting their ability to get credit, and the
    tenants are carrying credit scores that are affecting their
    ability to get credit, how do we bridge that gap from a policy
    perspective?
        Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams, is now recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Williams of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        I want to thank all of you for coming here today and
    answering all of these questions. And I can tell you that every
    landlord I talk to about this pot of money has been frustrated
    with how slowly it has been getting to people in need. As much
    as we need to ensure that renters are taken care of, we cannot
    forget the landlords. They have financial obligations to handle
    as well. This money could be a lifeline, but so far it has
    failed to live up to what it was supposed to do.
        So, Mr. Schwartz, could you talk--and you have done so well
    today--about some of the hardships that your member companies
    faced as a result of this eviction moratorium?
        Mr. Schwartz. Sure. And one thing I would just point out is
    that Texas is a model State for distributing--
        Mr. Williams of Texas. Yes, I am going to talk about that
    here shortly.
        Mr. Schwartz. Okay. Good. Yes, the moratorium has created a
    lot of problems in our industry. One problem I would point out
    is it is a contributor to rent inflation. Someone suggested
    there could be 1 million units out in the country that are non-
    rent paying. That has been taken out of the supply when demand
    is surging. Economics 101 says you are going to get big price
    increases, and that is an unintended consequence of the
    moratoriums.
        They have caused landlords to have an inability to pay all
    of their bills or to have to cut back on maintenance and
    keeping up their properties. It has been a very challenging
    environment, when you have residents who haven't paid in 18
    months.
        And there is some confusion with moratoriums. The
    residents, in some cases, think it is a rent holiday, and so
    they choose to spend their money elsewhere rather than pay
    their rent.
        And so this bill, we think, is important if the effect of
    the bill is emergency rental assistance in the hands of people
    who have arrearages and want to stay in the community so they
    can continue to pay rent. But the moratoriums ultimately causes
    housing instability and creates massive debt on behalf of the
    residents and problems with the landlord.
        Mr. Williams of Texas. Okay. Thank you. I am also concerned
    that all of the government interference into mom-and-pop
    landlords during the pandemic will lead to a greater
    consolidation within the industry. Most landlords that I talk
    to are not massive corporations, and do not have access to huge
    lines of credit when things get tough, but only have a few
    apartment units they are able to maintain and rent out to the
    public. So when these people stop receiving rent payments, and
    with the Federal assistance stuck in bureaucratic limbo, many
    will not have any other option but to sell their properties.
        Mr. Winn, how will the speed of these funds getting out the
    door help prevent industry consolidation and ensure that mom-
    and-pop landlords can once again thrive with their property?
        Mr. Winn. I think it is a great point and a real concern.
    And nobody wants to see ma-and-pa landlords go under because of
    bureaucracy or because of process. So I really do think, as you
    have said, the answer is in your question, which is the sooner
    we can get the money to those who need it, the better. And I
    think the bills that are being discussed do a good job of that.
    But they do not do a perfect job of that.
        And one of the things that we need to figure out is how to
    incent those small landlords to actually use this program, not
    to layer on restrictions that are burdensome to them, such as
    making sure that they would forgive rents or partially forgive
    rent that isn't covered by the rental assistance funding. I
    think that would disincent small landlords, and that might have
    the effect that you are discussing.
        Mr. Williams of Texas. Thank you.
        I have limited time here. Mr. Schwartz, I will keep this
    one simple. What is my great State of Texas doing right that
    other States around the country should mimic and copy?
        Mr. Schwartz. I have this information from my team on the
    ground in Texas. You are using a software called Neighborly
    Software, which is a best in class, and so I would advise the
    committee to follow some best-in-class best practices. It is a
    user-friendly platform. It can bulk load applications, so
    landlords who have a large number of units can bulk load it. It
    has great technical support, and you can actually get someone
    on the phone there pretty much anytime, so they have been great
    to work with. And it has real-time tracking of the status of
    the payment, so you can see what has been paid and what hasn't
    real-time.
        Mr. Williams of Texas. Thank you, and God bless Texas. And
    I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
        The gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Axne, is now recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mrs. Axne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you to
    our witnesses for being here.
        I want to start with a little bit of background for our
    witnesses. We have a couple of main rental assistance programs
    here in Iowa, and there is a local program that has been doing
    a really good job. It has Polk County and the City of Des
    Moines working together on it, and they have actually allocated
    all of the funds from the first round. But, at the same time,
    Iowa's State program has not done very well with getting out
    this aid, and as a matter of fact, has used less than 6 percent
    of the money.
        I see a lot of this coming down to just the choices that
    are being made as to how the program is being limited,
    including things like the State did, which was refusing to
    allow tenants to apply for 3 months of forward rent that is
    clearly allowed under the rules.
        So, Ms. Yentel or Mr. Morris, can you share a little bit of
    what you have seen that really separates the programs that have
    done better with this from the ones that haven't?
        Ms. Yentel. Sure, I would be glad to. Thanks for the
    question. And I couldn't agree with you more that the fact that
    some programs are doing so well in sending ERA quickly and
    getting the money to the tenants who need it most is proof that
    it is possible to do it, and we should look to those programs
    to learn what is working there and implement it across other
    programs as well.
        And what successful programs are doing is having simple,
    accessible applications. They are using self-attestation for
    eligibility wherever possible. They are hiring the number of
    staff that they need to handle the deluge of applications that
    they are receiving. They are using direct-to-tenant assistance
    when landlords refuse to participate. They are doing robust and
    equitable outreach to make sure that tenants and landlords know
    these resources are available and how to access them.
        And programs like the example of Texas is a good one. Some
    programs are course correcting. They are recognizing that they
    got off to a bad start, or something is not working well, and
    they are improving their programs as they go. Those are the
    signs of successful programs in ERA.
        Mrs. Axne. Well, I very much appreciate that.
        Mr. Morris, let me ask you then, if we have a State
    Government that isn't inclined to get the aid out to the
    renters who need it, do you think that the changes that we are
    talking about here today are going to be sufficient to help get
    the funding into those people's hands, or do you think both
    renters and landlords in Iowa would be better served by a group
    that is willing to really help them?
        Mr. Morris. I can't speak directly to the existence of a
    government that is not willing to help tenants and landlords
    who are struggling in this process. But I do think what bears
    saying is that all of these States have existing networks to
    help vulnerable households, and there is no reason why we
    should be reinventing the wheel and not using those networks.
    As you mentioned, they are systems that are set up to help
    vulnerable populations access resources and they should be the
    ones that State Governments consult at the frontline to set up
    programs.
        And there should not be an opportunity for States to create
    additional barriers or different rules for programs that make
    it harder for renters and landlords to participate. If a
    Federal law says something is allowable, it should be allowed.
    The legislation should probably say 3 months of forward rent,
    ``should be paid,'' not, ``can be paid.'' Just any additional
    flexibility to make renters and landlords access funds is
    welcome.
        Mrs. Axne. Absolutely. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Winn. I just want to say--
        Mrs. Axne. What is that?
        Mr. Winn. I totally agree with what Kadeem just said. I
    think that was a great point that we have encountered as well.
        Mrs. Axne. I appreciate that.
        Let me shift a little bit here to ERA 2. Iowa has already
    said that they are not intending to apply for the funds,
    despite the fact that we continue to see renters evicted and
    landlords without unpaid rent, as, of course, I have mentioned,
    only about 6 percent of the funding has gone out.
        Both landlords and tenants lose when this rental assistance
    is not delivered.
        Mr. Schwartz, I am wondering, with the second round being
    available to help both renters and landlords for an additional
    3 years, what are your thoughts on how it is going to affect
    landlords by turning this down?
        Mr. Schwartz. The reason landlords are turning that down is
    that it doesn't prioritize arrearages, and we think that is an
    important fix in this bill, and the McHenry bill takes a look
    at that.
        Arrearages are so important because the resident would like
    that arrearage cleaned up. Even if they are not living there
    anymore, they still hold that debt, and the landlord is still
    pursuing collection. It could impact that resident's credit,
    and the landlord still has their bills to pay and needs that
    money to keep going. So we think that is really important, and
    we hope that the committee can fix that. It is an important
    fix.
        Mrs. Axne. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
        The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hill, is now recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate you and
    Ranking Member McHenry, even though you are not quite on the
    same page--this issue is important, and it has just dragged on
    for too long, which is why I was proud to support Mr. McHenry's
    bill to advance this funding, simplify it, and get it out.
    Because that is the main issue here, that we help the people
    who are in arrears on their rent.
        That is what Congress wanted to do last December. If you
    are in arrears due to losing your job, or a terrible impact
    from COVID-19, that is what we are trying to do with these
    bills.
        All of this other stuff, forward rent or whatever, is not
    the core mission. The core mission is to help those families,
    starting last April, who were brutalized in the economic
    collapse of shutting this economy down, and haven't gotten back
    on their feet.
        And so it is frustrating, not only to tenants and
    landlords, but it is frustrating to Members of Congress that
    here we are, in September, and we are still talking about how
    this could be a better program and help the people that we
    intended to help last December.
        I heard some discussion that was very interesting to me,
    and I would like to try to get a little bit of data. I know it
    will be anecdotal, I know it will be dealing with Mr. Schwartz
    and Mr. Winn's testimony. But you have raised something that,
    in meeting with my mom-and-pop landlords here in Arkansas, I
    have certainly picked up on, which is, someone is impacted by
    COVID-19 and is in arrears--April, May, June, July, last year--
    they haven't gotten the benefit of this rental assistance, and
    they moved, they left.
        And, so, both of you referenced an interesting concept,
    which is, of the rent in arrears that you have talked about,
    and Mr. Winn cited $37 million, how much of that is in a unit
    that is connected to a tenant who left months ago? Mr. Winn?
        Mr. Winn. A significant portion, and I don't have the exact
    number in front of me, but it is very significant. In fact, you
    can make a connection between the uncommunicative residents,
    the ones that we have not been able to reach, with the ones who
    are more likely to leave, because they don't believe that the
    system will help them, or they don't believe that the program
    is for them, but they do know that their balances are
    accumulating.
        So I do think that there is that connection, and that there
    is significant nationwide back rent owed for vacated apartments
    for folks who don't believe they have a way out.
        Mr. Hill. Yes, and that makes this even more complicated.
        Mr. Schwartz, let me hear you on that issue, if I could,
    please?
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes. I don't have the exact number. Our total
    30 days or greater past due is $8.5 million in our portfolio. I
    don't know what percent of that is past due for someone who
    doesn't live there. I would say, I don't think it is
    significant. I think it is 10 to 20 percent, and that is a
    guess, but it is a meaningful amount.
        Mr. Hill. But I think it is a key point here, that there is
    no tenant to fill out paperwork. The tenants walked out on the
    lease and left. And so, that is a whole other complex and we
    are not, per se, suggesting they be gone after, but we suggest
    that we be able to process that money and get that vacant unit
    paid off, and make that less of a problem here.
        So, I hope that we will put some priority on that as we
    talk through these issues. I thought that one was an important
    one to highlight today, Madam Chairwoman.
        Also, Mr. Winn, you have talked about--you described some
    of the speeding provisions, like bulk applications, and
    informed consent, that are in Madam Chairwoman's bill were
    helpful, but that they are not as helpful because then we
    extend this eviction moratorium.
        So, you are arguing, Mr. Winn--and I will get you to
    respond too, Mr. Schwartz--that these are useful items to help
    speed up the McHenry effort of getting this money out, but it
    is a contradiction to extend that eviction moratorium. Is that
    your view, Mr. Winn?
        Mr. Winn. I would say, yes, I think there should be a
    middle ground. I believe as you mentioned, there are provisions
    in the bill that are both necessary and will be very effective.
    I do think they are burdened by more restrictions that will
    have the unintended consequences of having landlords not wish
    to participate--
        Mr. Hill. Okay. Mr. Schwartz, can you give a quick
    response?
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes. There are two things in the bill that
    could cause landlords not to participate. The first one is an
    120-day eviction moratorium if you accept the ERAP funds, and
    the second is the cancellation of debt if you accept ERAP
    funds, even in the ERAP funds don't pay all of the debt. We
    think that will impact landlord participation.
        Mr. Hill. I really appreciate those candid short responses.
        Madam Chairwoman, thanks, and I yield back to you.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman
    from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is now recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I know firsthand
    the fear and the trauma that comes with an eviction notice on
    your door. Evictions are disruptive and violent. These are
    violent events which destabilize families, but make it more
    expensive and challenging to rent safe housing in the future,
    to apply for credit, to borrow money, or to purchase a home.
        Currently, almost a third of Black renters are at risk of
    eviction. This eviction crises is exacerbating economic
    injustice for Black families across America.
        Ms. Yentel, while there is a clear economic-justice case to
    support eviction moratoriums, wasn't the legal justification of
    the CDC eviction moratorium always to help us get COVID-19
    under control?
        Ms. Yentel. Yes, absolutely. The purpose of the CDC Federal
    eviction moratorium was to slow the spread of COVID-19 and
    contain the virus. And research has since shown that expired
    eviction moratoriums led to as many as 400,000 cases of COVID-
    19, and as many as 11,000 deaths.
        Ms. Pressley. That's right. So when I say eviction is
    policy violence, that is not just some catchy turn of phrase.
    We know that when 27 States lifted their eviction moratoriums
    during the pandemic, again, it led to some 433,000 preventable
    cases of COVID-19, and 10,700 preventable COVID-19 deaths. This
    policy failure has ended the lives of more than 10,000
    Americans.
        Now, earlier this summer, before its expiration, some
    Democrats, including our chairwoman, Maxine Waters, and I,
    fought hard to implore every option to extend the eviction
    moratorium including passing legislation.
        Now, while we were successful in securing a targeted CDC
    extension for a month, at the time there were not enough
    Members of Congress who were willing to vote yes to help pass
    this commonsense legislation to prevent a public health crisis
    within a public health crisis.
        Somewhere along the line, the conversation about the
    eviction moratorium shifted from it being a reasonable public
    health measure into an argument that Congress was anti-small
    landlord. That is not it.
        This is about saving people's lives. That was a ploy to
    divide and pit working families against working families. Every
    proposal before Congress has provided relief for renters and
    small landlords alike.
        Then, I discovered that the National Association of
    REALTORS was the largest political action committee (PAC) donor
    to candidates in the last election cycle, and suddenly, that
    shift made sense.
        The fight to extend the Federal eviction moratorium has
    been derailed too many times because the single largest PAC
    donor is the organization who was fighting, from Congress to
    the Supreme Court, to ensure that renters are put last, which
    means they are putting the public health last.
        So, let me be clear. Our advocacy is about saving lives.
    Congress has provided $46 billion to get landlords out of debt,
    and now we need to protect renters too. Renters may not have a
    multimillion dollar PAC behind them, but they have a growing
    number of Members of Congress in their corner.
        Ms. Yentel, yesterday, Dr. Fauci said that COVID-19 rates
    are 10 times too high to consider the spread under control. Do
    you think that the Federal housing agencies are doing
    everything in their power to get COVID-19 under control by
    protecting renters from eviction?
        Ms. Yentel. I think they can and should do more, and
    Congress should as well. Clearly, Congress should implement a
    Federal eviction moratorium, as long as the Delta variant is
    surging and people are dying.
        But as you said, Congress doesn't have the votes to do so,
    and so Federal agencies should act. We have urged HUD to
    implement an eviction moratorium for all federally-subsidized
    properties, which we believe they have the legal authority to
    do now, and we have urged the Federal Housing Finance Agency
    (FHFA) to consider what authorities it might have to similarly
    implement an eviction moratorium on federally-backed
    properties. Those two actions could protect about 30 percent of
    renters nationally.
        Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And we know there are an estimated
    750,000 renters who could be evicted in the next few months.
    This is an all-hands-on-deck moment. This is a public health
    emergency. I urge every level of government to take urgent
    action to keep people safely housed. And I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentlelady
    yields back.
        Mr. Kustoff is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kustoff. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
    calling the hearing today. And thank you to the witnesses for
    appearing. I think one thing we have heard is that we are all
    frustrated by the lack of funds that have been distributed by
    the Federal Government, and I think many of us have concerns
    that we have not heard from Secretary Yellen about the process
    and that she should be here.
        But with that said, Mr. Winn, can you talk about the
    practical effects, if you will, of the problem of getting in
    touch with past tenants who have already moved out and have
    outstanding payments? Practically, are you able to get their
    consent, and how would you go about doing this?
        Mr. Winn. Yes. As I alluded to earlier, this has been a
    real challenge for us. And I made a point of describing all of
    our outreach efforts, at local levels, State levels, and
    Federal levels, working with churches, and community
    organizations.
        And yet, we still have been unable to reach about half of
    the tenant population, despite having filled out the
    applications, and knocking on doors. As I alluded to, there are
    many reasons that a tenant may not feel comfortable signing
    that document.
        And this is not meant to demonize any tenants. In fact, it
    is meant to recognize that that problem exists, and to make
    sure that landlords can apply with informed consent on behalf
    of those tenants, or else I just simply believe the money will
    not get out there. It will not get to those tenants. Those
    balances will chase those tenants to the next place they live
    on their credit report. It is bad for everybody.
        I don't think we could have done anything more than we have
    done, and I still think that we are only 50 percent successful.
    I worry about the smaller landlords without our resources. They
    would have been less successful.
        Mr. Kustoff. I think you answered this, but I am going to
    ask it in a different way. Prior to the pandemic, prior to 18
    months ago, and I rightly applaud everybody who tried to work
    with people, because there was no playbook, there was no
    historical guide on how to deal and how to navigate through
    this.
        But with the tenants' outstanding balance during the
    pandemic, what would that balance be where, essentially, they
    would pass the point of no return? In other words, they
    couldn't pay back a past balance and have to work on evictions?
        Mr. Winn. I'm sorry. You were breaking up a little. Can you
    say the last part of that question again?
        Mr. Kustoff. Sure. I was talking about, prior to the
    pandemic, what level of back rent would you say was past the
    point of no return, that the tenant would be unable to pay
    back, and you would have to begin eviction proceedings?
        Mr. Winn. Yes. I would say from a statistical point of
    view, generally speaking, we, as a developer and as an owner,
    would underwrite 1 percent to 2 percent of bad debt as an
    allowance. We look at the entire rental. You might have an
    allowance for 1 or 2 percent. That number has increased
    significantly because of COVID. And one of the things that I
    think everybody on this call is worried about is that it is
    mounting. It is not getting smaller. There continue to be folks
    who suffer job losses, and have largely not rebounded because
    the COVID epidemic is still with us.
        Mr. Kustoff. Thank you, Mr. Winn.
        Mr. Schwartz, I think that Mr. Hill was asking you about
    the Expediting Assistance for Renters and Landlords Act, the 4-
    month eviction moratorium. Can you talk about, again, the
    practical effects of the proposal in general, what is good, and
    what is bad, following on your testimony?
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes. The best eviction mitigation tool is the
    ERAP funds getting in the hands of the landlords. If you tie
    that to an 120-day eviction moratorium, what is going to happen
    is the landlords have shouldered the burden of this pandemic
    over the past 18 months, and have large rental balances due to
    them. And now that that is gone, at least the Federal
    moratorium, and they are told you have to sign up for a new
    moratorium if you accept the emergency rental assistance, there
    is going to be a lot of reluctance, and I think you are going
    to kind of do the opposite of what the bill is intending to do.
    You are going to contract the number of landlords who want to
    participate in the program by including that in the bill, and
    that is our concern.
        Mr. Kustoff. Thank you, Mr. Schwartz.
        My time has expired. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Lynch is now recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you very
    much. First of all, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I
    appreciate all of your efforts to get this money out. We are
    facing some difficulty here, but I do support your solution.
        I actually know Mr. Winn personally. He is a friend of
    mine. I actually worked with his dad back in the day,
    developing a lot of the affordable housing in my district, and
    I want to just say a couple of things about the WinnCompanies
    before I ask my question.
        Number one, when this pandemic first hit, and there was
    great, great anxiety out there, as there is now, the
    WinnCompanies came out right away and they did two things.
    Before Congress could act and before the CDC could act, the
    WinnCompanies came out and they announced to their tenants--
    well, first of all, they announced to all of their workers--in
    our district, we have union carpenters, union electricians,
    union plumbers, and union laborers who maintain the housing,
    and they do a great job. And the WinnCompanies came out right
    out of the box when COVID hit, and jobs were shutting down all
    over the place, and people were being asked to hunker down, and
    announced publicly that they would not lay off any of their
    workers and that they would continue to pay them to do the
    plumbing jobs and to maintain the properties.
        So, that lowered the anxiety level among a lot of the
    workers.
        The second thing they did--and, again, this is before the
    CDC moratorium--is they came out and announced to the tenants
    that they would not evict anybody for nonpayment of rent, and
    they have thousands of units.
        And that did wonders for the phone calls that I was getting
    in my office regarding my folks in public housing.
        I know most of the members on the committee realize I grew
    up in public housing, lived there for almost 20 years, myself,
    my mom, my dad, and my five sisters. The local housing project
    that we grew up in is now renamed after my mom, the Anne M.
    Lynch Homes at Old Colony. We are very proud of that, so I am
    all in on public housing. Look, if we didn't have public
    housing, my family and I would have been homeless. I know what
    that fear feels like.
        We had some tough times growing up. My dad used to say that
    we had to save up to be poor. We had real difficulty. And I am
    proud of my dad and my mom for pulling us out of that. They
    both worked really, really hard, and I realize the opportunity
    that public housing gave us.
        So, I am going to ask you, Mr. Winn--look, you and I know
    that we have been trying to develop affordable housing in the
    City of Boston, which is a high-rent location, for years, and
    we have a couple that are coming up that we are making progress
    on, which is good, thanks to Chairwoman Waters. Thanks to
    Chairwoman Waters, we are finally getting back into the
    business of affordable housing. We have been retrenching at the
    Federal level for the past 20 years, and now Maxine, God bless
    her, has pushed a lot of initiatives to help people in public
    housing and to create more of it.
        But what is the biggest obstacle to us? Even when we have
    land available, we are having difficulty developing affordable
    housing and workforce housing that would help the people that
    we work for. What are some of your thoughts on that?
        Mr. Winn. Thank you, Congressman Lynch, and thank you for
    those kind words, and for being such a great advocate for the
    City of Boston and your district. Really, I think what Congress
    can do is to concentrate more resources on public housing.
        The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program has been
    wonderful for creating new low-income housing, but there is
    aged infrastructure in public housing across the country, and
    for years it has been underfunded.
        So, I want to thank the committee, and I want to thank
    Chairwoman Waters and Congressman Lynch and everybody else who
    fights for HUD resources, because people are living in
    substandard conditions, not because of management, but because
    of a lack of funding.
        And so, I think if we could increase the Choice
    Neighborhoods funding, the HOPE VI funding, I think we are
    going to be better off as a community.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you. And Mr. Winn, I just want to say that
    I know that you do a lot of work on military housing--Ft. Hood,
    Camp Lejeune, a lot of our bases. And this is probably not
    appropriate at this hearing, but I would love to sit down and
    talk to you about how we can do a better job of housing our men
    and women in uniform and their families.
        Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gonzalez,
    is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for
    holding this hearing today, and I certainly want to thank
    Ranking Member McHenry for all of his work on this important
    topic. Mr. McHenry has been talking about the importance of
    getting this right for months now, and he should be commended
    for his advocacy on behalf of renters and landlords throughout
    the country.
        The fact of the matter is that this program has been poorly
    designed from the beginning, and we should take next week's
    scheduled markup and include Mr. McHenry's comments and his
    legislation to streamline Federal dollars.
        We have put in a lot of programs since the pandemic has
    started, and I will contrast this one with the Paycheck
    Protection Program (PPP). When you have insatiable need, and a
    well-designed program, the money flows, it gets out quickly,
    and it gets into the economy in the right way.
        That is what happened with the PPP. It wasn't perfect, but
    there was a big need, and the program was designed for speed,
    and it got out.
        When you have a poorly-designed program or a lack of
    demand, you get this outcome, which, in Ohio, is that only 6.8
    percent of our money has actually been distributed. I do
    believe there is demand, but it is blatantly obvious when you
    look at the numbers that this program is poorly designed.
        And I would at least suggest we think about educating
    people, as more than 50 percent of renters and 40 percent of
    landlords are unaware of the Federal assistance. But today, we
    are talking about the trouble that renters and landlords have
    had in accessing Federal assistance, and this is all within the
    backdrop, of course, of the eviction moratorium which was in
    place until just last week.
        Mr. Winn, I want to start with you. Just briefly, what has
    been the financial impact on landlords, and how have we seen
    landlords respond to the moratorium by putting in restrictions
    on new units as they come available that may be a barrier to
    some lower-income Americans?
        Mr. Winn. I think that the repercussions are significant.
    And I think we are, as an industry, very excited to see these
    changes to the ERAP program, because so many of the hardships
    that are currently outstanding among the landlords would be
    resolved through a better administration of these funds.
        So, we are talking about the right thing, but if the
    administration of these funds is not improved significantly,
    then the $37 million of owed rent in our case, the billions of
    dollars across the country, is literally going to be lost,
    because again, tenants are going to move on, landlords are
    going to lose their properties to foreclosure, and they will
    never recover.
        So the effect has been significant, but there is a wait-
    and-see attitude to see if we can figure out this ERAP program,
    because that will make a huge difference.
        Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. Thank you. And again, Mr. Winn, in
    Chairwoman Waters' bill, it contains a provision which states
    that if a landlord receives rental assistance without the
    consent of the renter, even if this is payment only partially
    covering the renter's debts, that this payment will satisfy all
    monetary claims against the renter. Are you concerned that this
    provision specifically will deter landlords from seeking out
    emergency rental assistance, should that provision be enacted?
        Mr. Winn. Yes, it is a subset of the provision, yes, is a
    requirement to write off partial balances if only partial funds
    are received. I do believe that is a disincentive.
        And I don't know that it is necessary. I believe a bill
    could create other incentives to stably house folks that don't
    entertain these funds, that don't require write-off of past-due
    debts. There can be requirements to accept rental assistance
    program funds as an example in the future.
        That might be a better way to incent landlords to do it
    than to say, ``If you accept our money, you are writing off a
    30-percent loss.'' I am worried how that will affect the
    outroll.
        Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. Thank you. I share that concern. And
    before I yield back, it just seems like we have a poorly-
    designed program. I think that is very obvious, given the
    bottlenecks, again, 6.8 percent of money distributed in my home
    State of Ohio. It's a very poorly-designed program, and then we
    have a bad idea to fix a poorly-designed program.
        So, I oppose that bad idea, I support Mr. McHenry's
    legislation, and with that, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Don't forget, we had to correct the
    problems with PPP also. The big banks created their own portals
    and took care of their concierge clients. We had to put more
    money in it to straighten it out. It was not a perfect program.
    We made it work, as we are going to make this work.
        Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. That is what I said. I did say it
    wasn't perfect, but the money got out.
        Chairwoman Waters. Ms. Dean is now recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
    convening this important hearing and for being focused on
    solutions and success in making sure we protect people from
    evictions. And I say that with a special twist this week,
    because in my area of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, we were
    shockingly hit by Hurricane Ida, associated tornadoes, and
    devastating losses to housing, to tenants and their tenancies,
    to landlords, to homeowners, and to businesses small, medium,
    and large.
        We had Biblical-level flooding in my district, and
    tornadoes that we have never, ever, ever seen, losing a lot of
    our housing stock. So I offer that as a backdrop to say, we
    have to find a solution.
        I wanted to start with you, Mr. Morris, and I know you have
    been talked with a lot, but with good reason. I am from
    suburban Philadelphia, so I have heard about your program, and
    I am thrilled with its level of success. It is always good to
    have a Philadelphia presence on our panels.
        I read your testimony and learned more of the details of
    the Eviction Diversion Program and Emergency Rental Assistance
    Program in Philadelphia. I was hoping you could offer us a
    little bit more granular details as to the success:
    specifically, how many tenants have participated; how many
    landlords have participated; and in what proportion of cases
    did mediation result in a good outcome or some agreement?
        Your high percentage of being able to deliver relief is
    just to be commended. So, can you offer us a little more
    specifics on that, so that we might learn from it?
        Mr. Morris. Sure. I can try my best to offer you specifics
    with the data that we have. I can tell you so far, across all
    phases, we have spent $165 million in rental assistance dollars
    that have gotten out the door.
        In phase 4 alone, there have been about 13,454 households
    who have been assisted. So far, I think there are 50,000
    applications that are still pending, due to a resource limit,
    and also, just that the time to process the applications is not
    there.
        And we are working as hard as we can. We have spent 86
    percent of the money that has been allocated to us across all
    phases of the Emergency Rental Assistance Program. So, we are
    spending the money.
        And in terms of the average amount of assistance that is
    being paid out, we are paying out 8 months on average to
    households. The utility assistance we are paying is about 4
    months on average to households that have applied.
        I don't specifically have the number of landlords and
    tenants that have applied separately because we track them as
    households. The way our system is designed, there is a portal
    by which a landlord can go in and pre-register, and some have
    been registered since April when Phase 4 actually opened in
    Philadelphia, and then a tenant can apply with their
    applications and those applications are synced on the back end
    and processed as one.
        So for every household, I would not consider that a
    landlord in and of itself, because landlords do own several
    properties. But we measure them by households that have
    applied, and there are about 50,000, as I said, that are still
    outstanding, and we just don't, right now, have the financial
    resources to help all 50,000 of those, because we have spent 86
    percent of our funding thus far.
        But in terms of demographic data, I can provide that over
    74 percent of the households that we have helped have been
    below 30 percent of the area median income. So, those are very
    poor households that would otherwise not have any funds left
    over to help them deal with any sort of crisis. Never mind an
    ongoing COVID pandemic; they wouldn't have $500 to pay on a
    bill that they are not expecting. So, we are helping the most
    vulnerable. And our clients are also predominantly female; over
    66 percent of the applicants have been female.
        Ms. Dean. I wanted to ask you very quickly, how did you
    spread the word? And then, I want to get one more question in
    if I have the chance.
        Mr. Morris. We had an existing network of housing councils
    from the 2008 housing crisis. The City has also done a lot of
    advocacy around the program. And we have tenant advocates who
    have been on the ground working, and as someone contacts us
    about an eviction or has an instability, we provide information
    that rental assistance is available, and the courts have also
    cooperated with us in that process.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you. Thank you for that extraordinary
    success, and I hope we send you the resources you need.
        Mr. Schwartz, I just have a little bit of time left, but
    from the landlord perspective--because our committee and our
    Congress is always concerned with tenants and landlords, what
    successful outreach have you participated in?
        Mr. Schwartz. Outreach as far as promoting the programs,
    the ERAP program?
        Ms. Dean. Exactly.
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes. In our communities, we make all of our
    residents aware of rental assistance. Even before the pandemic,
    if anyone had trouble paying rent, we connected them with local
    charities or other programs. So nothing has changed.
        With the ERAP program, as I mentioned earlier, this has
    been an all-hands effort to help our residents.
        Chairwoman Waters. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I am
    so sorry, but we have to move on.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Steil,
    is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Steil. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I would
    like to dive in and follow up from right where my colleague,
    Mr. Gonzalez from Ohio, left off. Mr. Schwartz, I would like to
    ask you about the impact of landlords being forced to take a
    haircut. Maybe on the surface, it sounds like that might be a
    productive thing, it is anything to help renters, but I think
    in--not in a static model but in a dynamic model, where are
    those costs going to go?
        And, so, I would love your insight, in particular, if you
    think that there are going to be landlords across the country
    that are going to take those losses in one place, and then
    reach out to other renters in their pool, and try to recoup
    those costs, and what the impact would be on other renters who
    were not the beneficiary where the landlord took a haircut?
    Could you just start there? And then I have a follow-up
    question to that, if you would, Mr. Schwartz.
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes. One thing I mentioned is, we have rental
    inflation going on now that we probably all have read about,
    and one of the contributors is kind of the costs associated to
    the industry with moratoriums and haircuts, as you suggest.
        In California, when ERAP first came out, there was a
    blanket 20-percent haircut to the landlords by the State, and
    thankfully, that was changed, because the flow of funds from
    ERAP was going very slowly because of that haircut.
        Mr. Steil. So you are seeing the causation of some of these
    increases being--well, you take a haircut on the left, but
    ultimately you are raising prices on the right. Does that
    uniquely impact low- or moderate-income renters?
        Mr. Schwartz. I believe it does. Low- and moderate-income
    renters have a higher percentage of their income going to rent,
    and the rent--
        Mr. Steil. Okay. Trying to move quickly, I appreciate your
    insight on that. Let me shift over to you, Mr. Winn, if I can.
    In southeast Wisconsin, we have a lot of really small
    landlords. I lived in a duplex before I bought the house that I
    am in today. I was a renter there.
        Often, it's the case here in southeast Wisconsin that you
    will have somebody who owns a duplex where they live in one
    side of the duplex, and they have a tenant in the other. That
    is how they are covering their mortgage.
        Could you provide some insight as to how these policies
    have different impacts between the really big landlords that
    are out there versus these true mom-and-pops? I can't tell you
    how many landlords in a technical sense, but often they think
    of themselves as just a homeowner--they own a duplex, they are
    trying to rent out the other side--have been negatively
    impacted either by the eviction moratorium, or the ability to
    obtain funds and what the impact is, in particular, on some of
    these smaller families who are just trying to build some equity
    for themselves, of this policy would be, Mr. Winn?
        Mr. Winn. Yes. In Congressman Lynch's district, we call
    them triple deckers. So, yes, I understand what you are saying.
    No, the impact has to be severe. I think at this moment, we
    know the statistics are that 10 to 20 percent of the funds have
    reached their intended recipients.
        For a small landlord who has four or five units, or one or
    two, that is the real estate tax bill, that is the mortgage
    payment. That is it. So, we know that they don't have any
    wiggle room. They don't have any ability to go get a line of
    credit to cover these gaps.
        So, urgency is just as important as the actual amount of
    money for those small landlords. I think the committee is doing
    the right thing. We are here talking about it. We are here
    seeing how we can get the money out. But I can only imagine the
    hardships that small landlords are going through.
        Mr. Steil. I can't tell you how many of them have called my
    office, frustrated with the policies put in place by
    Washington, frustrated with how poorly-run and operated this
    has been in getting the funds out.
        There are a lot of people who are looking at their home's
    mortgage. If you own a duplex, your home is on the line when
    the other half of that duplex is truly paying zero rent, and
    you have no ability for recourse. It is a really serious
    problem, and I appreciate you providing those insights, Mr.
    Winn.
        With that, Madam Chairwoman, I will yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman
    from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, is now recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I appreciate
    the opportunity to share with you today. Ms. Yentel, Mr.
    Schwartz, thank you both for being here.
        During today's hearing, we have heard plenty about
    provisions in our legislation that allow landlords to directly
    apply for back rent. Specifically, we have heard about
    landlords' hesitancy regarding the requirement that accepting
    ERA funds would mandate them to house for an additional 120
    days.
        I think it is absolutely critical, though, that we tackle
    that hesitancy, and I want to talk just a moment about a
    solution that my local nonprofit is employing with a great deal
    of success.
        I represent Charlotte, North Carolina. Ramp CLT, as we call
    it, is, beyond any doubt, one of the most effective ERA
    administrators in the nation, serving the entirety of the City
    of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County in North Carolina.
        They have been accepting self-attestations since the early
    days of the pandemic, and they work mostly with our County, our
    City, and other nonprofits to distribute ERA funds rapidly and
    accurately and critically. And in addition to any arrears they
    award, they also provide an additional 3 months of funding to
    ensure that tenants will remain stably housed.
        Now, those additional funds immediately help landlords and
    tenants come to the table, and have made Ramp CLT one of the
    most effective distributors of ERA dollars in my State.
        So, Ms. Yentel first, and then Mr. Schwartz, as a way to
    help bring reluctant stakeholders to the table, do you believe
    that ERA administrators should consider automatically providing
    several future months of rent along with any arrears?
        Ms. Yentel. Yes. Thank you for the question, but first, I
    think it is important just to clarify, as you did, that the
    prohibition on eviction for a short period of time is only for
    landlords who receive funds without any tenant involvement.
    That is a very important protection against fraud, against
    potential tenant harassment, against housing stability of
    tenants.
        I agree that the program that you named is a very strong
    program, and has been from the very beginning. They were very
    early to get started in spending with their ERA program. They
    set up a program that was very accessible for low-income
    tenants and for landlords, and they have been doing a great job
    in getting the money out.
        I think the solution that they came up with is a good,
    creative one that can be helpful in many cases. Certainly, it
    provides additional housing stability for those low-income
    renters, and it provides assurances for the landlords that
    those months of rent will be paid.
        So, I think it is a good solution that should be
    considered. The only caution I would make is that in some
    communities, they would need to first be sure that they have
    enough ERA to cover the arrears of all of the tenants in need
    before making this future 3-month rent payment automatic for
    all applicants.
        But I certainly think that in some cases, and in cases
    where the tenant needs that additional assistance, I think that
    is a very good component to a successful program.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you.
        Mr. Schwartz?
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes. I agree with Diane. I think you need to
    make sure you have enough money to pay the arrearages and what
    has been owed before committing to go forward.
        I think it would work on a voluntary basis. I think
    legislating it would, again, create this effect of reducing
    participation in the program that we don't want to happen, but
    I do think landlords would take advantage of it on a voluntary
    basis.
        Ms. Adams. Okay.
        Ms. Salazar, I want to just speak for just a moment about
    COVID-19's impact on women of color. In my conversations with
    the Ramp CLT administrator, I was disturbed to hear that the
    highest number of ERA applications were coming from African-
    American women between the ages of 20 and 35, who had at least
    one child.
        So, how can Congress ensure that the outcomes of the
    Emergency Rental Assistance Program do not exacerbate existing
    racial inequities in housing?
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you so much, Ms. Adams. It is such a
    critical issue. We knew from the start that this pandemic would
    have a disproportionate impact on Black, Indigenous, and People
    of Color (BIPOC) communities, communities of color, and we are
    seeing that play out, of course.
        In our program here in the State of Oregon, we have
    contracted with the local community-based organizations to do
    outreach specifically in communities of color, with translated
    materials, to get the trusted relationship with community-based
    organizations to help folks apply for rental assistance. So,
    that outreach is critical.
        And the other piece that we are employing in our State is--
        Ms. Adams. I think I am out of time.
        Ms. Salazar. --priority within the queue. So, I would say
    that there are some reforms in the proposed legislation that we
    are talking about today--
        Ms. Adams. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Salazar. --to increase that technical assistance--
        Ms. Adams. Madam Chairwoman, I am yielding back. Okay,
    thank you.
        Chairwoman Waters. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Thank you.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Taylor, is now recognized for
    5 minutes,
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate this
    hearing. I will comment that it is clear to me from all of our
    colleagues, the importance of trying to get this program to
    work properly and the frustration with it. And I certainly
    appreciate the bipartisan consensus that this needs to work
    well.
        What I have to admit I am frustrated with is, where is the
    Administration? They have been trying to operate this program
    for months and months and months, and they are not here. They
    are not providing the suggestions.
        I know, Madam Chairwoman, that you are very passionate
    about protecting renters, advocating for essentially the
    eviction moratorium. The President, only at the very last
    minute, advocated for it and then ultimately tried to do it by
    rule. And we knew that was unconstitutional, knew that it was
    illegal. It was struck down in court.
        He could have been here, ``here,'' meaning in this
    building, in Congress, advocating for change months and months
    ago, but he hasn't been. And so here we are, here you are,
    Madam Chairwoman, working to try to address this and, ``clean
    up the mess.''
        And so, I wanted to just say that one thing that is
    concerning to me in this legislation is the idea of self-
    attestation. I know that nobody here wants to see limited
    government resources, limited taxpayer resources wasted,
    squandered, used in a way that is fraudulent. And I think that
    I speak for all of us when I say that none of us want to see
    that.
        I am concerned that self-attestation opens the door for
    fraud. And so, I really hope that we would revisit that. I know
    we want to go expeditiously, and I certainly concur with that
    general sentiment of, let's move quickly, let's make sure we
    get these dollars out.
        And I think that you have heard Republicans and Democrats
    talk about the slowness of the process in terms of getting the
    dollars out. And that is why we are here, we are here to talk
    about why it is slow, and how can we improve it.
        I think it is a little late to be having this discussion.
    We should have been having this discussion months and months
    ago. But nevertheless, here we are today.
        Ms. Salazar, a question for you, you indicated earlier, a
    few hours ago I think, that you had participated, or been
    consulted about the drafting of the legislation in front of us
    today. Did I hear you correctly?
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you so much, sir. Yes. The National
    Council of State Housing Agencies (NCSHA) has been engaged in
    these dialogues around the legislation.
        Mr. Taylor. And was that consultation by the Legislative
    Branch or the Executive Branch?
        Ms. Salazar. It was the Legislative Branch.
        Mr. Taylor. Okay. So, has the Department of Housing and
    Urban Development or the Secretary of the Treasury reached out
    to you? Has there been any effort by the Executive Branch to
    try to reach out to you to ask about the implementation of this
    program?
        Ms. Salazar. Certainly, Representative. We have had
    dialogues with officials at the U.S. Treasury. They have been
    helpful dialogues. NCSHA proposed, for example, the bulk
    payment process to get bulk payments out to landlords, and the
    Administration was receptive.
        I think where we stand at this point is that the guidance
    from Treasury has been helpful, but we need those statutory
    changes to really codify the reforms necessary to be able to
    expedite the program. Sox, really building on some of the early
    dialogues we have had with Treasury.
        I will just say one other piece is that we are in dire need
    of guidance from Treasury around how they will approach the
    reallocation issue. We are rapidly coming up on September 30th.
        Programs like ours in Oregon are pulling out all the stops
    to expedite payments getting out the door, and we need to
    understand clearly from Treasury that they will take into
    account things like the strong demand for the program on the
    ground, and the efforts that States like ours are making to
    expedite payment.
        That is one area where we have not received the guidance
    that we need.
        Mr. Taylor. Sure. Are you testifying here today that you
    are still waiting for guidance from the Administration in order
    to implement these programs?
        Ms. Salazar. I would say, in some regard, the guidance has
    been forthcoming. For example, the recent guidance to--
        Mr. Taylor. But I think you just said you are waiting for
    guidance--is that right, you are waiting for guidance?
        Ms. Salazar. We are waiting for guidance, sir, specifically
    on the issue of how Treasury will address the September 30th--
        Mr. Taylor. Again, I guess I will just express frustration,
    individually, and I think I speak for my colleagues--I am
    really frustrated that the Administration isn't really coming
    to the table, isn't really offering legislative solutions,
    isn't really leading on this.
        I am glad to see the chairwoman and the ranking member
    working, in slightly different contexts, but trying to come up
    with solutions. And I really think that the Executive Branch
    needs to be part of this and part of these discussions.
        Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. And we are all
    working toward finalizing some of these issues and concerns. I
    am working with the Treasury, working with the Administration,
    and offering to work with the ranking member. So thank you very
    much.
        Next, we will hear from the gentlewoman from New York, Ms.
    Ocasio-Cortez. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, for
    hosting this hearing, and as Representative Dean had mentioned
    earlier, we just experienced devastating floods for which my
    district was ground zero, in New York City, for the floods from
    Hurricane Ida.
        And this has been a travesty in my district. We have lost
    12 people in these floods, and the connection here is that in
    almost every person lost to the floods, it was related to our
    housing crisis. The lack of available housing stock and the
    fear of eviction existed even prior to the pandemic, and the
    pandemic has only made it worse, to the point that people are
    seeking alternatives to the housing stock that are often
    dangerous.
        Now, that being said, speaking about those long-standing
    inequities, many low-income renters struggled to make ends meet
    even before the pandemic. And with the lapsing of unemployment,
    the striking of the eviction moratorium, all of these things
    have placed renters in an even more perilous position.
        We have discussed some of the difficulties, and the
    committee has addressed some of the difficulties in State
    implementation. But I also want to talk a little bit about the
    difficulties in getting these funds out with the segment of
    landlords who are refusing to participate in emergency rental
    assistance.
        Ms. Yentel, is there evidence that lack of tenant
    participation is a widespread problem for the Emergency Rental
    Assistance Program?
        Ms. Yentel. I have not seen any evidence or data to show
    that there is a widespread problem of tenants not
    participating.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Okay.
        Ms. Yentel. There is clear evidence of tenants not
    completing applications, which points to inaccessible and
    overly complicated applications that need to be simplified.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Okay. I see. And would you say that in
    relation to tenant participation, is lack of landlord
    participation in the program more of a frequent problem that we
    are noticing?
        Ms. Yentel. We have seen evidence of this, yes. In a survey
    that we and others did, about 44 percent of program
    administrators said that landlords refusing to participate in
    ERA programs was a challenge. And from some of the more recent
    conversations, I would say that number has likely grown.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So that means that when landlords refuse
    to participate, some Emergency Rental Assistance Programs are
    not required to provide assistance directly to tenants, and
    they could face eviction or homelessness if their landlord
    vetoes the application. Is that right?
        Ms. Yentel. That is right. Unfortunately, it is optional
    for program administrators to utilize direct-to-tenant
    assistance if landlords participate, and we are seeing that
    only about 28 percent of all ERA programs are explicitly
    allowing direct-to-tenant assistance. That means there are many
    tenants who are having their application closed, who are not
    getting any of the assistance they need because the landlord
    has refused to participate.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And this is consistent with something I
    have been seeing. If you are a tenant and you want to make
    right on your back rent, and you apply for the Emergency Rental
    Assistance Program, if your landlord has been trying to get you
    out, they can refuse, in the majority of programs, to accept
    your rental assistance and evict you and use that as grounds to
    evict you. Is that correct?
        Ms. Yentel. That is correct, and we are seeing some very
    egregious cases of tenants showing up in eviction court with
    the emergency rental assistance in their hands, and the
    landlord saying, I don't want it, and the judge allowing the
    eviction to move forward.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. It seems as though we have a very urgent
    issue, and I am so thankful to see Chairwoman Waters address
    these issues.
        Now, my last question is, what types of enforcement
    mechanisms should we be exploring to ensure that the tenant
    protections in this bill are adhered to by landlords?
        Ms. Yentel. That is a really important point, and we
    strongly recommend that the legislation be very clear in
    identifying a Federal agency, the DOJ or the CFPB, and give
    them clear authority and responsibility to ensure that the
    tenant protections in this legislation are followed and adhered
    to.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so very much.
        Ms. Yentel. Thank you.
        Mr. Schwartz. I would like to just chime in on this topic,
    because I am a landlord, so I can give you some reasons we have
    seen landlords not want to participate. In a State like New
    York, there are conditions imposed by participating, like rent
    freezes, not being able to charge late fees, and extended
    protracted moratoriums. That makes it hard for the landlords to
    participate with all of those conditions.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has
    expired.
        The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is now
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        First, I would like to recall how we arrived at this point.
    First, the CDC established an eviction moratorium despite
    having no statutory authority to do so. Then, after Congress
    established a bipartisan rental assistance program in December,
    Democrats created an entirely new partisan program with a
    conflicting set of rules.
        Because of that incompetent law-making or policy-making,
    the funds are now stuck in an administrative mess, and only a
    fraction, a small fraction has been distributed.
        When HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge testified before this
    committee 2 months ago, she said if we get the rental
    assistance programs to actually work, then there is no need for
    an eviction moratorium. But instead of focusing on getting the
    rental assistance program to work, Democrats tried to pass
    legislation to extend the eviction moratorium.
        When that failed, the President then directed the CDC to
    extend the eviction moratorium, which he knew was
    unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court struck it down.
        The HUD Secretary also said that streamlining the rental
    assistance program would help get the funds out more quickly,
    and unlike the Members of the Majority who are just now turning
    their attention to this, Republicans proposed a bill to fix the
    rental assistance program 3 months ago.
        There are more than 10 million jobs available right now,
    more than at any other time in the history of this country.
    There are more open jobs than there are unemployed people, but
    instead of focusing on getting people back into the workforce,
    the Majority now wants to remove any requirement for renters to
    have a hardship in order to receive rental assistance, and make
    taxpayer-funded rent a long-term entitlement regardless of
    whether people actually need it.
        Mr. Winn, one of the items in the Majority's bill is that
    it would require landlords who apply for rental assistance on a
    tenant's behalf to accept any amount they receive as satisfying
    the entire rent debt, even if the amount they receive is
    thousands of dollars short of what is owed. Does that provide
    any incentive to the landlords to apply for these funds?
        Mr. Winn. Thank you for the question. And I would answer
    that in two ways. One is, I think we would appreciate more
    clarity on what the proposal actually says, because read in its
    worst way, it could be true that by accepting $3,000 in rental
    assistance, you could be foregoing $6,000. And that doesn't
    help anybody.
        So, I think it would be very important to clarify what
    those rules are, and frankly, don't make them so burdensome
    that landlords can't participate.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I appreciate that.
        Also, the government is the reason why so many property
    owners have been unable to collect rent and evict non-paying
    tenants. Should the government make landlords whole by allowing
    the rental assistance funds to reimburse property owners even
    if the renter has moved? That is for Mr. Winn.
        Mr. Winn. Yes. I think--and I mentioned this earlier--that
    is a critical aspect of this. And it is only going to happen
    more as we go through the pandemic. There are going to be
    tenants who see insurmountable balances of rent delinquency,
    and just say, I have to move. And so it is almost an effective
    eviction, but it is somebody deciding to move, and unless the
    program explicitly allows rent on those vacant units, the
    landlords are the only ones left holding the bag. So the
    proposal really should, and I hope does, address that.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Schwartz, do you agree that consolidating the two
    Emergency Rental Assistance Programs under the ERA 1 program
    rules would get the funds out more quickly?
        Mr. Schwartz. I agree with respect to focusing on
    arrearages, arrearages with respect to vacant units like you
    just spoke about, and occupied units, and by consolidating
    them, because ERAP 1 did prioritize arrearages, and we think
    that is very important.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        Madam Chairwoman, I have no other questions, so I will
    yield back. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
        The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Garcia, is now recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and
    thank you for your leadership on this issue. Good afternoon to
    all of our panelists.
        The majority of the constituents I represent are renters,
    so this issue is very personal to me. Millions of people across
    the country lost their homes after the last financial crisis 10
    years ago, but working-class communities like mine never
    recovered. Families got evicted and priced out. In Chicago,
    this is a racial-justice issue.
        The Logan Square neighborhood in my district lost over
    10,000 Black families and 20,000 Latino families in the last
    decade. I can't stand by and let this happen again, and that is
    why I fought for an eviction moratorium, and why I fought for
    emergency rental assistance, and now, I am fighting to make
    sure that the program works for neighborhoods like those in my
    district.
        The whole point of rental assistance is to keep people in
    their homes, and it is our job to make sure that happens. So, I
    want to thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for
    convening this important hearing, and say thanks to all of our
    witnesses today.
        I do want to direct a couple of questions to Ms. Yentel.
    You talked about the importance of tenant protections in the
    Rental Assistance Program. I know firsthand how landlords have
    a lot of different tools to get rid of tenants they don't want.
    Filing an eviction in court is only one of them.
        Can you briefly talk about how landlords might get rid of
    tenants without formally evicting them, and is this common?
        Ms. Yentel. Yes. And it is important to recognize too that
    there are multiple reasons why landlords might refuse to
    participate in programs, and we have heard that concessions
    required of them is one.
        Another reason why we are seeing some landlords not wanting
    to participate is because they are in hot rental markets and
    there is a financial benefit to actually evicting the current
    tenant, increasing rents, and making more money in the long
    run. There is also a challenge of landlords who have unlicensed
    or otherwise illegal units who can't access the emergency
    rental assistance funds.
        We do see during the pandemic and at other times as well,
    unfortunately, ways that landlords harass or push out tenants.
    It is not a formal eviction filing and it is illegal in most
    places, but they might put a lock on the door and just not let
    the tenant back in; they might turn off utilities, turn off
    water, and force that tenant out; or, in less explicit ways,
    they use harassment to push that tenant out.
        It is part of the reason why it is so essential that these
    protections be included if ERA is given directly to landlords
    without any tenant involvement. It is certainly not all
    landlords who will act this way, but we have to prevent
    creating perverse incentives for landlords to potentially
    harass tenants, to push them out, receive the emergency rental
    assistance, without having to agree to any of these other
    requirements that we are hearing are considered so onerous for
    landlords.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you for that. And I have a
    follow-up question. How can Congress improve the rental
    assistance program to prevent landlords from unreasonably
    getting rid of tenants and claiming funds anyway?
        Ms. Yentel. Again, in most cases, landlords and tenants are
    applying for assistance together, and the landlord gets paid
    for the arrears that are owed to them. In those cases, there
    are ways the programs need to be improved; they need to be
    simplified; there needs to be self-attestation used; they need
    to do outreach to get that money out faster.
        In cases where the committee considers allowing landlords
    to receive assistance without involvement of the tenant, there
    have to be strong protections in place for that tenant to
    remain stably housed. And many of those protections are
    included in the chairwoman's legislation--protections against
    eviction immediately after receiving the funds, protections
    against going back and claiming more funds from the tenant in
    the future--and are really important protections to ensure that
    we are not increasing tenant harassment or housing instability.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Great. Thank you very much.
        Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
    Timmons, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        We all voted for the CARES Act back in March of 2020. That
    legislation, of course, included an eviction moratorium which
    would last until July 24, 2020. I think that most people
    thought that was reasonable. It was the right thing to do. We
    needed to help people who needed help. But I don't think anyone
    on this committee would have anticipated or supported such a
    moratorium going on for another year, but that is exactly what
    happened, and even that wasn't long enough for some people.
        I also think it is fair to say that, at that time, most of
    us serving on this committee truly believed that renters who
    are economically disadvantaged because of economic lockdowns
    often imposed by State and local governments should not have
    been evicted from their homes. That is just straightforward
    common sense.
        But so much has changed between then and now, primarily the
    development and distribution of safe and effective COVID
    vaccines for anyone who wants one. This allowed the economy to
    largely reopen over the spring and summer months of 2021,
    making jobs available literally almost everywhere. There are
    10.9 million jobs available in this country today.
        I talk to employers of all different sizes and industries,
    and a common refrain is always, we need more people. We need
    more people working. Jobs are available, and thanks to the
    vaccine, it is safe to return to the workplace.
        On top of this, as we all know, Congress has shelled out
    close to $50 billion in rental assistance funds to help renters
    cover back rent they may owe. These two developments, vaccines
    allowing for the economy to reopen and the Emergency Rental
    Assistance Program, made an eviction moratorium completely
    unnecessary many months ago.
        If the last few months have taught us anything, it is that
    the current Administration is completely incapable of putting a
    plan in place and executing it, with the primary examples being
    the disastrous Afghanistan debacle, and this emergency rental
    program.
        We have also learned that President Biden has zero qualms
    about abusing his power. I think at the other end of
    Pennsylvania Avenue, we have forgotten that in our system of
    government, Congress writes the laws and the President executes
    them. He doesn't get to just do whatever he wants or gets
    pressured into doing when people camp out on the Capitol steps.
    The Supreme Court has already knocked down this illegal
    moratorium extension, and will surely do the same for the
    vaccine mandates we saw last night.
        What is sad is that this was all avoidable. A competent
    White House would have had ERAP up and running, and been
    working with State and local governments to distribute dollars
    in a productive way that would have made the eviction
    moratorium debate a moot debate.
        I know everyone on this committee wants to help people in
    this country who need help, but we need to be thoughtful in the
    manner in which we deliver that help, and make sure that it is
    not counterproductive.
        One of the biggest problems we have had implementing any
    new program, particularly ones that are quickly stood up and
    quickly send money out the door, is with making sure that only
    the intended eligible recipients get funds, and fraudsters get
    locked out.
        I think that we need to really be careful that we are not
    going to do more harm than good. We have to get back to work.
    We have almost 11 million jobs available, and the only way that
    we are going to get out of this--the only way we are going to
    get our economy back on track is by getting back to work.
        Mr. Winn, I know hindsight is 2020, and it is easy to be a
    Monday morning quarterback, but looking back over the last 18
    months, if you knew all this was coming, what is the one step
    you wish we could have taken to weather the storm that was/is
    COVID, and why?
        Mr. Winn. I would say--I feel like I am repeating myself so
    I apologize, but I do believe it would be the informed consent
    model for tenants rather than the wet signature. I do believe
    that would have doubled the amount of resources we could have
    given to tenants on that basis.
        Mr. Timmons. Thank you. I just want to remind everybody
    that we have $30 trillion in debt and we are talking about
    spending trillions and trillions of dollars we don't have. Our
    kids, our grandkids, and our great grandkids are going to have
    to pay this money back. It is not just funny money.
        We have to get serious and we have to help people who need
    help, but we have to get our economy back open and get people
    back to work, because that is the only way that we are going to
    be able to help the people who need help the most.
        And, with that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
        The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Garcia, is now recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Garcia of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank
    you once again for your leadership on this issue and for
    prioritizing this very important piece of legislation that will
    help many constituents in my district and all across America
    stay housed this winter.
        During the pandemic, our county has faced unimaginable
    challenges. In Houston, many families were still trying to
    recover from Hurricane Harvey when COVID hit. As of now,
    hundreds and thousands of Houstonians are behind on their rent,
    and since April 2020, Harris County landlords have filed almost
    34,000 cases for eviction--34,000 just here in Harris County.
        With our dollars that we have received through the ERA 1,
    as page 10 of Ms. Yentel's paper suggests, Harris County is at
    81.9 percent, almost 90 percent of the dollars. I understand
    anecdotally that the dollars are gone, and I can tell you that
    if there is any city or State or county that has extra dollars,
    we will take them, because the need is great in Houston and
    Harris County. We must also make sure that all of the measures
    that we are taking here do not adversely impact on any renter's
    ability to apply for any of these funds.
        My first question is for Ms. Yentel. Ms. Yentel, in your
    testimony, you highlighted that among those behind on their
    rent, 31 percent of the households were forced to use debt
    instruments such as credit cards to make ends meet. And last
    month, the New York Fed reported that household debt is at an
    historic high of almost $15 trillion, that is, ``trillion,''
    with a ``T,'' marking the largest nominal household debt
    increase since 2007.
        This, of course, concerns me because some people did pay
    their rent, they just put it on their credit card, and now they
    are stuck with credit card debt. So what can we do to make sure
    that we aren't forcing people to take on more risk than they
    are ready for? And could you elaborate on any of the ripple
    effects that any of these financial hardships due to housing--
    what that does to consumers and the economy in general?
        Ms. Yentel. Yes, and it is one of, I would say, the very
    unfortunate consequences of Congress having delayed action on
    finalizing emergency rental assistance for so long. As you
    know, in the House of Representatives, emergency rental
    assistance was passed 3 times, in May, June, and July. If the
    emergency rental assistance had been enacted in that time, it
    could have been used as it was designed, which was to keep low-
    income renters current on their rent, to help them pay the rent
    during the pandemic and not fall behind.
        The legislation was held up in the Senate under Republican
    leadership, and it wasn't enacted until December of 2020. By
    then, tenants had accrued an estimated $50 billion in rent
    arrears, and it became a different need that the program was
    trying to serve, which was to help pay those rent arrears. So,
    that is one of the more unfortunate outcomes of how long it
    took for Congress ultimately to enact this.
        As you said, in the meantime, most tenants did everything
    they could to stay current on their rent during the pandemic.
    And some of them had to make tradeoffs in not buying store-
    bought food or paying for internet, despite their children
    needing it for virtual school, and many of them took out loans
    or used credit cards to pay for the rent.
        The data is very clear that there was an increase in the
    number of tenants using credit cards to pay the rent, and, in
    fact, many landlords were in communication with tenants,
    encouraging that to keep the rent payments current.
        It is unfortunate now that many of those tenants hold that
    debt but are not able to be paid back through the Emergency
    Rental Assistance Program for the debt that they owe. And I
    would encourage the committee to consider ways to enable
    tenants who can prove that they used credit cards or otherwise
    took out loans to stay current on their rent, to access
    emergency rental assistance to make them whole as well.
        Ms. Garcia of Texas. Thank you.
        And quickly, Mr. Morris, I had a question for you about
    translation services and interpreters. I think it was you who
    testified that some of the delay and some of the concerns from
    the renter side is not having the forms and the information,
    the outreach information in the language of their own. Is this
    a problem nationwide that we also need to address?
        Mr. Morris. I believe this is a nationwide problem, and all
    of our applications in Philadelphia are available in several
    languages based on demographics for the populations.
        Ms. Garcia of Texas. But should this be a mandate in the
    bill itself? Because obviously--
        Mr. Morris. It should.
        Ms. Garcia of Texas. --we are hearing that in some cities,
    in some programs, that is not the case. So, the only way that
    we can make it uniform and that we make the program accessible
    to everyone would be to put it in the bill. Would you agree?
        Mr. Morris. I agree. Even if the bill itself has not
    changed, there should be a person who can interpret on behalf
    of someone in a different language available.
        Chairwoman Waters. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Garcia of Texas. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank
    you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
        The gentlewoman from Georgia, Ms. Williams, is now
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and
    thank you for holding this hearing today.
        Too many renters, through no fault of their own, have
    fallen behind on rent payments during this pandemic due to
    economic hardship, forcing people on the streets during a
    pandemic that is still raging, and I have seen it firsthand.
        Back in early June, when a local eviction moratorium
    expired, I posted pictures on social media from my district
    where people's belongings had been tossed out on the street,
    and this was with the CDC eviction moratorium still in effect.
    That is because people didn't know how to access the actual
    moratorium, let alone the rental assistance associated.
        Those pictures were a stark reminder that we must keep
    working to find a Federal solution to keep people in their
    homes. I knew that we had to pull every lever to protect
    tenants from eviction and give them a leg up in recovering from
    this pandemic.
        For one, the CDC eviction moratorium protected countless
    families, which is why I was quick to cosponsor Chairwoman
    Waters' bill to extend it through the end of the year.
    Unfortunately, some Members of Congress stood in the way of
    this extension despite the tireless work of Chairwoman Waters,
    Speaker Pelosi, and so many other Members of Congress working
    to protect our constituents.
        However, like Chairwoman Waters, I knew that we couldn't
    stop fighting. We still have to address the fundamental problem
    of getting folks out of rental debt. The key is efficiently
    distributing the rental assistance already provided by
    Congress, which has gone out too slowly in many localities.
        This week, I was proud to join Chairwoman Waters, and co-
    sponsor the introduction of the Expediting Assistance to
    Renters and Landlords Act, which will make the rental
    assistance Congress approved go out more efficiently. And
    today, I am glad to talk more about how we get rental
    assistance to the people.
        Ms. Yentel, in your testimony, you noted that my home
    county of Fulton County, Georgia, has distributed 76 percent of
    the ERA 1 funds that were allotted; however, the rate is not
    that high in every county nearby. In fact, you noted that
    Georgia as a whole has only distributed 3.6 percent of its
    funds.
        If enacted, to what extent will the Expediting Assistance
    to Renters and Landlords Act help to reduce distribution
    disparities in places like my home State of Georgia? And in
    addition to pushing for passage of this legislation, what
    should Members of Congress be doing to help more localities get
    assistance out the door more quickly to people in need?
        Ms. Yentel. Thank you. The legislation that Chairwoman
    Waters has introduced and that you cosponsored would speed up
    the assistance of emergency rental assistance in several ways,
    and it would build on lessons learned and best practices during
    the pandemic.
        We have learned by now very clearly what makes some
    programs so successful and what makes some programs much less
    so. Some of the reforms that are included in this legislation,
    for example, would require that all programs use self-
    attestation for all eligibility requirements. This would
    drastically streamline applications, and speed up the delivery
    of funds. It would also require that all programs utilize
    direct-to-tenant assistance when landlords refuse to
    participate, ensuring that tenants aren't penalized for their
    landlord's lack of action.
        It would redefine eligible grantees for emergency rental
    assistance to go beyond State and local government entities to
    include the community-based nonprofit organizations that are
    doing the door-knocking and outreach to get tenants engaged in
    the process.
        It would prohibit the requirement of written leases, which
    has also been a barrier for some landlords and for many of the
    most marginalized tenants who have informal leases but still
    owe rent to their landlords. So, there are a number of really
    important changes and protections in the legislation, which we
    support.
        In terms of what more Members of Congress can do, I think
    this legislation is a very good start, but I also think taking
    the actions that you have taken in your community to help
    improve and encourage improvement of these Emergency Rental
    Assistance programs, the example that Chairwoman Waters gave of
    the actions she has taken in Los Angeles, to connect legal aid
    attorneys with the emergency rental assistance with the
    landlords, this is really important leadership that all Members
    of Congress could take that could help educate constituents
    about the availability of resources and then help them to
    access them.
        Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Ms. Yentel. And not
    knowing what the future holds, do you think it would be useful
    to study the implementation of the Emergency Rental Assistance
    Program, including any changes to the program, to see how we
    might improve other programs, going forward, across the
    country?
        Ms. Yentel. Absolutely, we should be constantly studying,
    learning, and improving as we go for this and for any future
    programs that are set forth.
        Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My
    time has expired, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
        The gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Mooney, is now
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mooney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        We understand that last month, the White House essentially
    caved to political pressure from the left and unilaterally
    extended the eviction moratorium, even though they knew it was
    unconstitutional for President Biden to assume this power to
    himself, the power that is rightly placed in the legislature,
    the Congress.
        After the court struck down the moratorium and once again
    told the White House that it was unconstitutional, Democrats in
    committee here, in Congress, finally decided to propose changes
    to the Emergency Rental Assistance Program. The Republicans had
    already proposed changes to the Emergency Rental Assistance
    Program months ago, well before the eviction moratorium
    standoff took place.
        Instead of going to the President to abuse his powers, we
    should have worked with committee members on common-sense
    reforms. Now, the Democrats are rushing to do a rental
    assistance program through this process. We are scheduled to
    mark up this bill on Monday of next week. And we are having a
    hearing on the bill Friday, today, the week before.
        Hearings are supposed to give us a chance to step back and
    assess legislation well before they are marked up or make it to
    the House Floor. But there are zero business days between our
    hearing and this legislation and the scheduled markup vote.
    That is unfortunate, because I think this bill has some very
    significant problems.
        I am concerned that the legislation could open up the
    Emergency Rental Assistance Program to waste, fraud, and abuse.
    One of the most irresponsible provisions in this bill, which
    appears to be a completely one-sided partisan Democrat bill,
    which we have seen too much of in this Congress, is it requires
    self-attestation from a renter to be considered as proof of
    eligibility for the program.
        That means an applicant could self-report their income and
    receive rental assistance from the United States taxpayers with
    no documentation, and no verification. If someone simply tells
    the government they are income eligible for the program, we
    just take their word for it. This bill would say, take their
    word for it and give them the hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
        I was pleased that my colleague, Congressman Andy Barr of
    Kentucky, mentioned earlier in his comments that we are talking
    about the use of hard-earned taxpayer dollars here, not money
    that grows on trees that the government just has; the
    government doesn't have any money that they don't first take
    from the United States taxpayers. It is their money we are
    watching over here.
        So, my question is directed to you, Mr. Winn and Mr.
    Schwartz. When a potential resident begins the process of
    moving into one of your units, can they self-attest their
    income level or do you use some means of verifying their income
    level?
        Mr. Winn. I can answer that as it relates to governmental
    programs that we help administer, like the Low-Income Housing
    Tax Credit or Section 8. Yes, there has to be verified income
    for those Federal programs. So by and large, we do have that
    information in our own portfolio. For market-rate renters, for
    renters who are not under those programs, we are not in the
    business of verifying their income necessarily, so I just
    wanted to point that out.
        Mr. Mooney. Mr. Schwartz?
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes, we do income verification for our
    residents. I guess my only point with self-attestation is the
    download of these forms, particularly for lower-income
    residents, has been a big barrier to getting the emergency
    renters assistance, and we do our best to help them, but self-
    attestation would streamline the process. And I do think there
    is a capability of the Federal Government to audit the self-
    attestations through the tax returns and information the
    government has and catch people who are committing fraud.
        Mr. Mooney. Okay. Thank you for that.
        A quick follow-up to both of you, if you were forced to
    accept self-attestation as proof of income, would that cause
    you to be concerned about the tenant's ability to pay rent?
        Mr. Winn. I just want to say, I think that the issue that
    we are encountering now as a country is not landlords getting
    paid too much out of ERAP; it is landlords getting paid too
    little. So, I do believe that if the attestation can help get
    the money out--the flip side of that argument is that smaller
    landlords are often unable to have the follow-up required to
    verify incomes themselves, to make sure that the tax returns
    are properly dated, to make sure that they have filed it
    correctly. So, I do believe there is a need to simplify the
    process.
        And to your question of, would it put us in a position to
    take somebody as a tenant that we otherwise wouldn't have, I
    think the issue is that they are already there. They are
    already in our units, and we can't find a way to get them ERAP.
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes. And I would just follow up--I know you
    are out of time--that we only verify once. We don't know after
    the tenant moves in what their income is. They could be with us
    for 10 years, and we wouldn't know.
        Mr. Mooney. Okay. I don't know if I am out of time, but I
    have a closing statement if I am not out of time. Thank you for
    your comments.
        I want to say, I think it would be irresponsible--
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman's time has long
    expired.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Auchincloss, is now
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the
    opportunity to work on this bill.
        I have heard a number of my colleagues on the other side of
    the aisle talk about the unconstitutionality of President
    Biden's actions. And while I appreciate that everyone in
    Congress needs to be laser-focused on protecting the
    Constitution and holding the Administration to account, I have
    to say that these words would resonate more with me if we had
    seen this same kind of attention on the Constitution in the
    last 4 years, after the most egregious depredations of the
    Constitution in the history of the United States, by President
    Trump. So, I would encourage everybody in Congress of both
    parties to continue to hold Presidents of both parties to
    account for protecting and defending the Constitution.
        I am also hearing a tremendous amount of frustration, again
    from both sides, about the bureaucracy and the paperwork around
    if it was grounded in good intentions and was really directed
    towards an extreme need. And it has made me think a lot about
    the Child Tax Credit.
        And the connection here is that we have seen over and over
    again empirically with Federal policy that when we directly
    transfer money to working families, whether it is through the
    Child Tax Credit or the Earned Income Tax Credit, they spend it
    on what they need and they spend it on a better future for
    their kids.
        And so, the expansion of the Child Tax Credit and making
    permanent the tremendous gain in childhood poverty reduction
    that we will achieve in the American Rescue Plan and
    reconciliation can be viewed not just as expanding and
    improving social welfare, but also, in the long run, obviating
    the need for some of these programs that I know my Republican
    colleagues get frustrated with for sometimes being inefficient
    or bureaucratic or increasing red tape. Just give money
    directly to people [inaudible] Needs [inaudible] Without being
    market distortions or even without creating a new level of
    Federal bureaucracy. So, I would encourage you to think about
    the Child Tax Credit in that lens.
        I will pivot now towards the program in question. And,
    again, Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the work that you have
    done to help correct some of the flaws we have had in the
    distribution of these funds.
        Earlier this week, a local news station, WBUR, [inaudible]
    Renters in the southern part of the district I represent in
    Bristol County were twice as likely to have been evicted during
    the pandemic. And they have actually seen more authorizations
    for evictions in two cities, Fall River and New Bedford, than
    in Boston, which is a city 6 times their size.
        There are a lot of reasons for this, but one of them, as
    the article pointed out, is that some renters do not even learn
    of the rental assistance at all until they are actually in
    eviction court itself, and sometimes learn of rental assistance
    even in eviction court. They are literally getting evicted
    through the court process and never had been told about it.
        So, I would like to focus on housing courts and their role
    as the last tripwire in this whole process for making people
    aware of their rights. Ms. Salazar, if you could start by
    saying if you have seen any programs that are effective, where
    the courts are doing their job?
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, sir, for that question about the
    role of courts and eviction diversion. Certainly, our hope is
    to be able to respond quickly to get rental assistance into the
    hands of tenants before we reach that point.
        But one of the things that we are seeing work really well
    is that our local program administrators on the ground are
    collaborating with the court systems to intervene and directly
    get rental assistance into the hands of folks who have received
    a filing. And so, it is those kinds of relationships and
    cooperation that are absolutely critical.
        And I would say that one of the things that is helpful in
    the chairwoman's bill is being more focused on administrative
    dollars, technical assistance, and the support for local
    community-based organizations so that we can set up those kinds
    of effective programs to engage [inaudible] Solution.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And in my final minute, Ms. Salazar,
    again, perhaps you could, and with each witness [inaudible] Say
    for the sake of the record whether you support self-attestation
    as programmed in this bill.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you for the question. Self-attestation
    certainly speeds the provision of rental assistance. What we
    have seen in our own program in Oregon is that some of our
    local administrators have been quick to adopt self-attestation
    as part of the process and some have been slower to adopt it
    for various reasons. And when we see it utilized--
        Mr. Auchincloss. Ms. Salazar, I apologize for interrupting,
    but I only have about 20 seconds. I want to let the other
    witnesses quickly say if they support self-attestation or not.
        Mr. Morris, perhaps you next?
        Mr. Morris. I do support self-attestation.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you.
        Mr. Winn?
        Mr. Winn. Yes. It is not a perfect solution, but I do think
    it is required at this time to get the money out effectively.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you.
        Mr. Schwartz?
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes, I support self-attestation.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Okay. Thank you.
        Ms. Yentel. And we strongly support it as well.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you all.
        Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        Do we have any more Members on the platform who have not
    yet participated?
        If not, I would like to thank all of our witnesses for
    being here today and for providing us with very valuable
    testimony.
        The Chair notes that some Members may have additional
    questions for these witnesses, which they may wish to submit in
    writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
    for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions
    to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record.
    Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in
    the record.
        And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                               September 10, 2021

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]