[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 
[email protected], 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]