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

                       POTENTIAL REMEDIES FOR UNLAWFUL EVICTIONS
                             IN FEDERAL EMERGENCY AREAS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL
                           RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                             MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-28

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    48-274                      WASHINGTON : 2022

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

                          COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

    ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
        Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
    KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
    HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
    ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
    TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
    JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
    VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
    J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
    MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
    SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
    LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
    GREG STANTON, Arizona
    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
    MONDAIRE JONES, New York
    DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
    CORI BUSH, Missouri

           PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                  CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS,
                              AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                         STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chair
                    DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina, Vice-Chair

    JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, Ranking
    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Member
        Georgia                          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
    SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              CHIP ROY, Texas
    CORI BUSH, Missouri                  MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            BURGESS OWENS, Utah

                           JAMES PARK, Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                             Monday, June 14, 2021

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Steve Cohen, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
      Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the State
      of Tennessee...................................................     2
    The Honorable Mike Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
      the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the
      State of Louisiana.............................................     4

                                WITNESSES

    Mr. Hilary O. Shelton, Washington Bureau Director and Senior Vice
      President for Advocacy and Policy, NAACP
      Oral Testimony.................................................     6
      Prepared Testimony.............................................     9
    Ms. Cindy Ettingoff, Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel,
      Memphis Area Legal Services
      Oral Testimony.................................................    15
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    17
    Mr. Joel Griffith, Research Fellow, Financial Regulations, The
      Heritage Foundation
      Oral Testimony.................................................    23
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    25
    Ms. Katy Ramsey Mason, Assistant Professor of Law and Director,
      Medical-Legal Partnership Clinic, Cecil C. Humphreys School of
      Law, The University of Memphis
      Oral Testimony.................................................    34
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    36

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member
      of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and
      Civil Liberties from the State of Texas, for the record
      An article entitled, ``How Houston-Area Families Are Being
        Forced From Their Homes Without An Eviction Notice,'' Houston
        Public Media.................................................    58
      An article entitled, ``HUD: Growth Of Homelessness During 2020
        Was `Devastating,' Even Before The Pandemic,'' NPR...........    64

      POTENTIAL REMEDIES FOR UNLAWFUL EVICTIONS IN FEDERAL EMERGENCY AREAS

                                  ----------

                             Monday, June 14, 2021

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights,

                              and Civil Liberties

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:37 p.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Cohen
    [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Cohen, Raskin, Ross, Johnson of
    Georgia, Garcia, Jackson Lee, Johnson of Louisiana, and
    Fischbach.
        Staff Present: John Doty, Senior Advisor; Moh Sharma,
    Director of Member Services and Outreach & Policy Advisor;
    Jordan Dashow, Professional Staff Member; Cierra Fontenot,
    Chief Clerk; John Williams, Parliamentarian; James Park, Chief
    Counsel, Constitution Subcommittee; Will Emmons, Professional
    Staff Member/Legislative Aide, Constitution Subcommittee; James
    Lesinski, Minority Counsel; Sarah Trentman, Minority Senior
    Professional Staff Member; Andrea Woodard, Minority
    Professional Staff Member; and Kiley Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
        Mr. Cohen. The Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
    the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties will come
    to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is recognized and authorized
    to declare a recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
        I welcome everyone to today's hearing on the potential
    remedies for unlawful evictions in Federal emergency areas.
        Before we continue, I would first like to thank the
    Committee for its indulgence in putting up with the airlines
    flight delays, but we made it.
        I would like to remind Members we have established an email
    address and distribution list dedicated to circulating
    exhibits, motions, or other written materials that Members
    might want to offer as part of our hearing today. If you would
    like to submit materials, please send them to
    judiciarydocs@mail.house.gov, and we will have them distributed
    to Members and staff as quickly as we can.
        Finally, I ask all Members and Witnesses, both in person
    and those appearing remotely, to mute your microphones when you
    are not speaking. This will help prevent feedback and other
    technical issues. You may unmute yourself at any time you seek
    recognition, and, of course, those of you who are virtual can
    unmask yourself.
        For those in the room, I note--Mr. Johnson liked that one.
    For those in the room, I note that updated guidance from the
    Office of the Attending Physician provides that those who are
    fully vaccinated from COVID-19 do not need to wear masks or
    maintain social distancing. If you are not fully vaccinated,
    you are required to continue wearing a mask and maintain six
    feet of social distancing.
        I take it, Mr. Johnson has been fully vaccinated, and I
    welcome you to the club.
        I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss the issue of
    unlawful evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic and potential
    legislative remedies to address such unlawful evictions during
    national emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic has ravaged this
    country and the world, impacting people's health, jobs, and
    their daily activities.
        In the United States, millions of people have lost their
    jobs, experienced reduced income, and lost loved ones due to
    the novel coronavirus. For many of these people, the past year
    has been a struggle to put food on the table, pay their bills,
    and afford rent. These struggles have been especially
    pronounced in communities of color, which have been
    disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
        Even before the pandemic began, a lack of affordable
    housing and evictions had been long-standing issues. They have
    been long-standing issues in America forever.
        According to 2018 statistics, nearly half of all renter
    households were rental-cost burdened, paying more than 30
    percent of their income towards rent. On average, between 2000
    and 2016, more than 3.6 million eviction cases were filed in
    the U.S. per year.
        Early on in the pandemic, experts warned how the loss of
    jobs and income due to coronavirus public health measures could
    lead to an eviction crisis. In response, the Federal Government
    took action.
        Congress passed the CARES Act, which included an eviction
    moratorium. After that moratorium expired in the summer of
    2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an
    eviction moratorium, which has been extended several times,
    both legislatively and administratively, and is now slated to
    expire at the end of the month.
        While these moratoria were not perfect, they offered many
    people a reprieve and helped them stay in their apartments and
    houses during a time when the best thing we could do for our
    health and the health of others was to stay at home.
    Unfortunately, since these moratoria were put in place, there
    have been reports across the country of landlords engaging in
    unlawful evictions to circumvent them.
        These so-called self-help evictions could generally be
    defined as actions or courses of conduct by a landlord intended
    to oust the tenant without the benefit of a judicial
    proceeding. They can take many forms, from a landlord changing
    the locks on an apartment, or cutting utilities, to refusing to
    make essential repairs, or moving a tenant's furniture and
    belongings out of their apartment.
        Tenants facing these self-help evictions often have limited
    avenues for recourse, especially low-income tenants who do not
    have the resources to afford legal representation or fight that
    eviction in court.
        These actions by unscrupulous landlords to circumvent
    federal moratoria, which are meant to protect public health,
    are appalling and merit a response. That is why I introduced
    H.R. 1451, the Emergency Eviction Enforcement Act of 2021, to
    address self-help evictions during national emergencies.
        This bill would provide a private right of action in
    federal court against landlords for tenants who are evicted
    without duly issued court orders. Tenants would also have a
    right of action when the landlord threatens, harasses,
    intimidates, or creates a hostile environment for the tenant,
    or impairs the habitability of their home for the purpose of
    causing them to vacate the property.
        In addition to entitling successful plaintiffs to
    injunctive relief and repossession of the property, my bill
    would also entitle them to damages, which, in addition to
    repairing some of the damage done to the tenants by these
    unlawful evictions, would also help de-ter landlords from
    engaging in this unlawful conduct to begin with.
        If anything, one of the key lessons of the past year is the
    government was not adequately prepared to respond to a public
    health crisis. As we took to respond to the issue of unlawful
    evictions during the pandemic, it is important that we plan for
    the next pandemic or other national emergency.
        This is why my bill would apply not just to unlawful
    evictions occurring during the current national public
    emergency--health emergency, but also in any area declared by a
    President as a national emergency in the future under the
    National Emergencies Act, Public Health Services Act, or the
    Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
    Act.
        The loss of one's home can have a tremendous negative
    impact on a family, including on their safety, health, and
    ability to work. In the Western District of Tennessee, which
    includes my congressional district, we are already seeing the
    impact of legal evictions as the District Court in--for the
    Western District of Tennessee struck down this moratorium.
        Even in areas where the CDC moratorium is still in effect,
    unlawful evictions continue with limited recourse for the
    tenants who experience them. We owe it to the American people,
    who have suffered so much in the past year, to take action.
        Our Witnesses today will make clear how pervasive unlawful
    evictions are throughout the country during the current
    pandemic and the long-lasting impact these evictions can have,
    especially on low-income people and people of color, who were
    disproportionately impacted by both the pandemic and the
    eviction crisis.
        There are obviously economic effects, but there are
    emotional, psychological, unsettling effects, and ones that can
    follow children and people for years and years to come, being
    evicted from your house.
        I thank our Witnesses for joining us today, and I look
    forward to their testimony.
        It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of
    the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson,
    for his opening statement.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Chair Cohen.
        It will be no surprise that we have a bit of a disagreement
    about this subject.
        The Founding Fathers recognized that a right to property is
    a right that protects liberty itself. John Adams observed
    property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.
        In the Fifth Amendment, the Founders protected private
    property from government overreach, providing, quote, ``that no
    person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
    due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for
    public use without just compensation.''
        Indeed, private property is a principle that finds its
    roots all the way back into our Judeo-Christian traditions,
    beginning in the passages in the first books of the Old
    Testament. Yet, today, Americans' fundamental right to private
    property is under threat.
        Last summer, as rioters destroyed mom-and-pop stores in
    cities across America, some elected officials encouraged those
    individuals. For instance, Portland District Attorney Mike
    Schmidt dropped over 90 percent of riot- and protest- related
    offenses from the unrest last year and stated, quote,
    ``Sometimes it takes some property damage.'' He said, ``it
    takes more than just peaceful protests to get the government's
    attention,'' unquote.
        Here in Congress, somebody referred to the federal law
    enforcement officers who worked to stop the looting and
    destruction as, quote, ``stormtroopers,'' and even raised money
    to bail out rioters. One of our colleagues has gone so far as
    to urge citizens to, quote, ``get more confrontational,'' in
    the face of months of civil unrest.
        Now, the Democratic Party has in its sights apparently
    federalizing landlord tenant law, having landlords in my home
    State, Louisiana, be controlled by the same Federal dictates as
    those in New York City or Los Angeles during a national
    emergency.
        The COVID-19 pandemic posed serious threats to Americans'
    health and economic well-being, but one-size-fits-all mandates
    from Washington, DC, are not the way to address those concerns.
        Landlord-tenant law has long been the domain of states
    because it arises from each state's own common-law traditions.
    Each State should remain free to determine those questions,
    like how and when a landlord can evict a tenant who poses a
    danger to him or the community, a tenant who has been
    delinquent on their rent for a certain period of time, or a
    tenant who has broken other terms of their lease.
        Most of all, the pandemic is now receding, and Americans
    across the country are returning to their normal lives. We
    should be looking forward and not using a past threat to impose
    onerous policies for the future.
        The Democrats' policies are reckless in this regard. They
    are spending Americans' hard-earned money, and causing
    inflation across the economy, especially on the price of
    household's goods. Each dollar spent by ordinary families now
    buys less than it did just six months ago.
        Democrats keep extending the enhanced unemployment
    benefits, incentivizing Americans not to work while millions of
    good-paying jobs are unfulfilled.
        Democrats are catering to teachers' unions. They are
    keeping schools closed and forcing many parents out of the
    workforce to stay home and care for their children. It is no
    wonder Americans are moving out of Democrat-run cities to safer
    and freer States.
        The Democrat policies are defunding the police and catering
    to tone-deaf teachers' unions and closing schools and shutting
    down churches, while tattoo parlors are able to operate down
    the street, ignoring homelessness and imposing ever-increasing
    taxes. These are all the reasons many Americans are leaving
    cities like San Francisco, New York City, and Chicago.
        California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and Illinois,
    all historically Democrat-run, lost a combined four million
    residents since 2010. That Census data accounts for this exodus
    before the pandemic, further exposed these cities for being so
    poorly run.
        How about Democrats do what is right for the American
    people. Why don't we open the schools? Why don't we tamp down
    on unnecessary spending and get Americans back to work? These
    ill-advised policies are weighing down an American economy
    trying to rebound from the global pandemic. It is time for
    America to get back to work.
        For those who are still unable to return, there are ample
    Federal and State resources to assist in housing costs. Now,
    paying, law-abiding tenant should ever be thrown out without
    legal recourse. The contract between a tenant and a landowner
    must be honored, and State courts should be quick to reconcile
    any breaches of these contracts.
        Our responsibility in Congress is not to hand out free
    housing. It is to protect private property rights of every
    single American. This fundamental principle is a cornerstone of
    our country, and it has served as the bedrock of fostering the
    greatest economy the world has ever seen. I hope that this
    hearing today makes that clear.
        I thank the Chair, and I yield back.
        Ms. Ross. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
        We welcome our Witnesses and thank them for participating
    in today's hearing.
        I will now introduce each of the Witnesses and, after each
    introduction, will recognize that Witness for his or her oral
    testimony.
        Please note that each of your written statements will be
    entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask
    that you summarize your testimony in five minutes.
        To help you stay within that time, for our Witnesses
    testifying in person, there is a timing light on your table.
    When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one
    minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it
    signals your five minutes have expired.
        For our Witnesses testifying remotely, there is a timer in
    the Zoom view that should be visible at the bottom of your
    screen.
        Before proceeding with testimony, I would like to remind
    all our Witnesses that you have a legal obligation to provide
    truthful testimony and answers to this Subcommittee and that
    any false statement you make today may subject you to
    prosecution under section 1001 of title 18 of the United States
    Code.
        Our first Witness is Hilary Shelton.
        Mr. Shelton is director of the NAACP's Washington Bureau,
    and its senior vice President for advocacy and policy. Mr.
    Shelton is responsible for advocating the Federal public policy
    issue agenda of the oldest, largest, and most widely recognized
    civil rights organization in the United States.
        Mr. Shelton's government affairs portfolio includes
    critical--crucial issues, such as affirmative action; equal
    employment protection; access to quality education; stopping
    gun violence; ending racial profiling; abolition of the death
    penalty; access to comprehensive healthcare; voter rights
    protection; Federal sentencing reform; and a host of civil
    rights enforcement, expansion, and protection issues. He is
    very busy.
        Mr. Shelton holds degrees in political science from Howard
    University, in communications from the University of Missouri
    in St. Louis, and legal studies from Northeastern University.
        Mr. Shelton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF HILARY O. SHELTON

        Mr. Shelton. Thank you very much, and good afternoon.
        I want to say good afternoon to Chair Cohen, Ranking Member
    Johnson, and esteemed Members of the Subcommittee.
        I would also like to thank you for inviting me here today
    to discuss a pressing topic as we fight against the unlawful
    evictions of tenants taking place even during the middle of a
    national health emergency.
        This issue is especially concerning to the NAACP. As you
    mentioned, the NAACP is an over 100-year-old organization that
    has focused on these issues as part of a movement for decades
    upon decades.
        As you are aware, the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic
    crisis that followed had a direct and negative impact on many
    Americans in several aspects of their lives, whether it be on
    their physical, mental health well-being, education
    opportunities, or financial situations. For those already in
    economic distress, those living paycheck to paycheck,
    struggling to afford rent and pay bills, the pandemic
    exacerbated an already dire situation.
        The severe lack of affordable housing in this country, and
    the high rate of evictions among people of color long preceded
    the COVID-19 pandemic. This crisis has brought this issue to
    the forefront of the national conscience and shined a light on
    the pain many individuals and families are experiencing right
    now and have experienced for decades.
        Now, I don't want to get into a debate over whose pain
    hurts more. However, during all this, a common theme that we
    see in this country has been made evident once again. Whenever
    America goes through a storm, African Americans and communities
    of color are hit the hardest.
        As the country locked down and economic activity slowed,
    millions lost their jobs and their only means to pay for the
    basics, like housing and food. So, as we saw hospitals fill up
    with sick Americans, we also saw, and still see today,
    thousands upon thousands of individuals and families forced out
    of their homes because they can no longer pay rent.
        In light of the massive wave of evictions and the potential
    for millions more due to the course of the pandemic, and the
    slow economic recovery, the Federal government stepped up and
    implemented a moratorium on evictions to provide much-needed
    temporary relief for families in distress.
        Though this moratorium was a necessary step to cushion the
    cushioning blow--crucial blow of American families, that can
    only be looked at as a Band-Aid solution at best. Despite its
    good, this wall of protection is slowly crumbling as a Federal
    district court in Memphis, Tennessee, recently ruled in favor
    of the landlords and allowed evictions to proceed.
        These self-help evictions, where landlords take it upon
    themselves in circumventing the eviction moratoriums to remove
    tenants from their dwellings, are displacing already vulnerable
    families, and once again, disproportionately hurting people of
    color throughout the country.
        Even as this country begins to get back onto its feet, we
    see the economy start to grow again, millions of families are
    still in dire financial circumstances and need the time and
    support to recover from the hardship of the past year.
        As long as these moratoriums are in place, tenants should
    remain temporarily protected from the fear of becoming homeless
    and thrown even more deeply into the spiral of poverty.
        This is why Congress must fight to ensure that eviction
    moratoriums put in place due to a public health emergency are
    not being ignored by landlords who are eager to get back to
    business as usual. That is why I am here today, to show our
    strong support and advocate wholeheartedly for H.R. 1451, the
    Emergency Eviction Enforcement Act of 2021.
        This bill will go a long way towards providing tenants the
    protections and level playing field that they deserve when they
    are in dispute with their landlords. Landlords will no longer
    be able to ignore eviction moratoriums or try to create hostile
    environments to push tenants off their property.
        To understand the potential impact of this bill, you only
    need to look at the crisis taking place in Congressman Cohen's
    home district in Memphis, Tennessee. Though a federal order
    will protect Americans from evictions until July, at least in
    word, the reality on the ground right now is much different
    since a Federal court essentially invalidated the moratorium on
    evictions.
        As local and national restrictions on evictions begin to
    ease, thousands will be forced from their homes and into
    distress, especially African American renters, whom we know are
    more likely to face eviction compared to their White
    counterparts.
        So, with that, let me close for now, but look forward to
    questions. The challenge is here for us in recognizing that
    different things hit different communities in different ways,
    and, even as we go to look to find new jobs and new
    opportunities, African Americans are finding the time between
    leaving one job and going to another is usually twice or longer
    than it is for most other Americans.
        Listen, I thank you very much and look forward to your
    questions.
        [The statement of Mr. Shelton follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Cohen. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Shelton.
        The NAACP has often been known as the conscience of the
    country, and you are the voice of that conscience. Thank you so
    much.
        Our next Witness is Cindy Cole Ettingoff. Ms. Ettingoff is
    the CEO and general counsel for Memphis Area Legal Services,
    Incorporated. She is involved in the Tennessee Statewide task
    force focusing on housing, unemployment, and access to justice.
        Prior to joining Legal Services, she practiced in the areas
    of labor and employment law, representing employers, employees,
    and unions in OSHA, Wage and Hour, National Labor Relations
    Act, title VII, FMLA, ADA, ADEA, and other employment law
    matters.
        Ms. Ettingoff is a commissioner on the Tennessee
    Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission, past Chair of the
    Tennessee Bar Association Dispute Resolution Section, current
    President of the Tennessee Association of Professional
    Mediators, and is the representative of the heralded Memphis
    Area Legal Services, founded by Mike Cody and others.
        Ms. Ettingoff earned her J.D. degree from the University of
    Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law and has an M.S. in
    cell biology and B.S. in microbiology from the University of
    Memphis.
        Ms. Ettingoff, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF CINDY ETTINGOFF

        Ms. Ettingoff. Thank you.
        I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you
    today, and, of course, you mentioned Memphis Area Legal
    Services, MALS, to those of us. It is an LLC-funded nonprofit
    law firm that provides pro bono legal services primarily for
    individuals with low income or no income.
        MALS also offers services through the Memphis Fair Housing
    Center Program, which we administer, and that program serves to
    increase homeownership opportunities; promote decent,
    affordable housing; and ensure equal opportunity in housing.
    All that to say MALS has a great deal of experience in the area
    of housing, particularly when it comes to lawful and unlawful
    evictions.
        Now, as Mr. Shelton mentioned, while COVID-19 was stressful
    for everyone, it was and still is a nightmare for poor people.
    It has been an even greater nightmare for poor people of color.
    It has been said that when America catches a cold, Black
    America catches pneumonia, and that has certainly been the
    experience of many of our clients.
        As a result of COVID, many of our clients lost jobs. Many,
    if not most of our clients, live paycheck to paycheck. As a
    result, when job loss occurred, they had no reserves that would
    have enabled them to continue to pay rent.
        Now, while some employees are being asked to return to
    work, not all are, and many of them are being asked to return
    to the same job for less pay. So, the underlying economic
    problems that exacerbated the COVID-generated eviction
    emergency continue.
        We are aware, of course, that the CARES Act eviction
    moratorium and the CDC eviction moratoria were intended to
    prevent the eviction of citizens who were unable to pay their
    rent due to COVID-19. Despite those moratoria, the last 14
    months, MALS has continued to receive calls from individuals
    who are being threatened with unlawful eviction, or who had
    actually already been unlawfully evicted.
        Existing laws provide that if an eviction is unlawful, the
    tenant has the right to bring a legal action, but the right to
    bring an action is not at all the same thing as the ability to
    bring a legal action.
        Landlords well know that if a tenant did not have money to
    pay rent, they are unlikely to have funds to pay for legal
    representation. Those tenants frequently turn to MALS and other
    legal aid organizations.
        In fact, during the moratorium, MALS received approximately
    1,200 requests for legal assistance that involved evictions,
    and MALS takes as many of those cases as it can, certainly. Of
    course, with results of high demand in staffing limits, there
    are times when clients must be turned away.
        National statistics reflect that 91 percent of landlords
    are represented by counsel, while less than four percent of
    tenants are represented by counsel. Clearly there is an
    imbalance of access to justice.
        So, that leaves us with the question of how do we level the
    playing field to prevent unlawful evictions during national
    emergencies, such as the COVID pandemic? What might be the best
    remedy for unlawful evictions?
        In my opinion, the best remedy for unlawful evictions is
    for the evictions to never occur, and that requires deterrence.
    To deter unlawful evictions, it is my belief that the penalty
    for engaging in the unlawful conduct has to exceed the monetary
    benefits of the content, and that is what H.R. Bill 1451 may
    well do. It may Act as a deterrent and may thereby prevent
    unlawful evictions.
        Unlawful evictions cause so much harm to our communities
    and to the future of our communities through our children. To
    stop unlawful evictions, particularly during national
    emergencies, a message must be sent to those landlords who
    understand and exploit the imbalance of power between those who
    can afford to fight against injustice, and tenants who cannot.
    The threat of treble damages is certainly one of those messages
    that can be sent, and it is a very clear message.
        Now, I assure you that there is a need for such deterrence,
    and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you here today.
    I am happy to answer any questions. I look forward to them here
    shortly.
        [The statement of Ms. Ettingoff follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Ettingoff, and go Tigers.
        Our third Witness is Joel Griffith. Mr. Griffith is a
    research fellow at the Institute for Economic Freedom and
    Opportunity of the Heritage Foundation.
        Previously, he worked as a researcher for a former member
    of The Wall Street Journal editorial board and was Deputy
    Research Director of the National Association of Counties, also
    known as NACo. He also was director of the Center for State
    Fiscal Reform at the American Legislative Exchange Council,
    also known as ALEC.
        Mr. Griffith received his J.D. from Chapman University Dale
    E. Fowler School of Law with a dual emphasis in alternative
    dispute resolution and federal income taxation. He received a
    B.S. from Pensacola Christian College.
        Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF JOEL GRIFFITH

        Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Chair Cohen, Vice-Chair Ross,
    Ranking Member Johnson, and other Members of the Committee, for
    the opportunity to testify today. My name is Joel Griffith, and
    I am a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
        This testimony will focus on eviction moratoria, along with
    a proposed private cause of action in Federal courts for
    wrongful eviction.
        The eviction moratoria of the past year unfairly burdened
    property owners. With the cost of societal shutdowns, they
    create unintended consequences, and they implicate serious
    illegal and constitutional concerns.
        Last year, for the first time in our Nation's history,
    State and local governments intentionally suppressed and
    criminalized entire swaths of economic activity. The eviction
    moratoria, whether implemented by Federal, State, or local
    governments, forced property owners to subsidize these
    destructive shutdowns, and enabled politicians to shirk
    responsibility.
        Keep in mind, by December of 2020, the 10 States with the
    fewest economic restrictions in place averaged far lower
    unemployment than those States with draconian restrictions.
    Economic conditions varied widely State to State. Just compare
    Florida to New York.
        Property owners in those States which are shut down should
    not be forced to subsidize those State and local politicians
    that are choosing to shutter these businesses, close schools,
    and ruin livelihoods. Regardless of the intended beneficiaries
    of moratoria, these eviction moratoria allowed many, who are
    not even impacted financially, to live rent free throughout the
    past year.
        Data from the National Multifamily Housing Council showed
    only a minimal increase of 2.2 percentage points in late rental
    payments in July 2020 versus July 2019. Despite the relatively
    small increase in the number of people that were making their
    rental payments late, many local governments chose to
    preemptively issue moratoria on evictions throughout the entire
    pandemic.
        The near complete eradication of evictions, coinciding with
    only a slight rise in those making delinquent rent payments,
    strongly suggests that this moratorium allowed many, who were
    neither impacted by COVID-19, nor experiencing financial
    hardship, to live rent free with no immediate personal
    consequences.
        These eviction moratoria produce harmful ripple effects.
    Landlords may need to increase rents to mitigate the heightened
    risk of future moratoria, prospective renters may find
    themselves subject to increased security deposits and tighter
    credit checks, and, ultimately, fewer affordable housing units
    might be constructed.
        Quality of life for other tenants is impacted as well as
    landlords are unable to evict many tenants for disorderly
    conduct, illegal drug use, and criminal activity.
        Moratoria also invoke serious constitutional and legal
    concerns. They often violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth
    and the 14th Amendments, along with the contract clause.
    Without a doubt, the CDC's ban on eviction proceedings was
    unlawful, because it exceeded its congressional mandate.
        The Executive Order last year prohibiting landlords from
    using the court system to evict tenants until the end of the
    year was predicated on the Public Health Services Act, which
    authorizes regulations necessary to prevent the introduction,
    transmission, or spread of communicable diseases. Examples of
    congressionally authorized actions that were actually listed in
    the Act come nowhere close to including eviction moratoria.
    Even the order itself shows that this ban was meant as an
    economic relief measure, not a tool to protect the public from
    the spread of disease.
        In short, both the CDC action itself, the eviction
    moratorium, and the intent to counter the economic impact
    rather than the health impact of COVID-19, violated the express
    will of Congress. Even if Congress had authorized the CDC to
    enact an eviction moratorium, such authorization itself would
    have been unconstitutional.
        Congress can only delegate to the Executive Branch the
    powers granted to it by the Constitution, and the Commerce
    Clause, upon which the CDC powers are based, does not provide a
    basis for Congress to prohibit citizens from seeking legal
    recourse in State courts for enforcement of contract
    provisions.
        All regulations enacted under the Commerce Clause require
    that the regulation itself must be necessary and proper for
    carrying into execution the powers granted to it by Congress.
    Denying landlords access to State courts to enforce eviction
    law is not a proper use of Federal government power, even if
    the eviction process itself were economic in nature.
        Banning access to State courts, forbidding a State court
    from exercising its lawful jurisdiction is an abuse of Federal
    power. In fact, such a ban on access in courts is itself a
    violation of the First amendment of our Constitution, which
    guarantees that we have the right to petition the government
    for redress of grievances, and this includes the right to
    request the court to issue an order for eviction.
        I thank you again for inviting me today, and I look forward
    to your questions.
        [The statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Griffith.
        Our final Witness is Katy Ramsey Mason.
        Ms. Mason is an assistant professor of law and director of
    the Medical-Legal Partnership Clinic at the University of
    Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law, from which I received
    my degree as well.
        Prior to joining the Memphis law faculty in 2018, she was a
    visiting associate professor of clinical law and Freedman
    Fellow with the George Washington University Law School.
        From 2011-2015, she was an Equal Justice Works AmeriCorps
    legal fellow and housing attorney at Lenox Hill Neighborhood
    House in New York City, where she represented low-income
    tenants and families in eviction cases and other housing-
    related matters.
        Her scholarship focused on landlord-tenant law, eviction
    court process, poverty law. Her recent work has appeared in the
    UCLA Law Review and the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law
    and Public Policy.
        She received her J.D. and M.A. in Latin American studies
    from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and her B.A. from
    Middlebury College.
        Professor Ramsey Mason, you are recognized for five
    minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF KATY RAMSEY MASON

        Ms. Ramsey Mason. Thank you. Good afternoon.
        I thank Chair Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, and the
    Members of the Committee for inviting me to speak this
    afternoon.
        My name is Katy Ramsey Mason. I am an assistant professor
    of law and director of the Medical-Legal Partnership Clinic at
    the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law. Go
    Tigers.
        I have represented low-income tenants facing eviction in
    Wisconsin, New York, and Tennessee. As Chair Cohen mentioned,
    my scholarship focuses on landlord-tenant law, the eviction
    court process, and poverty law.
        Since the COVID-19 pandemic began in March of 2020,
    millions of Americans, many of them low-income people of color,
    have been put at risk of eviction due to nonpayment of rent as
    a result of the devastating financial impacts of the pandemic.
        Recent estimates suggest that around 11 million Americans
    are behind on rental payments despite millions of dollars of
    Federal funding that has been allocated through the pandemic
    stimulus bills.
        Early on in this crisis, government at all levels--local,
    State, and Federal--recognized the severe risks of spreading
    COVID-19 that were associated with housing displacement and
    imposed various restrictions and moratoria on eviction.
        Unfortunately, illegal evictions, where landlords take the
    law into their own hands to drive out tenants from rental
    properties, are an ongoing problem. The issue is particularly
    serious during a time of national emergency, like the COVID-19
    pandemic, when displaced and homeless people are especially
    vulnerable to contracting and spreading the virus. It is
    critical that Congress Act to address this problem, and
    proposed bill H.R. 1451 will provide important protections for
    tenants at risk of being illegally evicted.
        Even though self-help evictions are illegal in every State,
    they, nonetheless, continue to happen with regularity. All
    States have a judicial process in place to govern evictions,
    but research from leading eviction scholar, Matthew Desmond of
    Princeton, suggests that nearly half of all evictions take
    place informally outside of the judicial system. Many of these
    informal evictions fall into the illegal self-help category.
        During the pandemic, the problem of illegal evictions has
    been exacerbated. In June 2020, 91 percent of legal aid
    attorneys across the country who were surveyed by the National
    Housing Law Project, reported illegal evictions in their areas.
        While most States do allow tenants to sue landlords who
    have engaged in illegal self-help, proposed bill H.R. 1451 is
    not duplicative of existing remedies. It would be an important
    addition to tenant protection measures that have not always
    allowed for effective relief.
        First, H.R. 1451 is intended to apply only during times of
    federally declared emergencies, such as the COVID pandemic. The
    definition of illegal self-help, and the available remedies,
    can vary significantly from State to State, and this bill
    provides uniformity and clarity as to what constitutes illegal
    behavior, and what relief is available to people who are
    affected.
        Second, H.R. 1451 provides multiple mechanisms for
    enforcement, which is an important improvement over previous
    Federal tenant protection efforts, including the CARES Act
    eviction moratorium and the CDC's order that has halted many
    residential evictions.
        H.R. 1451 provides both a private right of action for
    tenants who have been illegally evicted during a national
    emergency, and also allows the United States Attorney General
    to bring causes of action against violators of the law. This
    will go far toward making the law effective in its purpose.
    Compliance will be encouraged, bad actors will be deterred, and
    people who are evicted during emergency times will have a
    better chance of obtaining the relief that they are entitled
    to.
        Finally, congressional action on this issue is necessary to
    provide effective protection to vulnerable tenants during times
    of crisis. The most comprehensive set of protections for
    tenants during the current pandemic came not from Congress, but
    from the CDC. That order has been vulnerable to legal
    challenges, something we have felt acutely here in Memphis.
        We are currently the only jurisdiction in the country where
    the CDC's order is unenforceable, and our low-income tenants
    have paid the price. Congressional action, as opposed to agency
    action, would have forestalled many of the claims being brought
    in the Federal lawsuits against the CDC's order, and provided
    stability and clarity to the tenants it is intended to protect.
        I thank you for your time this afternoon, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Ramsey Mason follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Professor.
        We will now proceed to the five-minute Rule with questions,
    and I will recognize myself for five minutes.
        Mr. Shelton, Mr. Johnson rightfully said in his opening
    statement that traditionally, landlord-tenant law is determined
    by the States. The Federal government, of course, has gotten
    into certain issues in the Federal Housing Act, which addressed
    discrimination in housing.
        Why is it that, during a national pandemic, as this bill
    attempts to do, that the Federal government should be the
    appropriate sponsor of legislation and passer of legislation to
    protect people who are affected by a national emergency, and
    particularly African Americans who are, as I think somebody
    said, the cold and the flu are the pneumonia--the folks who get
    the pneumonia?
        Mr. Shelton. Thank you very much.
        There are a number of reasons. First, of course, when we
    think about a pandemic, it is not something that just impacts
    people in a local jurisdiction or a particular State. We are
    talking about something that has impacted people throughout the
    United States and outside the United States, throughout the
    world as well.
        As such, we look forward to our Federal Government being
    able to address issues and challenges along these lines, and
    that is why the Centers for Disease Control is given the kind
    of power and authority it is as we see how, when a disease like
    this pandemic hit, it doesn't limit itself to a certain city.
    It doesn't limit itself to State lines, as most of our
    Federalist laws are crafted to address. It expands itself cross
    State lines, other lines and so forth, to create the damage we
    are seeing.
        As you know, even as our President is visiting other
    countries in Europe, he recognizes that the impact of the
    coronavirus is something that is hitting in very different
    ways. The discussions going on in Britain and otherwise is
    showing new strains that have created a new set of problems,
    again, that are much broader and more severe than something in
    a local community or neighborhood.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Shelton.
        Ms. Ettingoff, who gave me the cold and pneumonia story,
    you have worked with people in the vineyards to--and worked
    there with people on the ground in Memphis concerning
    evictions. What impacts can evictions have on tenants beyond
    just the loss of the current housing, and what does the loss of
    their current housing do to a person's self-esteem, children's
    self-esteem, and possibly, even during a pandemic, more
    importantly during a pandemic, can it cause them to be more
    vulnerable to disease and spreaders?
        Ms. Ettingoff. Thank you, Mr. Cohen.
        Absolutely. Loss of housing means you are additionally set
    back. Not only are you in a situation where you are unable to
    pay your housing, your rental fee, but you had at least your
    belongings. Your child had their Lovey. Your child had their
    schoolbooks. Your child had their clothes or their shoes.
        To come home and find those belongings either sitting at
    the street, or more likely, gone, taken, can be an absolute
    trauma for a child. Then the next situation is where is the
    child and the parent going to live? Are they going to have to
    split up children? Are they going to have to live in the car?
    Are they going to move from spot to spot?
        It affects children's education because, even though--and I
    know that there is a bill that prohibits it, in Tennessee, we
    are still having a little difficulty with the notion that you
    do not have to have a permanent address to register for school.
    We are still kind of fighting that one on some days, and I am
    sure that is true in other places as well.
        So, what that means is, children are missing school. They
    are missing school because they don't have their schoolbooks or
    they don't have their clothes, or they didn't sleep the night
    before because they were afraid to go to sleep.
        So, as a result, you have got sort of an educational
    background setback. In addition, wherever those children may
    land may or may not be safe. There may be violence. There may
    be health issues.
        So, for those reasons, it is very, very much more than just
    losing the apartment that you were living in.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Ettingoff.
        Thank you. Thank you.
        Ms. Ramsey Mason, tell us specifically why you think
    Congress needs to Act to address unlawful evictions during
    national emergencies, why it is distinguished from the
    traditional Rule of law, which is that it is up to the States,
    but that why the national emergencies, should we look outside
    of the traditional States, and how tenants experiencing
    unlawful evictions, how would they benefit from access to
    Federal courts?
        Ms. Ramsey Mason. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. I will try to keep
    my answer brief.
        Congress should act, because Congress has acted in many
    other capacities during the pandemic to address some of the
    worst impacts that the country has seen as a whole in the last
    14 months, and evictions are no different. Evictions, in fact,
    as Ms. Ettingoff pointed out, have consequences that go far
    beyond just the legal process, and can impact people for years
    to come.
        It is entirely appropriate for Congress to Act in this
    situation, in the same way that Congress has mandated mask
    requirements, in the same way that Congress has provided
    financial relief to businesses, to people facing unemployment,
    to people at risk of not being able to pay their mortgages.
    Tenants should be treated the same way.
        As I pointed out in my testimony, the fact that Congress
    did not Act with regard to an eviction moratorium after the
    CARES Act moratorium expired has been to the detriment of low-
    income tenants.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much. My time has expired, and I
    recognize Mr. Johnson for five minutes.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Griffith, thanks for being here in person. I appreciate
    you making the trip all the way from Miami. I think you get the
    credit for coming the furthest.
        There is an inclination right now among many of our
    Democrat colleagues in Congress to Federalize everything, not
    just housing with legislation like H.R. 1451, but we see it
    with voting and policing and many other issues.
        Let's talk about housing. Can you discuss the importance of
    housing law remaining at the State and local levels, rather
    than a Federal one-size-fits-all issue? I know you talked about
    it a little bit in your opening, but maybe elaborate a little
    bit more.
        Why is it better, in your view, for eviction policies to be
    decided on the local level?
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you for your question.
        Well, it is very basic--on a very basic level, Congress,
    any time they enact legislation, need to ask is this
    constitutionally authorized? At its very basic level, as we
    discussed earlier, this is not a proper exercise of Federal
    power because the Federal government does not have a role in
    determining what State law is on local housing policy, but
    whether or not it is a proper use of government power. We can
    talk about the practical application of that.
        So, even if it were constitutional for Congress to be
    involved, when we are talking about housing policy, it is best
    for it to be decided at the local level because it is the best
    way in which to actually hold local political leaders
    accountable for the decisions they make.
        So, for instance, if the eviction law does not reasonably
    protect tenants, then the general citizens--citizenry can
    actually lobby their local politicians to change the law, to
    make it more difficult to evict, to change the law. When it
    comes to a situation that we saw in the past year, where we did
    see so many people in dire economic straits, oftentimes not
    because of the pandemic itself but because of the shutdowns
    itself, it actually allows people to hold those politicians
    accountable, because, if you are feeling the impact of the
    economic strain that is caused by a shutdown, then you are able
    to go directly to those political leaders and request that
    things be changed.
        When you Federalize this, you diminish that accountability,
    and eliminate that responsibility that local politicians should
    have.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is a great summary. Let me
    ask you, too, we are also worried about overreach in
    legislation like this. So, what could an effect of H.R. 1451 be
    in terms of--let's just say by way of example, Biden
    Administration declares some sort of noncrisis and national
    emergency. Let's say, if this bill were to become law, could
    President Biden, for example, declare climate change a public
    health emergency, and then, therefore, effectively prevent
    landlords from evicting nonpaying tenants from their property?
        Mr. Griffith. That could be a very valid concern. If you
    look at the manner in which this emergency--the National
    Emergency Declaration was put into effect, it was very vague,
    just the enactment itself.
        So, if we can do that for this purpose of declaring--saying
    there is a pandemic and putting a National Emergency in place
    to take all these economic actions, the precedent would indeed
    be set to have the executive branch trump the Legislative
    Branch and begin enacting regulations under the guise of such
    an emergency.
        That is exactly what we saw happen over the past year with
    the CDC guidelines, putting in place economic restrictions that
    had nothing to actually do with the health crisis, but were, in
    effect, trying to curry political favor.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. If we open that Pandora's box--
    you mentioned briefly in your opening--the effect that might
    have on landlords, especially mom-and-pop landlords, what might
    they do in anticipation of any future moratoria?
        Mr. Griffith. Well, if the Federal government has the
    ability to bring a cause of action against these private
    landlords, that, in many instances, will quell their ability to
    actually move through and protecting their private property
    rights, because, even if they are in the right, when you, as a
    private landlord, especially a mom-and-pop landlord, are up
    against the power and the funding of the Federal government,
    the attorneys' fees themselves could put you out of business.
    That would be a danger.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Because I have talked to
    landlords in my district back home, who are deeply concerned
    about this, and their own families were affected because their
    income levels were shut off, and, so, their own families are
    going hungry at the same time that all these other crises are
    going on.
        So, the question is: Wouldn't some people, mom and pops in
    particular, just get out of the business, stop offering these
    places for rent, especially for low-income housing units? Then,
    also, wouldn't those who are still in it raise their rents,
    because they would have to cover the risks, right?
        Mr. Griffith. Yeah. If you are a smaller real estate
    investor with several properties that you have accumulated to
    prepare for retirement, for instance, the risk that just one
    of, say, three of those units might end up in an extended case
    of somebody unlawfully possessing that property, that could put
    you out of business. Like, if you are a larger management
    company with hundreds of properties, you can spread that risk
    across.
        This will, because of that, threaten to further concentrate
    this ownership in the hands of these larger management
    companies to the detriment of those that are looking to have a
    secure retirement by responsibly acting throughout their
    careers and purchasing two or three of these units to help them
    to retirement.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Also, reduce the availability of
    low-income housing.
        I yield back my time. Thank you.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I know you, like me, are
    available to constituents at all moments of the day, and it
    would take many, many public servants to equal your efforts.
        Ms. Ross, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the
    Witnesses for joining us today.
        I just want to remind my colleagues that this hearing is on
    self-help evictions that are illegal under the law, and that we
    have heard testimony about these types of evictions that have
    happened both before the pandemic, and during the pandemic, and
    are likely to happen after the pandemic.
        As we are talking about the pandemic right now, we know
    that millions of Americans have struggled with homelessness
    during the pandemic, and millions more are at risk of eviction
    when the federal and State eviction moratoria expire.
        People who are chronically homeless and housing insecure
    are at substantially higher risk of poor health, as a lack of
    stable housing, can result in disruptions to employment, social
    networks, education, and the receipt of social services
    benefits. In short, the pandemic exacerbated issues that
    already were occurring.
        Despite local, State, and Federal eviction moratoria, some
    landlords have engaged in these self-help evictions,
    nonetheless. In my State of North Carolina, nearly 71,000
    evictions were filed between March 2020 and February 2021.
        A constituent from my district lost her job during the
    pandemic, and she and her baby girl were evicted from their
    home just before Christmas, because they were $380 short on
    rent. They didn't know where to go, and they didn't know about
    the eviction moratorium.
        Another constituent and her two children were evicted from
    their home despite being up to date on rent and providing the
    landlord with a CDC declaration form temporarily halting
    residential evictions. However, their lease was up, and their
    landlord refused to offer renewal.
        This is a reality that Americans across the country are
    facing, and, as I said, were facing before the pandemic.
        My first question is for Professor Ramsey Mason. Despite
    being illegal in all 50 States, self-help evictions persist.
    Can you tell us why?
        Ms. Ramsey Mason. Thank you, Representative Ross.
        I think the short answer is because it is easier and
    because there is not, in many States, appropriate deterrent for
    landlords who seek to engage in self-help. Self-help can take
    many forms, as H.R. 1451 contemplates. It can be something as
    extreme as a landlord hiring a team of private security guards,
    showing up at a tenant's home and forcibly removing the tenant
    and his or her belongings from the property.
        It can include changing the locks while the tenant is away
    from home at the grocery store, at work, picking up kids from
    daycare, whatever the case may be. It can also include things
    like calling the utility company and asking for the electricity
    and the gas and the water to be shut off, or simply threatening
    a tenant to the point that they actually choose to leave the
    property because they feel unsafe.
        All those are situations that we hear about; that we, as
    you pointed out, have heard about prior to the pandemic, during
    the pandemic, and, unfortunately, I am sure will continue to
    happen as the pandemic ends.
        While every State does allow tenants who have been
    illegally affected, or evicted to sue their landlord
    proactively to claim damages. On a practical standpoint, for
    many tenants, that is simply not possible. I mean, tenants are
    experiencing a number of crises in the aftermath of an
    eviction, and going to court, or finding a lawyer, going to
    court, filing a lawsuit, is oftentimes--
        Ms. Ross. I am going to have to stop you there, because you
    are leading into my next question for--which is for both you
    and Ms. Ettingoff, and I would like Ms. Ettingoff to go first
    with whatever time I have remaining.
        Is part of this problem due to the fact that legal services
    aid has been cut so much, and there is a reluctance to set up,
    fund legal services attorneys?
        Ms. Ettingoff. Well, it certainly doesn't help things.
    Let's put it that way. I think I mentioned that the demands far
    exceed what we have in the way of staffing, so that is
    certainly true from that perspective.
        I think that, as Professor Ramsey Mason was about to say, I
    believe that because we cannot train people really well enough
    to represent themselves, they don't have the ability to go down
    to General Sessions, and they don't know the rules of evidence,
    and they are merely in a position where they are at someone's
    mercy--the landlord's mercy, unless legal services can assist
    them, because they are not going to be in a position where they
    can use what little money they have got that has to go for food
    or new housing, to divert that money towards paid legal
    services.
        Ms. Ross. Oh, the Chair has told me that we can also have
    Ms. Mason respond.
        Ms. Ramsey Mason. Thank you.
        I am not familiar with the intricacies of legal services
    funding. However, I do know that having attorneys for tenants
    is an incredibly important aspect to preventing illegal
    eviction, because, if tenants are represented and are able to
    successfully bring claims in court, it will Act as a deterrent
    to future bad actors, and it will also empower other tenants to
    assert claims that are valid in that situation.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
        There is hope on the way--help on the way. We have a letter
    urging more funding for legal services. In the past, I was
    joined by Mr. Kennedy from Massachusetts, and this year's Mr.
    Fitzpatrick, Mr. Upton, Mr. Emmer, Ms. Dingell, and Ms. Scanlon
    has been phenomenal, all as co-leads on the letter, and
    everybody is welcome. So, hopefully that will happen.
        Ms. Fischbach, you are on the video, I guess. There you
    are. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you. I have no
    jokes--
        Ms. Fischbach. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Cohen. I have no jokes today.
        Ms. Fischbach. Oh, no jokes? Okay.
        Mr. Cohen. No jokes.
        Ms. Fischbach. Well, I appreciate that.
        I am just very concerned. I obviously rent a--represent a
    very rural district, and I am very concerned about the effect
    of this on what is a tight housing market, and so, I am
    wondering, Mr. Griffith, if you could--I know you talked a
    little bit about it with Mr. Johnson, but maybe you could
    expand a little bit of the effects on those small landlords.
        In addition to that, maybe expanding into what it is going
    to do to the availability. We are looking at a tight market in
    rural Minnesota, and I am wondering if you have any thoughts on
    how it would affect this legislation would affect the
    availability?
        Mr. Griffith. Yep. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Well, if we think about what actually happened this past
    year, for the first time in our Nation's history, we actually
    criminalized landlords, property owners, who wanted to simply
    avail themselves of legal protections. This was a complete
    violation of that First Amendment, guaranteed right to access
    the courts to enforce basic contract law.
        The Executive Branch went a step beyond, and actually
    criminalized any State court that would choose to actually
    enforce their own laws. This has not happened before in the
    history of the United States. This should be troubling to
    anyone who cares about the Rule of law.
        If you are a landlord, especially a small landlord, now you
    have to go into every contractual arrangement with a new tenant
    with the understanding that, for a future national emergency,
    that the executive branch may put a moratorium on your ability
    to actually take hold of your constitutional right to enforce
    the contract that you have made with someone else.
        That is going to cause severe reluctance on the part of
    landlords, and this will impact affordable housing on top of
    it. I think the primary concern here should be the assault that
    we saw on the basic Rule of law and basic private property
    rights.
        Ms. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that.
        Again, I will just express I have real concerns, because,
    as I have traveled across my district, the one thing that
    people are talking about is there is just a huge need for more
    housing. When we have landlords who are willing to do that and
    put their money on the line to provide housing, rental housing
    for folks, we are just causing them more headache. I think that
    it will--I think Mr. Griffith is right. It will--it will really
    disincentivize people from entering that market.
        That is all I have, and I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Fischbach. You have not been
    affected by the congressional drug of taking every minute that
    you have to talk. You limit yourself to what is relevant.
        Thank you.
        Who is next? Mr. Raskin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you much. I am wondering
    whether landlords that are engaged in these vigilante evictions
    outside of the law are just doing it unilaterally on their own
    or are there law firms or businesses that have organized to
    encourage them to do this or to be there to manipulate the
    process.
        Ms. Mason or Ms. Ettingoff.
        Ms. Ettingoff. I can address that slightly. There is a grid
    called Get 'em Out that pretty much perpetually pushes the
    notion of removing tenants and that is how they make their
    money, that is what they are interested in. In addition, at
    least locally for us, there has been one law firm with one
    particular attorney that I can't say definitively that he has
    pushed the landlords to do it, but he has certainly not
    discouraged them in any way, even on cases where there should
    have been some forbearance, he has been unwilling to reason at
    times. Of course, that is the nature I guess of his business
    and that is how he earns his livelihood.
        However, all attorneys represent the notion that you have
    the ability to communicate with your client and that you can
    attempt to direct your client in the direction that might be
    better for them in a broader sense. That does not appear to
    have been done in all cases. So, certainly, there has been some
    indulgence of the notion of going ahead and sort of engaging in
    conduct that borders on unlawful or truly isn't unlawful.
        Mr. Raskin. Ms. Mason, do you have anything to add to that.
        Ms. Mason. I think Ms. Ettingoff is in a better position
    than I am to have the bird's-eye view to answer your question.
    It certainly is an issue where there are many attorneys who are
    responsible and try to discourage their clients from engaging
    in illegal behavior.
        Again, the fact that it is so difficult for tenants to
    actually push back when this happens. Many times, we see
    stories in the media are the way that tenants get traction on
    these situations. That simply should not be the case. They
    should be able to effectively access the courts.
        Mr. Raskin. Thanks. Mr. Shelton, let me ask you. It seems
    like we have got kind of a practical problem out there because
    I remember in the thick of the crisis when people were being
    thrown out of work and everything looked kind of hopeless,
    landlords and tenants got together really to push for aid to
    the tenants so that they would be able to get aid filtered
    through the States and the counties down to them and then they
    would be able to pay for the rent. So, part of what we might be
    seeing is just the effect of that process not closing the loop.
        I mean I just asked my staff to get me some stats on this
    and there is more than $30 million that has been left
    undistributed in the largest county in my district, in
    Montgomery County. That is money that has not gone to tenants
    for the purposes of paying their rent. So many people are
    unemployed and broke and so on. So, what can we do
    structurally, to deal with this problem to get people the
    resources they need so we don't end up in this hand-to-hand
    combat in court or outside of it.
        Mr. Shelton. I would be in strong agreement with it going
    in that direction. That is to say as we looked at what is
    happening across the country, some of the solutions that came
    to mind is things like a modification of section 8 type
    landlords, as well as we do to others. Making sure that people
    have a place to stay, and we don't find individuals and
    families homeless is crucial. We have seen what happens when we
    don't.
        Many of us still remember what happened with the economic
    downturn and the provisions we worked so hard together to put
    in place with Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill to fix many of
    these problems as well. As I am looking at issues along these
    lines, we know what happens. As a matter of fact, the economic
    downturn of 2008 was not that long ago. We learned with some
    solutions from that as well.
        All that to say is that we need to make sure that there are
    many families that also do make their living owning small
    tenements, one, two, three, and four family apartment
    buildings. My parents were very much in that category as well.
    They also worked very hard to make sure that people could stay.
    That should be the struggle here as well. When a pandemic
    happens, it crosses many governmental lines. When issues like
    this happen as we are bringing solutions we have to pull from
    many governmental pots to provide some solution.
        Mr. Raskin. I appreciate that.
        I yield back to you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Professor Raskin.
        Ms. Jackson Lee, no? Sorry, my mistake Mr. Johnson from the
    great State of Georgia.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair for holding
    this hearing.
        Mr. Griffith, you have spoken with great indignation in
    your voice and in your manner as you have testified
    passionately about how eviction moratoria has hurt landlord
    property owners. Are you familiar with the fact that the CARES
    Act signed into law by President Trump provided landlord
    property owners with billions of dollars in PPP and economic
    injury disaster loans to cover their lost rental payments?
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for your
    question. Yes, I am aware of that. Regardless of whether or
    not--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. In your opinion, Mr.
    Griffith, was CARES Act legislation to protect mom and pop
    landlords by providing them with grants to cover their loss of
    rental income? Was that a proper use of congressional authority
    or was it an assault on the Rule of law as you described
    eviction moratorium as?
        Mr. Griffith. Yeah. Thank you. A very important question.
    Unfortunately, politicians from both political parties
    throughout the past year have gone beyond what the Constitution
    prescribes for congressional action. When you look at the aid
    that was delivered throughout COVID--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, I don't want to belabor the
    point. I know that some folks, and you are probably one of
    them, just don't believe that government should be there to
    protect anyone. That it should just be a matter of survival of
    the fittest and only the strong survive, that Ayn Rand
    mentality that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
    espouse.
        I understand that you probably feel that way. Of course, we
    are talking about legislation here that is going to protect
    people from unlawful evictions. By the way, sir, you do agree
    that folks should follow the law when--I mean, there is a law
    in place, Mr. Griffith, you do believe that folks should go by
    the book and not resort to self-help evictions. Correct?
        Mr. Griffith. Congressman, just to be clear, when it comes
    to my personal beliefs and the proper role of government there
    certainly is a role for government to play in assisting people
    in need, but what we saw over the past year was government
    action that went far beyond targeted direct--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. President Trump signed the
    legislation himself. Right?
        Mr. Griffith. That is right. Politicians of both parties at
    times--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Come on now, Mr. Griffith.
        Mr. Griffith. Well, if you look at the--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You are trying to have it both
    ways.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Would you let him answer the
    question?
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Let me move on, sir.
        Mr. Shelton, what would you say to those who would say that
    eviction moratoriums are an unlawful limit on their property
    rights when you are at the same time offering them money to
    help get them through the emergency once in a century pandemic
    that we were all faced with.
        Mr. Shelton. Let me just say that I would say that we need
    to bring all government resources to bear. Certainly, as we
    look at what the usual issue is for those who happen to own
    apartments and so forth, we know that most of the issues that
    affect them on a daily basis are closer to home.
        When we are talking about a pandemic like this, a
    coronavirus pandemic, which hundreds of thousands of people
    have already died and the impact crosses every line, economic,
    race, ethnicity, gender, and otherwise. Then we know that we
    have to bring to bear the resources from all those places. The
    money was in place and there is still resource to help those
    who own the apartment buildings, and we should help them as
    well. Allowing individuals and families to be put out of their
    apartments, to be put out of their mental homes in some cases.
    I think it is outrageous. We have solutions--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Let me stop you there. Thank you
    for that answer. Across the course only 10 percent of tenants
    are able to acquire legal representation in evictions
    proceedings. Professor Ramsey Mason, how will that fact be
    mitigated by the legislation that our Chair has proposed, H.R.
    1451? How will it help in this circumstance?
        Ms. Ramsey Mason. Thank you, Representative Johnson. It
    would help specifically in as I mentioned earlier the multiple
    enforcement mechanisms that the legislation contains. H.R. 1451
    allows not only for an individual who has been affected by an
    illegal eviction to bring a private cause of action in court on
    behalf of him or herself, but also for the Attorney General of
    the United States to bring an action against a landlord who has
    violated the law.
        That is an incredibly important protection for tenants who
    are not in a position for whatever reason to assert their own
    rights or in referencing Congressman Raskin's question earlier,
    if there seems to be a systemic pattern by particular groups of
    people who are carrying out illegal evictions.
        The Attorney General is certainly in a better position to
    address that sort of problem than any individuals would be.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. I am out of time. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
        Our next Congressperson to ask questions will be Ms. Sheila
    Jackson Lee for five minutes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is
    extremely important to hold this hearing. Thank you to all the
    Witnesses. I am glad that throughout the testimony that has
    been given in the question-and-answer time, the record has
    already been established that there is a concern, Mr. Griffith,
    for the mom and pop owners, the retired persons, and the
    respect for property. I don't think any of us have negated
    that.
        I work with a lot of real estate persons who themselves own
    property, small businesses. We have the greatest respect for
    their economic engine as well.
        Let me try to emphasize what this bill does. We have said
    it over and over again. I think it has been carefully crafted.
    As it is marked up, your concern certainly should be readily
    addressed, but it is to deal with self-help evictions during
    national emergencies. That is a confined, refined area.
        It only represents or acts as a civil rights buffer to the
    disastrous response that poor people have been able to--
    unfortunately have been the victims there of.
        So, let me under the CARES Act moratorium there was
    certainly more governance, that eviction protection expired on
    July 24, 2020. Then came the CDC moratorium which did not have
    the firewalls. That moratorium is currently expire on June 30,
    2021.
        As I was coming up today, I was reading that surges in
    COVID-19 are now surging in States like Texas, because people
    have randomly put in orders so that--randomly put in orders
    that would encourage unfortunately of the virus surging because
    of the delta new variant.
        So, we are not out of the pandemic yet. We don't know how
    long we are going to be in an emergency. We might need to
    extend it. So, the current evictions under CDC does not protect
    us against vacating orders and it permits landlords to charge
    fees and penalties.
        Let me just say on the record and I have to quickly ask
    this question, despite local, State, and Federal prohibitions
    of self-help evictions are changing locks, cutting off
    utilities, refusing to make essential repairs, removing their
    belongings, harassing tenants to create an environment where
    tenants will leave on their own.
        In my own district, and Black people are only 13 percent of
    the total population but are 40 percent of the homeless
    population in this nation. In addition, Black Americans are far
    more likely to be evicted. Latinx communities' 26.1 percent
    severely monetarily burdened. They too are victims of
    evictions.
        So, as a story someone who had a been a trailer home for 10
    years, Cristina, I won't put her last name in, they spent three
    months without electricity and water because they had missed
    just a minor amount of the rent.
        So, let me go to Mr. Shelton. This gives you a right of
    action, almost like the Voting Rights Act in section 2 where it
    happens to you, you can go in and try to get a remedy. Tell me
    what is so unusual to allow individuals who have had their
    water turned off, who have been charged fees and been given
    every sort of trap to get you out of there with a family, what
    is wrong with having the legitimate right to an action, a
    private action or the Attorney General having such when all of
    the rights have been in property owners as Mr. Griffith has
    said.
        We know property means. Many things have been property that
    certainly have been inappropriate in America. Can you give the
    answer about the validity of that right of action for these
    people who are most victimized under your civil rights
    knowledge?
        Mr. Shelton. It is crucial that they have that protection
    and power as well. Some of the issues that have come up in our
    discussions just a bit earlier from those who work for Legal
    Services now speaks to the issue expertise it takes to maneuver
    through the system rights in which [inaudible] rights can be
    protected [inaudible].
        Let me just say the long run, I would say that there should
    be nothing that would prevent that right from being protected.
    Let me also say we should make sure there are more resources
    available for important organizations like Legal Services.
        As I have worked with them in eastern Missouri, as well as
    in Boston, Massachusetts is able to carry out those
    responsibilities thoroughly.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So, your view is that a private right of
    action does it not contravene the Constitution and the Fifth
    amendment on the right to property or due process. It does not
    contravene, because there is a court that will make a
    determination on behalf of the tenant and the landlord. Is that
    not true?
        Mr. Shelton. That is absolutely true.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Their property rights would not be
    snatched away without that intervening court. When the Federal
    action from the Attorney General comes, it is not snatched away
    under this particular legislation. There is an arbiter, which
    is the court. Is that not right?
        Mr. Shelton. That is absolutely true.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Would it be shameful to leave poor people
    with no action whatsoever, even allowing the Legal Services
    Corporation to be able to go into court on their behalf?
        Mr. Shelton. I believe it would be absolutely
    unconstitutional.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
        I yield back, thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Cohen. You are welcome, Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate
    each person who has attended this Committee meeting and I
    appreciate our witnesses. It has been a good hearing, an
    important hearing for the American public who have been
    affected by the coronavirus and unfortunately had difficulties
    with landlords maintaining their homes.
        That concludes today's hearing.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, I have some articles, if I
    might.
        Mr. Cohen. Without objection.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I just want to call their names off
    because they are important articles if I might very quickly. I
    ask unanimous consent to put into the record how Houston areas
    families are being forced from their homes without an eviction.
    It tells the story of Cristina Rea who had a been in a trailer
    home for 10 years and the landlord turned off the water and the
    power in the waning hours of a very hot Houston summer with her
    and her family.
        Then HUD May 18, 2021, growth of homelessness during 2020
    was devastating even before the pandemic. I ask unanimous
    consent to place these articles into the record.
        Mr. Cohen. Without objection, it will be done.
        [The information follows:]

                         MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Cohen. That does conclude today's hearing. We thank our
    Witnesses again, our Memphis Witnesses, and our Washington
    Witness, and our Miami Witness. Thank you for being here and
    for my tardiness we got the hearing concluded. I thank the
    Members of the Committee and Ms. Ross for sitting in.
        Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
    days to submit additional written questions for the Witnesses
    or additional materials for the record.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]