U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–239 PDF 2010

H.R. 476, THE HOUSING 

FAIRNESS ACT OF 2009 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 20, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 111–96 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

JOHN ADLER, New Jersey 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

SUZANNE KOSMAS, Florida 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

January 20, 2010 .............................................................................................. 1 

Appendix: 

January 20, 2010 .............................................................................................. 31 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2010 

Berenbaum, David, Chief Program Officer, National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) ........................................................................................ 19 

Delgado, Jeanne McGlynn, Vice President, Business Operations & Risk Management Policy, National Multi Housing Council/National Apartment Association .................................................................................................................... 20 

Gilmore, Brian, Clinical Professor & Staff Attorney, Howard University 

School of Law, Fair Housing Clinic .................................................................... 22 

Proll, Leslie M., Director, Washington Office, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc./Co-Chair of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 

Fair Housing Task Force ..................................................................................... 17 

Smith, Shanna L., President and Chief Executive Officer, National Fair Housing Alliance ........................................................................................................... 15 

Trasvina, Hon. John D., Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development .............. 5 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Berenbaum, David ............................................................................................ 32 

Delgado, Jeanne McGlynn ............................................................................... 63 

Gilmore, Brian .................................................................................................. 70 

Proll, Leslie M. .................................................................................................. 76 

Smith, Shanna L. ............................................................................................. 96 

Trasvina, Hon. John D. .................................................................................... 110 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Green, Hon. Al: 

Letter from Shanna L. Smith, President and CEO, the National Fair 

Housing Alliance (NFHA), dated January 19, 2010 ................................... 119 

(1) 

H.R. 476, THE HOUSING 

FAIRNESS ACT OF 2009 

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Waters, Velazquez, Cleaver, 

Green, Donnelly, Kanjorski, Himes; Capito, Marchant, Jenkins, 

and Lee. 

Also present: Representative Garrett. 

Chairwoman WATERS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order. 

I would like to thank the ranking member and other members 

of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity for 

joining me today for this hearing on H.R. 476, the Housing Fairness Act of 2009. Today’s hearing will examine Congressman Al 

Green’s very important legislation to enhance efforts to combat 

housing discrimination. 

Despite our progress in achieving greater civil rights over the 

past 40 years, the trend of depriving certain communities of access 

to fair housing continues today. Mr. Green’s bill allows us to finally 

assess the rampant rates of housing discrimination, and will fully 

fund and establish a Federal program to process fair housing violations. 

Today, we will hear from witnesses about the ongoing disparities 

in housing, and the challenges with addressing housing discrimination. The witnesses will also discuss how H.R. 476 will help them 

to address these challenges. 

According to a Department of Housing and Urban Development 

report released last year, more Americans are reporting incidents 

of housing discrimination than ever before, with disability and race 

as the leading reasons for filing a complaint. 

Despite the growing number of fair housing violations, a much 

greater number of violations go unreported. The National Fair 

Housing Alliance estimates that approximately 4 million fair housing violations occur each year, yet less than 31,000 fair housing 

complaints were actually filed in 2008, which was the highest total 

number of complaints ever filed in history. 

2 

Furthermore, of those housing violations that were reported, private, nonprofit fair housing groups processed approximately 20,000 

complaints, which was 66 percent of the total complaint load. 

Meanwhile, HUD processed a mere 2,100 complaints, State and 

local agencies processed 8,429, and the Department of Justice filed 

33 fair housing cases. It is clear that Federal agencies have either 

been unable or unwilling to effectively identify and address the 

issue of housing discrimination. 

Little has been done to ensure fair and equal access to housing 

among minority populations. We know that high rates of racial 

steering continue to impact African-American and Latino communities. Furthermore, a HUD study found that Asian Americans and 

Pacific Islanders also face significant level of discrimination when 

they search for housing in large metropolitan areas nationwide. 

Much more must be done to protect the fair housing rights of all 

of our communities. 

The Federal Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) was established to provide grants to fair housing centers to enforce housing 

laws and educate consumers. However, FHIP has never been fully 

funded. Thus, it is no wonder that so many fair housing violations 

were allowed to occur each year. That is why Mr. Green’s bill is 

so crucial. 

H.R. 476 would authorize $20 million annually for HUD to administer a nationwide testing program to measure housing discrimination, increase funding of the FHIP program to $52 million 

annually for 5 years, and require HUD to implement a competitive 

matching grant program for nonprofits to study the causes and effects of housing discrimination. The benefits of H.R. 476 would be 

tremendous in preventing millions of fair housing violations from 

taking place in our neediest communities. 

In closing, I look forward to hearing from our two panels of witnesses on their assessment of H.R. 476, to help further fair housing 

and combat housing discrimination. 

I would now like to recognize our subcommittee’s ranking member to make an opening statement. Ms. Capito? 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. I would like to thank the chairwoman 

for the hearing today, and Representative Green for his hard work 

on this issue. 

I would like to enter my statement into the record rather than 

giving it, in the interests of time. But I would also like to ask 

unanimous consent that Congressman Garrett be allowed to sit in 

on the committee. And he is going to make an opening statement 

as well. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. I would now like to 

recognize—without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. GARRETT. Did the ranking member have a statement that 

she was— 

Mrs. CAPITO. I yield the rest of my time to you. 

Mr. GARRETT. Oh, okay. I thank you for yielding, and I thank 

you for the opportunity to be here. And I also first and foremost 

want to commend Representative Green on offering this very important legislation, and I look forward to the discussion that ensues. 

3 

But I also want to formally express my concern regarding another housing issue that we should be considering as well, and that 

is the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You know, it was 

just on Christmas Eve when the Obama Administration and the 

Treasury Department expanded and extended the bailouts of 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and they approved a multi-milliondollar compensation package for their executives. And the CBO, as 

we sit here, is currently projecting losses of over $400 billion for 

those entities. 

So when all is said and done, when you think about it and we 

are considering where all this money is going to, the bailout of 

these firms will probably be more expensive than what we spent 

on TARP. 

Now, since Fannie and Freddie were bailed out, we have had 

here in this committee room exactly one full committee hearing on 

the subject, and exactly one subcommittee hearing on this issue. 

Some people have said that this committee therefore has been negligent in its oversight responsibilities on this very important topic. 

And shortly thereafter, on December 30th, Ranking Member 

Bachus and I wrote a letter to the chairman simply asking him to 

hold a hearing on this issue. Unfortunately, he has not yet responded to that request. 

I understand that this topic may cause discomfort to some Members of Congress, considering the role that they played in shielding 

the GSEs from any meaningful regulatory scrutiny in the period 

leading up to their collapse. Nonetheless, we should not let mistakes of the past prevent us from carrying out our oversight responsibilities now going forward. 

I also asked the chairman—the chairman has announced a hearing on executive compensation, and that is set for this Friday. But 

apparently, he still refuses the request from Ranking Member 

Bachus to have the heads of Fannie and Freddie come to that very 

important hearing. 

The chairman has also stated, ‘‘The public, having provided significant support for the purposes of restoring trust and confidence 

in our country’s financial system, rightfully insists that large bonuses such as these awarded by institutions receiving public funds 

at a time of serious economic downturn should not continue.’’ And 

I agree. 

So in conclusion, as I have heard from many of my constituents 

back home, it is really unacceptable that this committee not respond appropriately. And so, once again, I will call on the chairman 

to hold a hearing on this Administration’s expanded bailout of 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their approval of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ dollars to bonuses to their executives, an issue 

overarching the issue of housing and fairness to the American taxpayer and to the American buyer of homes as well. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I thank the 

Ranking Member as well. I would also like to thank the many 

Members of Congress who have been working on fair housing 

issues before 1968, at the time of Dr. King’s demise, since 1968, 

4 

and in fact, during that year of 1968 because that is when the first 

laws were promulgated. And many have also worked since that 

time. 

As you know, the Fair Housing Act was amended in 1974 to include sex discrimination. It was amended in 1988 to deal with discrimination based upon family status, familial status. And these 

Members I salute and I thank for what they have done to help 

make this piece of legislation much better than it was at the time 

it was initially developed. 

I would like to mention HUD, because HUD has played an important role in this. HUD acquires intelligence and empirical evidence such that we can draw conclusions. I would like to note that 

HUD has data indicating that in 2008, 10,552 housing discrimination complaints were received. And this was the highest number 

ever received in 2008. It is also interesting to note that this was 

the third year in a row that there were more than 10,000 complaints received. 

We should not assume that all of these complaints have been 

based upon color. The truth of the matter is that only 2 percent 

were based upon color. This bill could easily be called the Disability 

Fairness Act because 44 percent of those discriminated against 

were persons with disabilities. 

And I would add also that it could easily be called the Familial 

Status Act, because 16 percent of those discriminated against were 

persons who had children, possibly, and could not get a place to 

live because they happened to have a child. 

This bill is very inclusive in terms of how it impacts discrimination in housing. And I would hope that persons would embrace the 

notion that we are helping all persons by helping the persons who 

are so designated by the legislation. When you help one person, you 

prevent discrimination against other people. It is important for us 

to remember that this bill is very inclusive in terms of how it deals 

with discrimination. 

It is estimated that about 4 million violations occur each year, 

and 44 percent of these violations were handled by HUD. And the 

question becomes, ultimately, what can we do, working with HUD 

and NGOs, to ensure housing fairness? 

My belief is that we can increase the amount that we spend on 

education. Education is important. Many persons who are working 

in this marketplace, in the housing market, would do and behave 

differently if educated properly. We have to ensure that persons 

understand what the rules are, and my belief is that a good number of them will adhere to the rules, understanding what they are. 

We should also increase the testing and the enforcement of the 

rules once we find that there are persons who have violated the 

rules. Testing is the best way known to us to acquire the empirical 

evidence of discrimination actually taking place such that we can 

have an actionable means by which we can address the discrimination. 

We must do more testing, and we have to publish the fact that 

testing takes place. Testing can also act as a deterrent to prevent 

others from behaving improperly once it is known that testing is 

actually taking place. 

5 

What is testing? Simply put, you send persons out, all equally 

qualified. And if you have some persons who are consistently rejected—perhaps a person who is disabled—then you can sense that 

you have a problem with a person with a disability as it relates to 

this particular piece of property. Testing really does work. We 

should do more testing. 

We can also increase the funding for not-for-profit housing organizations to engage in investigations, and to also help us to understand the real reasons for this discrimination. If we don’t acquire 

the empirical evidence to properly make the case for why this is 

happening, it makes it difficult to continue to enforce the laws and 

to develop the proper regulations to address the problem. 

We would like to see NGOs have the opportunity to promulgate, 

if you will, testing not only to determine what happened but why 

it is happening. I would also add that we should acquire the empirical evidence to understand how all of this impacts economic stability. 

There is a body of evidence indicating that economic stability was 

impacted by virtue of the behavior of persons in the subprime market in terms of the way they steered persons into these loans. I 

would hope that we could examine this as well. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. There are no other 

members desiring to give opening statements at this point. Without 

objection, Representative Garrett will be considered a member of 

the subcommittee for the duration of this hearing. 

At this time, I will introduce our first witness panel. I am 

pleased to welcome our distinguished first panel. Our first witness 

will be the Honorable John Trasvina, Assistant Secretary for Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. 

Thank you for appearing before the subcommittee today. And 

without objection, your written statement will be made a part of 

the record. 

You will now be recognized for a 5-minute summary of your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN D. TRASVINA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. TRASVINA. Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, and thank 

you, members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before 

you today on behalf of HUD to discuss our support of and recommendations for H.R. 476, the Housing Fairness Act of 2009, and 

the Department’s fair housing enforcement program and priorities. 

And Congressman Green, in particular, I would like to thank you 

for your tremendous support of fair housing and the fair housing 

initiatives program, and for proposing H.R. 476. 

Thank you, members, for this opportunity to discuss the Department’s work with private, nonprofit fair housing organizations. 

They are crucial to our mission to create and support fair and equitable communities. 

6 

Last year, as was noted, more than 10,000 fair housing complaints were filed with the Department, continuing an historical 

high level. However, we know that the number of complaints is not 

a full measure of the extent of discrimination. 

Our studies show that even in this day and age, African Americans and Hispanics and Asian Americans suffer discrimination at 

least 1 in 5 times that they seek housing. Our work and the work 

of FHIP agencies remains critical. 

The number of cases does not reflect their severity, either. One 

current HUD case has been brought against a trailer park owner 

in Alabama who turned off the water and forced out a White family 

because he objected to the African-American boyfriend of one of the 

tenants. When asked how to get the water back on, he responded, 

‘‘Lose the Black boyfriend.’’ 

In addition, he told our investigator that no Federal law would 

tell him who he had to rent to. Well, today your landlord cannot 

tell you who you date, and we vigorously enforce Fair Housing Act 

protections. 

In order to realize fair housing and equal opportunity, we need 

to go farther than we have before and work to create truly open 

and integrated communities. That means not only continuing to address specific acts of discrimination, but also using fair housing 

laws to strengthen neighborhoods. 

One way we are doing this is by fulfilling the Fair Housing Act’s 

mandate to affirmatively further fair housing. HUD has not always 

ensured that our money is spent in ways that fulfill this obligation. 

In this new day, however, there is a Department-wide commitment to incorporate our mandate to affirmatively further fair housing and to all of our work so that we can fulfill our shared goal 

of truly integrated and balanced living patterns. To that end, the 

Department is revising these regulations. 

In July, the Department held a listening conference in which 

more than 600 people participated, in person and by phone and 

Web across the country. There, fair housing and civil rights groups, 

mayors, and county and State officials all voiced their desire for 

HUD to amend its regulations to provide more concrete, specific information and assistance about how to develop a meaningful plan 

for affirmatively furthering fair housing. 

Efforts to affirmatively further fair housing are incomplete without ensuring that the public has a means of redress when their 

rights are violated. That is why the Fair Housing Act complaints 

are one of our top priorities. 

Individual victims of housing discrimination have an immediate 

need for HUD’s fair housing services. The Department and its 

State and local partners in the Fair Housing Assistance Program 

provide these victims with a fair, objective, and free investigation 

of complaints. 

Over the last decade, the Department has become more adept at 

investigating housing discrimination. The number of cases completed by the Department and our State and local partners has increased by 65 percent, while the length of investigations has decreased. 

However, speed must not come at the expense of accuracy. Discrimination victims are not served by a piece of paper saying they 

7 

have a good case filed with the government. They want action. At 

the same time, complainants and respondents want and deserve 

the right outcome, not simply a quick one. 

Thirty-eight percent of our complaints closed last year resulted 

in a determination on the merits, or a conciliation or settlement 

agreement. This produced $8.155 million in monetary relief, as well 

as public interest provisions such as fair housing training and affirmative marketing. 

Today, as the scourge of housing discrimination continues, sometimes in old forms, sometimes in new, we must engage a variety 

of strategies to end these practices, and the FHIP program is central to this effort. 

Through the Fair Housing Initiative Program, fair housing organizations assist the Department in combating housing discrimination. These organizations investigate and resolve allegations 

brought to them by victims of housing discrimination, but they do 

so in a way that is different and complimentary to our work. 

FHIP grantees are the Nation’s experts in testing, and the results of these tests often become key evidence in a housing discrimination complaint. A recent major settlement on rental design 

and construction and access for people with disabilities was made 

possible in part by the work of HUD-funded tests. 

You have invited me here today to discuss our fair housing strategy and H.R. 476. If enacted, it would provide much-needed support for fair housing efforts across the country through increased 

testing for violations, enforcement against those who have violated 

fair housing laws, and study of the causes and effects of discrimination. 

The first section of the bill requires HUD to conduct a nationwide testing program to detect, document, and measure housing 

discrimination across the country. We fully support this proposal. 

Housing discrimination today is often more subtle, and a consumer 

is not well-positioned to make meaningful comparisons of treatment. 

Pair testing, however, is ideally suited to uncover such abuses. 

The $20 million nationwide testing program envisioned by this bill 

would lead not only to greater enforcement efforts, but also would 

deter discrimination. 

On the whole, H.R. 476 is consistent with the priorities the Department places on fair housing enforcement, and the tools provided by H.R. 476 will advance the Department’s enforcement of 

the Nation’s fair housing laws in the 21st Century. 

This week, as the Nation celebrates the birthday of Dr. Martin 

Luther King, we continue to carry out his dream to end housing 

discrimination. H.R. 476, if enacted, will enhance this further, and 

we look forward to working with the subcommittee on this important legislation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Assistant Secretary Trasvina can be 

found on page 110 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I would like to begin the question period with you. 

If you will, would you please recount for us what happened in St. 

Bernard Parish in New Orleans? As I can recall, there were mulVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:03 May 14, 2010 Jkt 056239 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\56239.TXT TERRIE
8 

tiple laws developed by the local city council basically to keep minorities out of St. Bernard Parish. And they defied HUD. They defied the courts. This went on for such a long period of time. 

Now, I understand that it may be resolved at this point. But tell 

us what happened there. 

Mr. TRASVINA. After Hurricane Katrina, the local government 

there enacted a number of ordinances which had the effect of making it difficult to rent to newcomers to the community. One ordinance would have required individuals who were prospective tenants to be blood relatives of those who already had lived in St. Bernard Parish. 

That was subject to litigation. It was struck down. Since that 

time, there have been other ordinances that have been proposed. 

We have worked with the fair housing organizations in the New 

Orleans area that have sued over a number of ordinances. 

Since that time, in recent months, we have met with the president of the council and other local officials there. So we have 

looked at individual potential acts of discrimination, also working 

with the jurisdiction to try to move forward on—away from that 

type of restriction because as you note, it was designed to limit the 

ability of people to rent in St. Bernard Parish. 

Chairwoman WATERS. So do they still have an ordinance against 

multi-family development in St. Bernard Parish? 

Mr. TRASVINA. There continue to be restrictions on renting, including requiring particular licenses in order to be able to rent out 

your home. And these licenses are restricted based upon—you can’t 

have more than one rental being made available within a certain 

number of feet of another. There are pending discrimination complaints now with us, so we continue to investigate. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Are we continuing to—do they get Federal 

funding in any way in St. Bernard Parish? 

Mr. TRASVINA. We are looking at that very closely, and that is— 

Chairwoman WATERS. This has been going on a long time, hasn’t 

it? 

Mr. TRASVINA. That is correct. The— 

Chairwoman WATERS. So how much longer is it going to go on? 

Mr. TRASVINA. The litigation, of which we are not a part, is continuing. The decision about funding and our expressions of where 

St. Bernard Parish needs to be is ongoing. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Let me back up. As I understand it, one 

of the remedies or ways of dealing with discrimination is to discontinue Federal funding. Is that right? 

Mr. TRASVINA. That is correct. 

Chairwoman WATERS. And as far as I know, Katrina took place, 

what, almost 5 years ago? How long has it been? 

Mr. TRASVINA. I believe it has been 41⁄2 years. 

Chairwoman WATERS. How long have you been involved— 

Mr. TRASVINA. 41⁄2 years ago. 

Chairwoman WATERS. 41⁄2 years ago. 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes. 

Chairwoman WATERS. And this case or these cases have been 

going on for 41⁄2 years? 

Mr. TRASVINA. No. They haven’t been going on for 41⁄2 years. 

Some of the initial litigation has been successful. So there have 

9 

been a series of ordinances. The most recent ordinance was upheld, 

but we are working with St. Bernard Parish to ascertain the impact of the most recent ordinance. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Do you want to tell me what you have 

done to stop discrimination in St. Bernard Parish? 

Mr. TRASVINA. We have— 

Chairwoman WATERS. What has HUD done? 

Mr. TRASVINA. HUD has worked with the parish to evolve these 

ordinances away from the original ordinances. We are now examining the particular complaints that we have. We do not have a determination on the current ordinance right now. 

Chairwoman WATERS. I don’t know what you just said. But anyhow, you have not been successful yet in helping to contain the 

local city council in its efforts to prevent minorities from living in 

St. Bernard Parish. You just have not been successful. 

Mr. TRASVINA. That is correct. We are not yet there, where we 

need to be. And— 

Chairwoman WATERS. So how can we have any faith in your ability to deal with discrimination if you have been working on these 

cases for such a long time and they have been in defiance, I think, 

of the U.S. District Court on these discrimination ordinances. But 

you have not been able to do anything. Is that right? Up until this 

point, you have not been able to turn around any of that? 

Mr. TRASVINA. We have not pulled the funding from St. Bernard 

Parish. That is correct. 

Chairwoman WATERS. When are you going to do it? 

Mr. TRASVINA. We continue to work on that. And as we resolve 

the complaints, the jurisdiction will have the opportunity to make 

its changes before we pull funding. Our goal is not necessarily to 

pull funding. Our goal is to make sure that they are not discriminating. 

Chairwoman WATERS. But you haven’t done that very well, have 

you? 

Let me turn to Ms. Capito for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. I would like to ask a question about the 

Fair Housing Initiative Program, where you have nonprofits that 

get grants to do testing and other—how many nonprofits are currently being funded under this program? 

Mr. TRASVINA. About 98. 

Mrs. CAPITO. 98 across the country? 

Mr. TRASVINA. No. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Is ACORN one of those organizations? 

Mr. TRASVINA. No. ACORN is not receiving funding currently. 

Mrs. CAPITO. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of your 

grantees at this point, the 98 that are receiving grants? Because 

this bill would expand the funding to these organizations, with the 

ability to fund even more organizations quite a bit. What kind of 

evaluation do you have of the 98 that are receiving the funds now 

as to their effectiveness? 

Mr. TRASVINA. They go through a funding competition at the 

front end, where we have a technical assessment panel looking at 

their ability and effectiveness in fair housing and their ability to 

perform what they plan to do. 

10 

On the back end, we have government monitors who review particular cases that they handle, review their effectiveness. I would 

say that overall, without talking about anyone in particular, overall, the cases that come from the FHIPs to us result in a one-fifth 

higher level of discrimination than other cases. 

They are effective in bringing us cases where there is discrimination, so they are effective in discerning it. Also, they are effective 

in educating communities about what their rights and responsibilities are. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Do you also monitor aggrieved persons who are 

subject to unfair housing practices, that maybe their own claims 

through Federal court on their own, or maybe through a State or 

local entity? How do those numbers compare with the number of 

cases that come through HUD, or with the help of one of these, 

what do you call them, FHIPs? Am I saying that right? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes. The FHIPs. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Yes. 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes. Well, the FHIPs have a different process 

than we do. Oftentimes, the FHIPs get information directly, and 

they work informally because they are there locally in the community. They work informally with the person who feels they have 

been discriminated against and the prospective landlord or homeowner and conciliate their cases. 

Mrs. CAPITO. So the cases might not reach the point of either litigation or anything of that nature, but would be worked out at the 

local level without HUD’s direct involvement. Is that correct? 

Mr. TRASVINA. That is correct. And in fact, Congresswoman, 

many of our cases, about a third of our cases, are conciliated prior 

to any particular finding. The statute requires that every step of 

the way, conciliation is attempted. 

Mrs. CAPITO. What is the biggest reason for housing discrimination, in your opinion? Why are people discriminated against? Is it 

race? Is it age? Disability? 

Mr. TRASVINA. The single largest cases come in the disability 

area. In terms of the reason why, oftentimes it is education, people 

not knowing what their obligations are under the Fair Housing Act 

as well as not knowing what their rights are. 

Mrs. CAPITO. So most of the discrimination would be somebody, 

say, who might be wheelchair-bound, or something of that nature, 

not having access? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. TRASVINA. It could be the failure of a landlord or housing 

provider to have a reasonable accommodation for that individual, 

for example, yes. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. TRASVINA. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Ms. Velazquez? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Trasvina, 

thank you for everything you do— 

Mr. TRASVINA. Good morning. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. —in keeping people informed as to their rights. 

But I believe that, given the outcomes that we have seen with this 

housing crisis, there is a long way to go. And we cannot wait until 

we achieve housing stabilization to get people really educated as to 

their rights. 

11 

In New York City, during the height of the subprime market, 

Black borrowers were 5 times more likely than White borrowers to 

enter into a high-cost loan. For Hispanics, the percentage was 31⁄2

times higher than White borrowers. 

Can you talk to us about what type of efforts, outreach efforts, 

are in place now to ensure that minorities and those with limited 

English proficiency are better informed about their rights when it 

comes to housing rights? And I just would like your opinion as to 

how do you expect H.R. 476 will help address these issues? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes, Congresswoman Velazquez. Since I came on 

board in May, we conducted a language assessment of all of our offices around the country to determine what languages HUD 

speaks. And since that time, we have translated about a dozen key 

HUD documents, not just in fair housing but in other parts of 

HUD. We have translated two dozen documents into a dozen different languages to make ourselves better accessible to individuals 

and to community groups. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. It is not only about languages, but it is also 

about enforcement and oversight. So can you talk to us about that? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes. That is correct. In terms of other types of efforts, we work collaboratively with the Department of Justice, with 

the civil rights division, the Federal Trade Commission, so that the 

authority over lending, the authority over fair housing, exists in 

other parts of the government. So we work collaboratively with 

them. 

About 5 percent of our cases come in the area of lending discrimination. And last year, we obtained over $2 million in individual relief for victims of lending discrimination. 

Moving forward on H.R. 476, what is already, I think, of critical 

importance is the role that the FHIP agencies play in reaching 

communities that, frankly, the government is less able to do. For 

example, with the Asian-American community, only 1 percent of 

our cases come from the Asian-American community. 

We rely on our partners within the community to reach out. Because of historic distrust and a lack of trust of government agencies, they are an important bridge to those communities for enforcement and also for education. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. What additional resources and/or partnerships 

are needed to provide greater outreach to limited English proficiency communities to prevent housing discrimination? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Certainly, the ability to reach beyond the fair 

housing community into the other trusted institutions within communities would benefit us. We have to go beyond just going more 

than 50 percent of the way. We need to go 90 percent of the way 

there. And that is why we are increasing our efforts. 

One of the things that we just announced at Tennessee State 

University this Monday was a university partnership so that we 

will be training the next generation of fair housing activists and 

those who can take the message out, not only for themselves as 

new renters, but also to the families. And those particularly in the 

generation of the first college graduates, they often take the message back to the community. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. You are welcome. 

12 

Mr. Marchant? 

Mr. MARCHANT. Does your agency monitor the number of private 

lawsuits that have been filed as a result of perceived discrimination 

nationwide or State by State? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Not State by State. But we monitor those cases, 

yes. 

Mr. MARCHANT. So how many private actions would you estimate 

there are across the Nation right now? 

Mr. TRASVINA. I don’t know whether we have that number. But 

I think what is key, though, is not so much that they are the actions. Some can go straight into Federal court. But most of them 

are resolved informally. So as I said earlier, a third of our cases 

are conciliated; many, many cases by the fair housing groups are 

brought informally. They often do not result in actual Federal court 

litigation. 

Mr. MARCHANT. So most of the cases that you investigate and 

handle have not gone to the stage of litigation yet? 

Mr. TRASVINA. That is correct. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Do you have a—what is the penalty if a person 

is found guilty of discrimination? What is the typical penalty? 

Mr. TRASVINA. The penalty can vary. It is in the thousands of 

dollars for individual violations. But really, the key is getting damages for the individual victims of discrimination, fair housing training, and fines. 

Mr. MARCHANT. What would be the desired result of the nationwide testing? 

Mr. TRASVINA. The desired result of nationwide testing would be 

twofold. One is to get a better sense as to how much discrimination 

is out there. The testing is unique in its ability to really reflect 

what is going on in a real-life situation. 

Surveys don’t do it. Looking at the enforcement patterns doesn’t 

do it. But testing does do it because it sends out two trained individuals going out at pretty much the same time. The only characteristic being different is what you are testing for, whether it is 

gender or race or disability, and being able to get back information 

about an environment where there may be discrimination. 

It also helps us in terms of enforcement. So the goal of testing 

would be to get an assessment of where we are, what progress we 

have made, and also possible enforcement actions. 

Mr. MARCHANT. What would be the budget of the Fair Housing 

and Equal Opportunity Division of HUD? What is your operating 

budget? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Our budget, for the FHIP and the FHAP program, 

it is $50 million. And then we have 600 staff around the country. 

Mr. MARCHANT. So this $50 million—the $20 million would be 

outside of that $50 million? 

Mr. TRASVINA. That is correct. 

Mr. MARCHANT. And then how much is this bill increasing—so it 

is increasing at $2 million. From $50 million to $52 million is what 

this bill increases your budget? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Those are the FHIP grants, the grants out to the 

fair housing organizations. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Okay. So $5 million? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes. 

13 

Mr. MARCHANT. Okay. And your purpose for doing that would be 

to target—would you have a target discrimination that you are 

looking for, or this would just be a test that would be neutral, and 

you would be looking for the sources of discrimination? 

Mr. TRASVINA. This would allow us to use the expertise of fair 

housing organizations in a much better way. For example, you go 

from the State of Louisiana up to the State of Idaho, and everywhere north and everywhere west, you have the same number of 

FHIP organizations as the States of Ohio and Michigan. 

We are missing vast parts of the country with the amount of resources we have with the FHIP grantees right now. So this would 

enable us to have the same level of quick understanding of what 

is going on in communities, both in terms of education and enforcement, in vast parts of the country that we currently have in only 

a few States. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you for 

your testimony today, sir. Let me ask quickly a series of questions. 

One, is it true that the best way to acquire empirical evidence 

of this type of invidious discrimination is testing? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Testing is both well-accepted by the courts— 

Mr. GREEN. Is it true that this is— 

Mr. TRASVINA. It is— 

Mr. GREEN. But I need to go on, so I need for you to just answer 

yes or no, if you would. I am sorry. I have a lot that I have to 

cover. 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Is it true that this is the best way to acquire the actual evidence of what happened? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. And is it true that those who would perpetrate these 

kinds of dastardly deeds, who would want to perpetuate discrimination, isn’t it true that they fear testing? 

Mr. TRASVINA. That is correct. A greater amount of testing will 

produce greater enforcement. 

Mr. GREEN. In fact, testing is the thing that they fear the most 

because they know that they will be caught red-handed if they are 

tested. And they fear testing. True? 

Mr. TRASVINA. I would say that, yes. 

Mr. GREEN. And isn’t it true that if we really are serious about 

ending this kind of ugly behavior, we should invest in testing? 

Mr. TRASVINA. We do need testing, yes. We are very supportive 

of the testing program. 

Mr. GREEN. And isn’t it true that testing not only benefits persons of color, but it also benefits veterans because many of them 

are among those persons who are disabled and among those persons who are being discriminated against when they are trying to 

get housing in a fair way? Isn’t it true that it will benefit veterans? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Isn’t it true that this legislation, while it does increase funding, isn’t it true that if we are serious about it, we 

would invest as much as we can so that we can move as expeditiously as we can because of situations like the one that was called 

14 

to our attention by our chairwoman, wherein we are moving on it 

but we haven’t moved as expeditiously as we can move, and we 

need more help to move through these programs. 

Is this true, that you need more help? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes. We need more resources and we need more 

help. 

Mr. GREEN. Now, finally, let me ask you this. With reference to 

pre-application testing, you have a good number of programs in 

place. Let’s talk about post-application testing. Do you do any postapplication testing? Post-application meaning after you have applied for a loan, after you have started that process of applying for 

the loan. 

Mr. TRASVINA. Right now, we do not. The problem is that there 

are other laws that restrict testing in that area. Every actual loan 

application must be a bona fide loan application, and testing by its 

nature is a test. 

Mr. GREEN. And isn’t it true that you have anecdotal evidence 

of discrimination taking place in the post-application process? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes. And that is why—we would also look and 

want to work with you on this bill— 

Mr. GREEN. And isn’t it true— 

Mr. TRASVINA. —to make it easier for us to do post-application 

testing. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. You really answered my question. But just 

to continue, to make sure that I have it for the record, isn’t it true 

that it would be of great benefit to have empirical evidence of the 

invidious discrimination that takes place in post-application testing? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes, it would, Congressman. 

Mr. GREEN. And, now, let’s talk just briefly about children. We 

don’t talk a lot about how this has impacted the ability of parents 

to acquire a place to call home for their children. There are people 

in this country who will discriminate against you because you have 

a child and you want a place to stay. Is this true? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. And isn’t it true that this testing is going to help 

children have a place to call home because with this testing, we 

can cause persons to know that they will be punished if they discriminate against children? True? 

Mr. TRASVINA. It will help us eradicate the familial discrimination. 

Mr. GREEN. And the final thing is this. Would it not be helpful 

to publish the fact that testing is taking place? Wouldn’t it be helpful for you to have the ability to say to the world, we have caught 

some folks. We are looking for others. Testing is taking place in 

this country. Would that act as a deterrent? 

Mr. TRASVINA. It certainly would after the testing is done. Prior 

to the testing being done, it probably would hurt the results of the 

test. But yes, certainly afterwards. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. And Madam Chairwoman, if I may, I 

would like to submit for the record a letter in support of this legislation from the National Fair Housing Alliance. And I would ask 

that it be done without objection. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

15 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I will yield 

back the balance of my time. You have been very gracious. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Donnelly? 

Mr. DONNELLY. No, thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. If there are no other questions from the 

members of the panel, I would like to thank this witness for his 

testimony. And we have 30 additional days for members to submit 

questions. Thank you very much. 

Mr. TRASVINA. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. I would now like to call on the second 

panel. 

Our first witness will be Ms. Shanna Smith, president and CEO 

of the National Fair Housing Alliance. 

Our second witness will be Ms. Leslie Proll, director of the Washington office, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Incorporated, and co-chair of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 

Fair Housing Task Force. 

Our third witness will be Mr. David Berenbaum, chief program 

officer, National Community Reinvestment Coalition. 

Our fourth witness will be Ms. Jeanne McGlynn Delgado, vice 

president, business and risk management policy, the National 

Multi Housing Council, and here on behalf of the National Apartment Association. 

And our fifth witness will be Professor Brian Gilmore, director, 

Fair Housing Clinic, Howard University School of Law. 

Without objection, your written statements will be made a part 

of the record. You will now be recognized for a 5-minute summary 

of your testimony. And we will start with our very first witness, 

Ms. Shanna Smith. 

STATEMENT OF SHANNA L. SMITH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Capito, for inviting me to speak about H.R. 476. 

And I would like to thank Representative Al Green for introducing 

the legislation. 

I have spent my entire career working in fair housing, both in 

enforcement and education, and education from the standpoint of 

teaching people how to recognize and report discrimination, but 

also working with the industry to teach them how to comply with 

the laws. 

The National Fair Housing Alliance is made up the private, nonprofit fair housing centers in the United States. There are fewer 

than 100. There are none, for example, in West Virginia, and there 

are other States that have no private fair housing groups. 

The private fair housing group, for example, in Toledo, Ohio, 

serves that metropolitan area. It doesn’t serve the whole State of 

Ohio. These are locally-based organizations. 

I am here today to provide strong support for H.R. 476. And I 

am optimistic because the Fair Housing Act has always enjoyed 

great bipartisan support. After Dr. King was assassinated, President Johnson went to Senators Mondale and Brooke and said, ‘‘You 

had been pushing this legislation,’’ and within 7 days, the first Fair 

16 

Housing Act was passed. And as Representative Green pointed out, 

we have had amendments to the law and have always enjoyed 

great bipartisan support. 

This legislation currently will improve both enforcement and 

education efforts surrounding discrimination in housing, in the 

rental market, in the sales market, in the lending markets, and in 

the homeowners insurance markets. It will provide sorely needed 

funding for nationwide systemic enforcement. 

One of the reasons systemic enforcement is critical is because 

there are so few fair housing centers in the United States. It has 

been since 1991 when the disability amendment became effective 

under the 1988 amendments. And the National Fair Housing Alliance really didn’t look at design and construction cases because we 

were relying on the Department of Justice, HUD, and other local 

groups to see that issue. 

But 2 years ago, we decided to look at it because we kept seeing 

the largest builders still building properties that were inaccessible 

to people who use wheelchairs, to people with mobility issues. And 

we filed a lawsuit, along with our fair housing groups, in Napa Valley, in Marin, California, in Atlanta, Georgia, and in Melbourne, 

Florida, against the 5th largest builder in the United States, the 

A.G. Spanos Companies. 

We resolved that case recently. And what I think is unique about 

the way we resolve cases, it is not just about money. It is not just 

about damages. While this case, design and construction case, settled for around $15 million, it included the Spanos Companies 

modifying and retrofitting 82 apartment buildings that they had 

built since 1991. 

It also includes a $4.6 million retrofit fund. They had 123 buildings they built, and not all of them could be retrofitted. So we were 

able to include a fund where we can make grants to people who 

currently live in homes or currently live in apartments anywhere 

in the United States that are inaccessible. 

And then the beauty of the settlement is we are working very 

closely with the Spanos Companies so this kind of mistake doesn’t 

happen ever again. And we are providing expertise and expert information about their future developments. 

We had the same kind of partners resolve in administrative complaints with State Farm Insurance Company, Nationwide, and Allstate Insurance Company. So the goal of the private fair housing 

movement is not just to be combative, but to develop partnerships 

so discrimination doesn’t continue. With systemic investigations, 

we are able to fill the gap in the United States where is no fair 

housing enforcement. 

Kansas doesn’t have a fair housing center any more. There are 

other States that have no private fair housing centers. And I would 

just like to say that the increase in the FHIP funding is critical because right now, each fair housing center can get a maximum of 

$275,000. 

When you look at L.A., Houston, Dallas, New York, Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco—you know, $275,000 is a drop in the bucket. 

So we do have to increase the funding, but we have to be wise 

about how we use that, and figure out how to proportion the money 

according to the geographic population being served. 

17 

And finally, education is critical. In the area of education, we 

have supported multinational media campaigns. State Farm supported us in creating the first campaign that promotes residential 

integration. All the other campaigns have been teaching people 

how to recognize and report discrimination, which is absolutely 

necessary. 

But we also wanted to have a partner campaign saying, why is 

it good that we live together? Because, after all, people learn to live 

together by actually living together. And we see in the mortgage 

lending crisis the problem of our inability to investigate beyond the 

pre-application stage. 

And so we would recommend that this piece of legislation also include language that would allow private fair housing groups, 

through approval with the Department of Justice—because I don’t 

think this privilege of doing these investigations should be done 

willy-nilly—but approval of the Justice Department to allow us to 

do full application testing, create profiles in the credit bureau system, and not face risk of a felony charge by the U.S. Attorney because we have created these profiles and we are testing through 

the whole process. 

So we are testing underwriting. We are testing the appraisal 

practices. We are testing the private insurance companies. And my 

time is up, but that is one of the other things I think we need in 

this piece of legislation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith can be found on page 96 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Leslie Proll? 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE M. PROLL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON 

OFFICE, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, 

INC./CO-CHAIR OF THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL 

RIGHTS FAIR HOUSING TASK FORCE 

Ms. PROLL. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, thank 

you for allowing the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to testify today. 

We are the Nation’s oldest civil rights legal organization. Since 

Thurgood Marshall argued Shelley v. Kraemer, which outlawed racially restrictive covenants, we have fought against housing discrimination. 

Sixty years after Shelley and 40 years after passage of the Fair 

Housing Act, our Nation remains largely segregated by race. The 

impact of housing discrimination on racial isolation and concentrated poverty is just as powerful today as it was when lawyers 

told the Supreme Court in Shelley that: ‘‘The effects of discrimination permeate the community and exert a baneful influence upon 

the economic, social, moral, and physical well-being of all persons, 

White and Black, young and old, rich and poor.’’ 

We are pleased to testify here today in support of H.R. 476 for 

several reasons. First, the bill recognizes the unique role of private 

fair housing organizations. These organizations are the mainstay of 

the fair housing movement. They are on the ground collecting information over time and monitoring housing patterns in their own 

communities. 

18 

Their local leadership, continuity, and familiarity with the local 

housing industry ensured that incidents of housing discrimination, 

systemic issues, and problematic trends are identified and redressed. And frankly, their onsite capacity for civil rights monitoring and enforcement is unparalleled. 

We also support an enhanced role for testing in fair housing enforcement. As civil rights litigators, we cannot overstate the importance of testing in identifying discrimination, and courts have recognized this for 30 years. 

Discrimination in the 21st Century is more subtle and more sophisticated, and testing is absolutely necessary to detect it. A key 

component of this testing program is its systemic nature. We must 

confront the structural discrimination underlying our housing patterns. We can no longer be satisfied with fair housing enforcement 

on a case-by-case basis. That approach is similar to trying to desegregate schools one student at a time. 

The systemic approach is consistent with the government’s longstanding tradition of focusing on large-scale forms of discrimination 

that otherwise will not be redressed. This is more costly, complicated, and protracted, but it is precisely the type of investigation 

in which the government should bring to bear its extraordinary resources. 

The government can uncover far-reaching discrimination in a 

manner that cannot be accomplished through the budgets of fair 

housing organizations, civil rights organizations such as my own, 

or private attorneys. And the program, as Congressman Green 

said, can have a deterrent impact on the housing industry as well. 

A nationwide testing program comes at an opportune time. In 

the past decade, we have lamented the lax enforcement of fair 

housing laws by the government. The number of race cases decreased despite no drop in discrimination, and the Justice Department’s own testing program was severely underutilized. 

The new testing program should test across the housing industry. A program focused only on rental testing will not address all 

the segregative forces at work. More sales testing needs to be conducted. From 2000 to 2008, the Civil Rights Division filed no cases 

based on sales tests, despite the fact it was designed in part to 

challenge sales discrimination. 

We are pleased by the Civil Rights Division announcement of an 

aggressive campaign against redlining. But the government should 

also adopt measures for undertaking testing in lending. Fair lending principles should be included in all remedial legislation and 

policy initiatives to address the financial crisis. And data on race 

and ethnicity should be collected when implementing foreclosure 

relief programs, and made publicly available so that programs 

could be monitored for compliance with fair housing laws. 

Finally, we applaud the provision of grants to study the causes 

of discrimination and segregation, and to evaluate their effects on 

education in particular. At the Legal Defense Fund, we recognize 

the deep structural role that residential segregation plays in perpetuating inequality in our Nation’s schools. 

The racial makeup of neighborhoods is the most important determinant of the racial composition of the schools within them. With 

the increasing rarity of court-ordered desegregation and judicial 

19 

limits on voluntary integration programs, students’ educational 

fates are dependent upon where they live. 

In conclusion, persistent housing discrimination, which continues 

to plague our Nation decades after it was outlawed, imposes high 

societal costs. Congress should do everything within its power to 

ensure that the Federal fair housing laws are enforced strongly and 

fully. 

Now is the time for a new approach to redressing and eradicating 

housing discrimination. With H.R. 476, we are off to a very good 

start. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Proll can be found on page 76 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. David Berenbaum? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BERENBAUM, CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER, NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION 

(NCRC) 

Mr. BERENBAUM. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking 

Member Capito, and other members of the committee. 

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition is pleased to 

appear here to strongly endorse the Housing Fairness Act of 2009, 

and to also testify regarding other aspects of the current mortgage 

crisis that our Nation is facing. 

In recent months, regulators, the White House, and Members of 

Congress alike have acknowledged that unfair, deceptive, or otherwise poor business practices by lenders and other mortgage finance-related institutions played a critical role in the current housing crisis. 

Also well-known is the fact that a disproportionate share of abusive, non-traditional, and high-cost lending have targeted financially vulnerable consumers, in particular African-American and 

Latino households and communities. Quite frankly, this has not 

been an equal opportunity recession. 

Study after study produced by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Federal regulators, and a host of other academic and not-for-profit organizations have documented disparities 

in lending in this Nation. 

It is a curious irony that a majority of the meaningful complaints 

that have been filed in the fair lending space against rating agencies; against lenders who redlined, clearly a stupid business practice; against in fact large national real estate affiliates; large, in 

fact, underwriters and others in this space, have been identified by 

private not-for-profit organizations or State attorneys general, not 

by the very regulators who were charged to police, in fact, our public needs in the space of fair housing. 

We strongly support this bill, Congressman Green, but urge, in fact, the committee to increase the amount of funds—$20 million 

is a drop in the bucket. This is a national crisis. We either float 

or sink on what in fact is a changing demographic in this Nation. 

We are becoming more and more diverse, and businesses that do 

not meet the needs of African Americans, Latinos, families with 

children, and other members of our society are, frankly, not comVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:03 May 14, 2010 Jkt 056239 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\56239.TXT TERRIE
20 

peting to position themselves in a profitable way as we move ahead 

into the future. 

Specifically, there are issues emerging every day. Today, FHA 

Commissioner David Stevens announced reforms to the FHA lending program. This is a very complex issue. But here is a fair lending issue right on top of the announcement—580 is an interesting 

number for the FICO credit score. It is an attempt to compromise 

on a very important issue to ensure appropriate capitalization and 

liquidity, access to credit in the marketplace. But look at all of the 

national lenders at this moment in time who in fact are using 620 

and higher FICO scores. 

That has a disparate impact on the basis of race. And where 

have our fair lending regulators been? It is once again the private 

fair housing movement that is identifying this issue ahead of regulatory agencies and that paradigm has to change. 

I fully support the earlier testimony of the National Fair Housing 

Alliance, and also the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. This is serious 

stuff. The fair lending testing that the National Community Reinvestment Coalition has been doing with many of our fair housing 

members, in fact, is a very, very small amount. 

On top of that, we applaud the effort of corporations who are also 

doing self-testing. If we are going to change the per diem, if we are 

going to promote an open housing market, we as a nation have to 

live up to the aspirations that Dr. Martin Luther King saw and 

this Congress saw when they passed the Federal Fair Housing Act. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berenbaum can be found on page 

32 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Delgado? 

STATEMENT OF JEANNE McGLYNN DELGADO, VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS OPERATIONS & RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY, NATIONAL MULTI HOUSING COUNCIL/NATIONAL APARTMENT ASSOCIATION 

Ms. DELGADO. Good morning. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking 

Member Capito, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Jeanne McGlynn Delgado, and I am the vice president, 

business operations and risk management policy at the National 

Multi Housing Council. 

This morning, I am here on behalf of two trade associations, my 

own and the National Apartment Association. Our combined memberships include apartment owners, developers, managers, builders, and lenders. 

It is a privilege to be here today, and I commend you, Chairwoman Waters, for your leadership in holding this hearing to discuss the various stakeholder perspectives on H.R. 476. And we 

commend Congressman Green for his leadership in Congress and 

his continued pursuit of equal opportunity for all. 

One in three Americans, or 117 million households, rent their 

homes. Housing discrimination in the rental market reduces the 

number of people who otherwise would lease an apartment. For the 

record, as advocates who are passionate about the benefits of renting, we would like to see the number of renter households in AmerVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:03 May 14, 2010 Jkt 056239 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\56239.TXT TERRIE
21 

ica grow, not decline. Simply put, housing discrimination makes 

bad business sense. 

However, with respect to the issue at hand, I am sure it will 

come as no surprise that the apartment industry does not exactly 

embrace additional testing as the best means to combat housing 

discrimination, at least not in its current form. 

While we support the goal of reducing housing discrimination, we 

believe the creation of a national testing program and a doubling 

of FHIP funds by itself is not enough to effect the desired change. 

Therefore, we offer the following observations and recommendations: first, we believe that before instituting another testing program, HUD should conduct a comprehensive review of the existing 

testing programs to measure their effectiveness, efficiencies, and 

fairness; second, after completion of this assessment, HUD should 

consider alternative approaches to current testing protocol; and 

third, HUD should expand its commitment to industry education 

and outreach efforts. 

We come to these recommendations with a strong belief that 

more of the same just doesn’t work. There seems to be an underlying assumption that fair housing testing equals effective enforcement, and that simply increasing the number of complaints 

brought against property owners will eradicate housing discrimination. 

We disagree. There is no shortage of studies, reports, and analysis quantifying the level of discrimination in housing. However, 

we are unaware of any research that has measured the effectiveness of the federally-funded testing programs. 

So regardless of how we feel about testing in general, clearly, 

testing files contain valuable data and information that can help 

inform more effective, not to mention efficient, methods for identifying discriminatory practices and methods to enforce the law 

against such practices. 

While testing for housing discrimination appears fairly straightforward, tests and test results can vary widely. Let me share an 

example of the kinds of testing cases that can be studied. 

A testing program in 2006 in a county in Virginia involved testers making site visits to measure different treatment, with an inquiry for a one-bedroom apartment for a specific time period. The 

tests were designed to measure the treatment relative to the availability of the unit at the described time based on national origin 

or race. 

In the 50 tests conducted, none showed a difference in treatment. 

While you might think that is great for the apartment industry, it 

could easily have gone the other direction, as it did in the following 

similar testing situation. 

In a Maryland city, paired testers seeking a one-bedroom apartment were testing for different treatment based on national origin. 

In this scenario, a complaint was filed when the minority tester received a price quote that was higher than the White tester. 

After a lengthy and costly investigation, guest cards completed 

by both testers revealed evidence causing the complaint to be dismissed. While one tester sought a one-bedroom unit, the other 

tester actually requested a one-bedroom den unit, thus explaining 

the difference in price. 

22 

A simple mistake made by the tester resulted in an unfair complaint of discrimination lodged against a housing provider with an 

otherwise excellent reputation with residents, employees, and in 

the community. Lessons can be learned from these unfortunate experiences. And as a result, the enforcement tools could be made 

more effective. 

These are just a few examples of how testing results can be inconsistent even when the strategy is fairly straightforward. The 

likelihood for errors and missteps increases in more complex situations. 

In these studies, we suggest that emphasis should be given to 

those complaints that were investigated and later dismissed with 

a finding of no reasonable cause. According to the HUD 2008 annual report, in the 2,156 cases closed, of these, 44 percent were dismissed for no reasonable cause. This is a significant number. Of 

course, not all of these involved testing, but it is a statistic that 

begs further review. 

Let me shift for a moment to what the existing tests and studies 

don’t reveal, and that is the damage caused by an unfair complaint. 

Just as home-seekers can be victims when subjected to housing discrimination, property owners wrongly accused become victims, too. 

When a property owner, or specifically his or her staff, is wrongly 

accused of discrimination, the damage caused can be severe and 

long-lasting. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Delgado can be found on page 63 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much, Ms. Delgado. Your 

time is up. 

Professor Brian Gilmore? 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN GILMORE, CLINICAL PROFESSOR & 

STAFF ATTORNEY, HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, 

FAIR HOUSING CLINIC 

Mr. GILMORE. Thank you, Congresswoman Waters, and other 

members of the committee. I am from the Howard University 

School of Law Fair Housing Clinic and we have been in operation 

for 5 years. Our students go out in the community and they educate consumers about their housing and fair housing rights, about 

the law in the fair housing area, and in other aspects of fair housing. 

We fully support H.R. 476, the Housing Fairness Act, as it is in 

line with the kind of work we do on a daily basis. Our students 

have become testers. They have tested, and gone out and participated with other nonprofits and done tests, and they realize the 

importance. 

Right now, testing is the only credible evidence that we can have 

in a court case that might happen in the future, the only competent—as Judge Damon Keith stated many years ago—evidence 

that we have at the present time. 

I would definitely support what Mr. Berenbaum stated because 

as we started out as a fair housing clinic, what we have become 

now is a clinic that has other areas, and that area is the mortgage 

crisis. And people would not believe the volume of problems that 

we have. 

23 

Almost all of the calls we receive on a daily basis—and there are 

tons of calls—involve mortgage problems, individuals who were 

given terrible loans. And these are individuals who have been gainfully employed for years, have good credit, and were somehow 

given a loan that is unbelievable. 

We get these on a daily basis. Almost all of these consumers are 

African American. If they are not African American, they are 

Latino. And this is just in one area of the country, the Washington 

metropolitan region. As Mr. Berenbaum stated, I think this is a serious crisis. I would hope that this bill would also be able to try 

to address that issue because this is a serious crisis. 

The homeownership rate for African Americans and Latinos was 

on the rise until a few years ago, and now it is plummeting. And 

they are losing valuable wealth, and everybody knows that wealth 

is opportunity and it dictates the future. 

I think that is the most important issue that we have seen at 

Howard University School of Law since we have been doing the 

clinic in the last 2 or 3 years. That issue has to be addressed. 

The reason why we definitely support this bill as well is because 

there are a few things out there that we—one thing out there we 

see that is a lot different. We conducted a survey of consumers, and 

the consumers, almost all of them, stated that they had been discriminated against, or they applied for an apartment and they 

didn’t receive it. 

We just think that the landscape has changed and something has 

to be done in this area, the fair housing area. And we believe one 

thing that has not been mentioned by anyone here that I think this 

committee has to consider in the future is that the entire landscape, the way people get housing, has changed. 

You don’t get an apartment now by reading a newspaper. You go 

online. You talk to somebody by e-mail. You don’t even hardly meet 

this person. There are cases now where—I mean, the discrimination is electronic. You don’t even hear about it because of the way 

it is done. 

And the way the law is arranged now, it is able to be done, 

through craigslist, the famous craigslist case. It is just the landscape has changed, and I think that this committee and, you know, 

the Congress overall, should take into account the way things are 

drastically changing. 

Congressman Garrett said, let’s not make the mistakes of the 

past. I remember he said that in his comments. Let’s not make the 

mistakes of the past. The 20th Century was about housing discrimination. We know that. I think it is time to make a new start, 

and that is what we try to do every day at the Howard University 

School of Law. 

And I thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Professor Gilmore can be found on 

page 70 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. We will now proceed with our questions. 

Ms. Proll and Mr. Berenbaum both kind of alluded to or mentioned in their testimony something about the way the lending institutions dealt with lending as it relates to the foreclosure problem 

that we have. 

24 

Now, recently there was a case brought against Wells Fargo. And 

I think it had to do with targeting certain communities for predatory lending and unfair products. Were either of you involved in 

that case? 

Ms. PROLL. We were not, but we know the lawyers who were. 

Chairwoman WATERS. And am I correct in assuming that it had 

to do with targeting communities for basically unfair lending practices? 

Ms. PROLL. That is right. It is what we call reverse redlining. 

Rather than circling a red line around a community and not lending to that community, the line was circled around the community 

and the community was targeted for exorbitant rates, for everything that goes into and caused the foreclosure crisis. 

And the theory of the case is that the economic disadvantage 

that resulted to the Baltimore community was a direct result of 

Wells Fargo’s lending practices. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Will the Federal Fair Housing Initiatives 

Program be able to look at those kinds of discrimination practices 

along with testing, as it is presented here by Mr. Green? 

Mr. BERENBAUM. There is no question that well-designed fair 

lending tests can probe any number of issues from, for example, 

the appropriateness of loans suggested to qualified consumers, to 

steering and other aspects of the current underwriting crisis. 

In fact, included in our testimony are summaries from three series of tests in the fair lending space that the National Community 

Reinvestment Coalition has been involved with. For example, when 

brokers were being sort of labeled as the cause of the financial crisis, with Fair Housing Initiatives Program support, we went out 

and tested brokers across the country and found that over 40 percent of the time, discrimination was a factor. 

When financial service corporations were in question, we did the 

same with a HUD FHIP grant, and reported out both to educate 

the industry and Congress and HUD and others to the issue, but 

also to bring, as appropriate, enforcement actions. That led to over 

15 filings of redlining complaints against financial service corporations who were not regulated institutions by Federal agencies. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I would like to ask Mr. Gilmore from Howard University whether 

or not in the educating of the communities that your students go 

into about fair housing laws, whether or not they are picking up 

complaints and being able to file those complaints or get them to 

the Federal Fair Housing Initiatives Program? 

I take it that the school does not have a program. But in your 

educating of students in this area, they could be picking up complaints. What do they do with those complaints? 

Mr. GILMORE. Actually, the Howard University School of Law 

program was founded through a HUD grant, through the FHIP 

program. It was a special grant many years ago for establishing a 

law school clinic, fair housing clinic, at an HBCU. It was a very 

unique program. 

So we actually do—we are out in the community, and individuals 

come to us. We don’t file the complaint, but we show the consumer 

how to file a complaint through the HUD system or, because we 

25 

are in the District of Columbia, it is through the D.C. Office of 

Human Rights, which is like the HUD affiliate in Washington, D.C. 

And we will show them that process. And it is an online process, 

or they can call—for HUD, they will call the Philadelphia office. 

We would show them how to do that, and then they would take it 

from there, whether they wanted to file it or if they decided they 

didn’t. 

And I will point out that one of the problems over the years has 

been, when we have heard from the public, is they have lost faith 

in the ability for the program to work for them. And a lot of people 

just—they get denied something, for whatever reason, and they 

just simply forget it. They just forget about it. They sort of walk 

away from it. 

And I think that is also what this is about, is restoring that faith 

in the Federal Government to take action in situations like this. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Capito? 

Mrs. CAPITO. Yes. Thank you. 

Ms. Delgado, we have heard a lot in the previous panel and the 

panel here, about the need for more education, I think on both 

sides of the fair housing issue, both in terms of the potential buyer 

or renter and also of the owner of the properties maybe not being 

aware of some of the issues that have to be dealt with in terms of 

equal access for, say, disabilities and things of that nature. 

Your organization obviously represents a vast number of owners 

and renters of properties. What kind of educational outreach do 

you do in terms of educating your members? 

Ms. DELGADO. We do quite a bit. At every one of our conferences, 

we have held—in fact in the past several years—courses or forums 

specifically dedicated to educating on the requirements, the design 

and construction requirements, of the Fair Housing Act. 

Our other group, the National Apartment Association, through 

their local and State associations, they offer regular training programs and educational programs. Some of our larger members have 

their own training in-house to mandate that their employees and 

staff and builders go through all of those training courses. 

One of the pieces of information in the 2008 HUD report quantified the number of people who have gone through HUD’s Accessibility FIRST training. And that is an area that we commend HUD 

for doing something like that because I think it is a recognition 

that the industry is in need of this very technical, detailed information about how to build correctly. 

We have a few observations and disagreements over how—the 

standards to which they are enforcing against. But overall, the educational component is very good, and we would be curious to see 

how the hotline, the HUD hotline, is used, what kind of information, what kind of questions they are getting, if that is informing 

their additional educational opportunities. 

So with the combination of those things, I think we try to do as 

much as we can in recognizing the need for that education. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. 

Ms. Smith, in terms of the answer that was just given from the 

one side of the housing equation, is there ever any collaborative efVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:03 May 14, 2010 Jkt 056239 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\56239.TXT TERRIE
26 

forts between the owners and the renters, between the potential 

owners—I mean, on the local level. 

You talked about you have 98, I think you said, local private fair 

housing organizations. Are there any kind of coalitions together to 

make sure that these issues are aired on both sides? Or do you find 

that there is a lack of—I mean—yes. Let me leave that question 

out there. 

Ms. SMITH. When a complaint is filed, 99 percent of the complaints go to an administrative agency. There are very, very few 

lawsuits that are filed annually. I guess less than 10 lawsuits, fair 

housing lawsuits, are filed annually. 

In the example that was given, it shouldn’t have been a long investigation. The State, local, or HUD investigator should have been 

able to look at the test reports right away to see that different information was requested and dismiss a case like that. 

Testing, the courts and HUD and administrative agencies can 

look at that. And it takes away the issue of she said/I said. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Right. 

Ms. SMITH. And it pulls in some objective information about 

availability. Private fair housing groups, in 9 out of 10 of the cases, 

develop a relationship with the apartment builder, the complex, the 

real estate company that has been investigated, to do training. 

The difficulty in the rental markets is you have high turnover of 

managers and supervisors and assistant managers. So you may not 

be in a situation where they know exactly what the law says when 

they are operating every day. 

But you also have situations where some owners have directed 

managers to discriminate. And we have cases in Alabama where 

those managers came forward, and the Fair Housing Act protected 

them, by being able to file a complaint without retaliation. 

I see much more cooperation between the private movement and 

the industry in training. They have the desire to follow the law. We 

have the desire to have them follow the law. And I think the California Apartment Association, in particular, has great training programs that they do on a local level. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Could I have one final question? 

Chairwoman WATERS. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thanks. This is on a topic near and dear to your 

heart I wanted to ask about. 

Mr. Berenbaum, I believe that your organization has had some 

exposure to this mortgage fraud that is going on now, with people 

being contacted and being told, ‘‘We are going to help you prevent 

your foreclosure.’’ 

Can you speak to that just generally, what your exposure has 

been? Is it on the rise? Are you able to detect what the issues are? 

Are there people getting caught being fraudulent? And that type of 

thing. 

Mr. BERENBAUM. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition is a HUD-certified housing counseling intermediary, and over 

150 of our member organizations are providing foreclosure prevention counseling across the country. 

In discussion with them and, frankly, from our own work in the 

space, we were seeing more and more for-profit foreclosure prevention firms opening their doors. Many were former mortgage profesVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:03 May 14, 2010 Jkt 056239 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\56239.TXT TERRIE
27 

sionals. Some were even not-for-profit staff opening doors. Some 

were lawyers. They really varied. Some were national advertisers. 

Some were local advertisers, radio or on the utility pole outside a 

door. Going door-to-door in Las Vegas, and so on. 

We decided, using our own resources, to begin a matched pair 

testing program where we looked at over 100 foreclosure prevention counseling for-profit providers. We are preparing to release 

that report at this time. 

But I can tell you what we saw was widespread misinformation, 

including statements such as, ‘‘Don’t pay your mortgage payment. 

Work with us. Pay our fee’’—on average what was a $2,800 fee— 

‘‘instead of paying your mortgage,’’ when in fact all of those consumers, regardless of where they lived, could receive HUD counseling at no cost. And frankly, they would have received better advice, from what we were learning. 

We will share the report with you when we release it in early 

February. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

We have been joined by Mr. Kanjorski. And without objection, 

Representative Kanjorski will be considered a member of the subcommittee for the duration of this hearing. Mr. Kanjorski? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Maybe listening to the panel’s testimony, am I making an incorrect judgment that we are actually progressing and doing a better 

job than we did, say, prior to the Fair Housing Act? 

Ms. SMITH. I would say that—I have been doing this for 35 years. 

And you are supposed to say, but you look so young. 

[laughter] 

Ms. SMITH. And I see major progress in enforcement and education. However, we estimate that 4 million instances of discrimination occur annually, and fewer than 30,000 are reported. 

And when you look at where the private fair housing centers are 

located—in Ohio, Michigan, California, are where they are mostly 

concentrated—you see most of the cases coming from those areas. 

Then we have States that may have one fair housing center—for 

example, Richmond in Virginia—and other States that have no private fair housing centers—North and South Carolina, Idaho, Kansas, New Mexico. 

It is a huge gap, as Assistant Secretary John Trasvina testified. 

There is a huge gap in enforcement. So where there is effective, full 

service, nonprofit fair housing centers, you see integration. You see 

cooperation between the enforcement agencies and the industry. 

But where there isn’t, you see this battle going on and people being 

denied housing every single day without any assistance. 

Lending discrimination is rampant, and it is not just the scam 

issues, which we are testing as well. But 2 years ago, when the 

credit crunch became tight, we did testing of banks. And we sent 

in Latinos, African Americans, and White testers to apply for a 

conventional mortgage loan. Everybody was offered some kind of a 

loan, but the Whites got the best loan—terms, conditions, interest 

rates—even though they were less qualified than the Latino and 

African-American testers. 

So in some parts, we are really improving in education and dialogue with the industry. But we have just touched the tip of the 

28 

iceberg when we are talking about how this discrimination perpetuates segregation in our country. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Ms. Delgado, you brought out in your testimony 

some of the failures in the testing system. If you had your way, 

what would be the changes you would make now to have the Fair 

Housing Act better applied and to be more efficient and effective 

in its application? What would be your judgment? 

Ms. DELGADO. Thank you for the question. Some of the suggestions we would make would be we think there should be a standard 

testing protocol. That is, to recognize that, as I said in my testimony, tests are done in various ways, and we are not sure that 

tests appear to recognize the reality of technological advances, for 

example, that have been made in the rental marketing practices. 

In an example, for a simple test of someone going in and seeking 

pricing on a one-bedroom unit—I just did this recently myself. I am 

in the market for a new place to live, and went shopping at one 

of my members’ communities, and asked for some pricing. 

Well, it depended. You had to tell them—they had four or five 

options. Different square feet. Where the unit was located. When 

did you want to move in? Everyone doesn’t move in on the first of 

the month these days, and that makes a difference in the pricing. 

So with a simple request of, I want to know how much it costs 

for a one-bedroom unit, it could be different for everybody who 

asks, and it could be different the very next day. So those kinds 

of things, I am not sure that those are recognized in various testing 

protocols. 

We think it would be helpful for the test results to be disclosed. 

When someone received a complaint, they should have more than 

just an anonymous alleged complaint which they have a hard time 

responding to. 

Another recommendation we would make: We think there should 

be some flexibility built into the system when, say, for example— 

especially in the more confusing areas of the laws. Someone might 

ask for an exception to a no-pets policy. Well, that is under reasonable accommodations provision of the Fair Housing Act. 

Not everyone is familiar with that. In fact, I think that was also 

reported in the HUD study, that people are unfamiliar with what 

those rights are. Why can’t the tester prod the person, ask a few 

additional questions, remind them that these are their fair housing 

rights? 

I think if you just engage in a little education on both parts without what appears to us as mostly a ‘‘gotcha’’ game—because those 

are the easy things to check off—we think it would go a longer way 

to actually effecting the change that you are looking for. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

Ms. Delgado, I must move quickly, so please forgive me if I appear to be rude, crude, and unrefined. I am going to ask you a 

question. And so as not to entrap you, I am going to tell you before 

I ask you this question that I will ask you a follow-up question to 

ascertain whether or not the answer that you have given me is totally correct. 

29 

The question is: Have you examined the protocols for testing promulgated by HUD? Have you examined them? 

Ms. DELGADO. I have looked at them, but not in the detail that 

you would probably follow up in your question. 

Mr. GREEN. All right. If you have not fully examined them, why 

would you make contentions about protocols that you don’t fully 

understand and you haven’t fully examined? You see, you are doing 

what we call in court asking a question that hasn’t been answered. 

The testing that is being done is not the type of informal questioning that you are talking about. These tests are performed with 

specific protocols that address the very concerns that you have 

called to our attention. 

So when you make these statements, you are misleading people. 

This concerns lives. This is about children. This is about veterans. 

This is about the American society that we live in and we want to 

make better. So I beg that you give more consideration to those 

protocols before you make comments such as what you have made. 

I would also commend to everyone, given that this is Dr. King’s 

birthday celebration time in this week, read his letter from the Birmingham jail. Read his letter from the Birmingham jail and understand that Dr. King didn’t go to jail to write a letter. That is not 

why he went to jail. 

He wrote the letter in response to prominent citizens who wrote 

him a letter. He wrote his letter responding to people who were 

saying, ‘‘You are moving too fast.’’ He wrote his letter in response 

to people who were saying, ‘‘The time is not right to make this kind 

of change.’’ 

Read that letter from the Birmingham jail, and you will get a 

greater appreciation for why those who suffer want something to 

change right now. Those who are denied public housing need help 

right now, as well as those who are losing their place in the private 

housing market, too, simply because of who they are. 

Quickly, the professor from Howard. You are eminently correct. 

There is discrimination taking place online. In Houston, Texas, we 

had a candidate run for office, and she lost. For our purposes, we 

will say her name is ‘‘Shaneney.’’ She lost. ‘‘Shaneney’’ lost. And 

she came forward and said, ‘‘Look at me. I am Anglo. I should not 

have lost. Other Anglo candidates won who had different names.’’ 

Her contention—anecdotally, but I conclude that there is empirical evidence to support it—was that her name caused her to lose. 

When you apply online, if your name is ‘‘Shaneney,’’ it may have 

an impact on whether you will get a place to stay. 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund, not only did you file and win Shelley v. Kraemer, but also Barrows v. Jackson. And if my information 

is correct, approximately 29 of 31 cases before the Supreme Court 

of the United States were won by the NAACP. You have paid dues, 

and you have made a difference in the lives of people in this country. People ought to take your testimony seriously because you are 

talking from years of experience in dealing with these issues. 

With the Alliance, I want to thank you for the last comment that 

you made about how we must do more in the area of testing with 

reference to lending. You used a term, I believe, ‘‘full application 

testing.’’ Absolutely, full application testing. 

30 

And for our edification, let’s take a quick survey. Let’s test the 

panel here. How many of you would agree that we need to test to 

find out if there is discrimination in lending? If you agree, will you 

kindly extend a hand into the air? 

[show of hands] 

Mr. GREEN. Let the record reflect that all of the members of the 

panel are of the opinion that we should should test lending by way 

of the application process. 

And I would add that in doing this, we can also get into that 

predatory lending that has been called to our attention. We can get 

the empirical evidence of what is going on. If we really want to 

deal with this problem, testing is the way to do it. Dr. King did not 

want to manage racism and segregation. He didn’t want to manage 

it. He wanted to eliminate it. 

Now, the question that we in Congress have to ask ourselves is 

this: Do we want to eliminate invidious discrimination against veterans, against people with children, against ethnic minorities? Or 

do we just want to manage it? That is the question that we have 

to deal with. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Green. 

We have just been joined by Mr. Cleaver. Do you have any questions for this panel, Mr. Cleaver? 

Mr. CLEAVER. I would just like to associate my comments with 

Reverend Green. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Okay. Thank you. 

There are no more questions for this panel. Without objection, 

your written statements will be made a part of the record. The 

hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit 

written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses 

in the record. 

This panel is dismissed, and we thank you so very much for 

being a part of this hearing today. 

Before we adjourn, the written statements of the following organizations will be made part of the record of this hearing: The National Fair Housing Alliance, and the National Association of Realtors. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

This hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 

January 10, 2010 

32 


56239.001
33 


56239.002
34 


56239.003
35 


56239.004
36 


56239.005
37 


56239.006
38 


56239.007
39 


56239.008
40 


56239.009
41 


56239.010
42 


56239.011
43 


56239.012
44 


56239.013
45 


56239.014
46 


56239.015
47 


56239.016
48 


56239.017
49 


56239.018
50 


56239.019
51 


56239.020
52 


56239.021
53 


56239.022
54 


56239.023
55 


56239.024
56 


56239.025
57 


56239.026
58 


56239.027
59 


56239.028
60 


56239.029
61 


56239.030
62 


56239.031
63 


56239.032
64 


56239.033
65 


56239.034
66 


56239.035
67 


56239.036
68 


56239.037
69 


56239.038
70 


56239.039
71 


56239.040
72 


56239.041
73 


56239.042
74 


56239.043
75 


56239.044
76 


56239.045
77 


56239.046
78 


56239.047
79 


56239.048
80 


56239.049
81 


56239.050
82 


56239.051
83 


56239.052
84 


56239.053
85 


56239.054
86 


56239.055
87 


56239.056
88 


56239.057
89 


56239.058
90 


56239.059
91 


56239.060
92 


56239.061
93 


56239.062
94 


56239.063
95 


56239.064
96 


56239.065
97 


56239.066
98 


56239.067
99 


56239.068
100 


56239.069
101 


56239.070
102 


56239.071
103 


56239.072
104 


56239.073
105 


56239.074
106 


56239.075
107 


56239.076
108 


56239.077
109 


56239.078
110 


56239.079
111 


56239.080
112 


56239.081
113 


56239.082
114 


56239.083
115 


56239.084
116 


56239.085
117 


56239.086
118 


56239.087
119 


56239.088
120 


56239.089