Question.-Will HUD alter its present policy so that Voluntary Agreements complement an effective enforcement program by persuading private industry to take actions beyond those explicitly stated in the law in order to open up housing to all?

4. DESIGNATING SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT STATE AND LOCAL LAWS HUD standards for determining substantial equivalency is superficial and automatic. The recognition of the State of Virginia's fair housing law is an example in point. Even on its face this law did not approach equavalency to the federal law. Nonetheless HUD gave it recognition. After challenges and reevaluation this recognition was withdrawn. There are many state and local laws on the books which appear on their face to be substantially equivalent. However, when the performance of state and local agencies in enforcing their state and local laws is examined, it is obvious that lack of resources, expertise, and commitment disqualify them as substantially equivalent. There was a suggestion by HUD early after the enactment of this law that a more in-depth analysis would be done before substantially equivalent state and local agencies were recognized. This has not been done. Instead complaints continue to be referred to agencies which do not have the capacity to deal with them in an efficient and timely manner.

Question.-Will HUD conduct an analysis of the performance of state and local agencies? Will HUD use its authority to provide technical assistance to public agencies to assist them in meting performance standards through training and allocation of resources specifically tailored to each agency?

5. FEDERAL SUPERVISION OF LENDING INSTITUTIONS

The federal agencies regulating lending institutions have recently adopted an 18 city demonstration project for the collection of racial data. This was a great disappointment to the many civil rights and public interest organizations which petitioned these agencies to institutionalize this form of data collection and to enforce the fair housing law which clearly applies to their membern institutions.

Question.-What plans does HUD have to use the data collected to enforce the law in the area of mortgage lending and to seek to expand the demonstration to include all federally supervised lenders?

6. FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY

Under Federal Statute HUD has the opportunity to assure consideration of the use of federal surplus land and property for low and moderate income housing. On only two occasions in the last four years did HUD initiate action resulting in the utilization of surplus property for housing. In fact, we have been informed that the notices which come from the General Services Administration are filed in the wastepaper basket by HUD staff. No file is even kept on the disposition or evaluation of land for its suitability for housing by HUD personnel.

Question.-Will HUD institute a system for review of available Federal property for housing use and assume an active role in assuring that appropriate property will in fact be used for that purpose?

7. 701 PLANNING GRANTS

Regulations implementing the 701 Planning Grants require the inclusion of a housing element incorporating an analysis and plan for meeting housing needs of low and moderate income families on a nondiscriminatory basis throughout metropolitan areas. These regulations have not been utilized to secure the opportunity for minorities and the poor to live in communities throughout the metropolitan area. This is one lever available to HUD to influence the elimination of barriers to such housing. HUD has ignored these provisions and settled for general statements of intention.

Question.-Will HUD enforce its regulations to assure that plans reflect housing needs and that those plans progress in timely fashion to the drawing boards and to construction?

8. A 95

A 95 has provision for the notification of official civil rights agencies of applications for federal assistance. This has proved an empty gesture because most such agencies are ill-equipped to deal with the complex and large variety of federal assistance programs and their impact on equal opportunity. Certainly HUD under its technical assistance provisions of Title VIII could give some leadership if not actual assistance in making these provisions in A 95 have some meaning and cooperate with OMB in overseeing their implementation.

If the pending community development legislation is passed, we are deeply concerned about HUD's ability and commitment to assure that the federal funds running to these metropolitan communities are conditioned on the availability of housing for low and moderate income families in accordance with the needs and rational location of such units. Past experience does not auger well in this regard. Water and sewer money, open space money have flowed freely to communities which blatantly prevent the poor, minorities, elderly and disadvantaged persons from securing residence.

Question.-Will HUD look at the A 95 process in conjunction with its 701 planning regulations as a means of influencing rational production and location of housing and community facilities throughout metropolitan areas?

9. RELATIONSHIP OF HUD TO THE PRIVATE CIVIL RIGHTS AND PUBLIC INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS

Section 809 of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 provides for the Secretary to commence educational activities including a calling of conferences of persons in the housing industry and other interested parties to acquaint them with the law and his suggested means of implementing it and to seek their advice to work out programs of voluntary compliance and of enforcement. Section 808 (e) directs the Secretary to "cooperate with and render technican assistance to . . . private agencies, organizations and institutions which are formulating or carrying on programs to prevent or eliminate discriminatory housing practices."

Since the enactment of Title VIII Civil Rights organizatoins have had the opportunity on many occasions to participate in discussions, meetings and in other forums with the Secretary, Assistant Secretary and staff for equal opportunity. Prior to the publication of regulations implementing fair housing laws, civil rights groups and others have had an opportunity to both comment and exchange views on the effectiveness and scope of regulations. While it was not always possible to reach complete agreement, the resulting understanding of the positions of the various groups and equal opportunity staff provided a foundation for continued cooperation and a mutual respect to enable us to move forward to insure equal opportunity in the area of housing.

In the last year this ease of communication and exchange of ideas and concerns was brought to a halt by an apparent closed door policy. The first evidence of this change occurred last October in a meting with the Assistant Secretary and members of the Housing Task Force of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. After prolonged negotiations a meeting date was arrived at and the organizations gathered in the Assistatnt Secretary's office only to find that after five minutes of general non-informative introduction, the Assistant Secretary departed. Members of the Task Force voted to adjourn the meeting and subsequently sent a letter to the Assistant Secretary explaining our disappointment and chagrin at her cavalier treatment of the meeting to which we attached great importance. The tone was set, however, and the catalog of arms-length dealing is long.

The Assistant Secretary's attitude toward the involvement and mutual concerns of her division and civil rights adherents in the private sector is best demonstrated by her own statements. After a hiatus of seven months, a meeting was held on May 7th at the invitation of the Assistant Secretary. A proposed voluntary agreement with the National Association of Realtors was a major topic. In a later interview referring to that discussion, the Assistant Secretary was quoted as saying "they (voluntary agreements) are not the proper concern of private civil rights groups until they are completed and a matter of public record." She was further quoted: "It's ridiculous to ask every

governmental agency or office working on agreements which are voluntary and not legally binding to go through such time consuming procedure." (Evidently this policy applies as well to HUD's announced negotiations with 7 major corporations, National Association of Mortgage Bankers, American Life Insurance Association, U.S. Savings and Loan League, Institute of Real Estate Management as well as the NAR.) She then seems to contradict these previous statements: "one of the purposes of Title VIII is to foster a better racial atmosphere by cooperating with both public and private organizations which wish to promote equal opportunity."

It apears to be belaboring the obvious but that is precisely the purpose of the organizations which seek to contribute to the formulation of agreements with representatives of the housing industry. It is difficult to understand the basis on which they are prohibited from not only participating in negotiations but are not permitted to know the specific provisions under consideration.

This reluctance to consult with organizations representing minority interests has been repeated with respect to the American Indian Organizations and Mexican American and Spanish name Americans on separate occasions. Within HUD are several offices with identifiable interests and constituencies with whom they communicate on an ongoing basis. For example, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing Production and Mortgage Credit consults with the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Realtors and the Section 223 Leased Housing Association. The Office for Community Development and Planning talks with the League of Cities, NAHRO, National Association of County Officials and the American Institute of Planners. Most recently the Secretary met with members of the National Forest Products Association and offered to meet with them on a regular basis. The Equal Opportunity Office has not maintained communication with civil rights and public interest groups. Who then in the private sector is fulfilling the role of the equal opportunity constituency?

The barring from participation of organizations representing the rights and interests of minorities in the housing area and experienced in the ways of discrimination has not, we humbly suggest, benefitted HUD's equal opportunity program.

Question.-Will HUD act to reestablish a working relationship with civil rights and public interest organizations?

In response to an invitation by HUD published in the Federal Register, the Housing Task Force and many of its individual members submitted statements on Federal Housing Policy. The Task Force document continues to reflect our position and we append it for your information.

Mr. EDWARDS. Do your colleagues have any statements to make? Mr. GALE. Yes; possibly a couple, dealing with the enforcement area and following up on the remarks of Mr. Drinan and Dr. Weaver earlier. The Urban League has considerable experience in the field of enforcement of title VIII. Usually when a family is discriminated against, or believes it may have suffered some discrimination, the family talks to somebody about it. Often they come to the Urban League. Often, if they call up the advertised HUD number, for some help they will be referred back to the local Urban League. So we talk to a number of families. We know the incidents of filing complaints is very low, compared to the volume of discrimination that is actually out there. The family is faced with two choices—and this deals with the situation where HUD passes its responsibilities on to the local agency if there are comparable laws on the local books.

There is a great variety of patterns of enforcement, because a lot of local commissions have laws that are consider ably in excess of the title VIII law dealing particularly in the area of being able to secure the unit while it is under the complaint process, so that the family has access to the unit that they wanted in the first place, or were looking at in the first place. There is also the power to

process a complaint quickly and we call it the direct enforcement power. The first instance we call the cease and desist power.

Now when the local commissions have both cease and desist powers and direct enforcement powers, we are able to recommend to the family that they have a chance at that unit and that, if they really like that unit, the complaint process is a viable thing for them. If not, we really have to recommend to the family that it is likely to be a long and tedious process and there may be some legal expenses involved and the unit itself is not likely to be attainable by them. The choice is between entering a process of principle or forfeiting fair housing rights. And too often the process of principle is what the HUD complaint record is based on. In other words, most of famiiles caught in the HUD backlog know they are not going to get the unit.

If HUD were to have cease and desist powers and the powers to directly enforce the law, if it had that, then the volume of complaints would be raised considerably, but the backlog would also be reduced. Certainly, the Urban League would begin to refer more complaints to HUD and there would be a more equitable enforcement around the country.

So, we would strongly recommend that this committee review title VIII to see if some strong enforcement powers could be written into it. That is simply based on my experience in trying to work with title VIII in the field.

In terms of the enforcement of the block grant program, the Urban League has considerable exceptions to HUD's evaluation of who is benefitting from the program. Our studies indicate that not more than 50 percent of the families benefitting from the program are low and moderate income. HUD claims 71 percent and upwards are benefitting from the program. HUD has a vastly inflated figure as to the minority population that is benefitting from the program. A lot of it has to do with measurements. We measure one way and HUD measures the other way.

The Urban League is going to submit for the record of the hearings a summary of our appraisal of HUD's evaluation methods and a copy of the results of our study. And I really urge that the committee look at this data processing problem, because it is critical in terms of the information available to Congress next year when it begins to debate the renewal of this program. We are very afraid that if the only information that is substantial is generated by HUD, according to HUD's own principles, we will not have enough relevant information to really make a sound decision. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. That information will, of course, be welcomed.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Fierro?

Mr. FIERRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to make a few observations relative to the position paper that we developed by the Congress of Spanish Citizens.

One of the things the paper points out is the very low level of involvement of the Spanish-speaking community with HUD's housing program. Additionally, there are several reasons for that in terms of our community's involvement.

For one thing, there is not a single person of Hispanic background in any policymaking position within HUD across the country. As the result of that, I think the highest level is about one-fifteenth, and yet their employment pattern is about 1.9 relative to Spanishspeaking. And that is reflected in the involvement or participation of the Spanish-speaking people or community within that agency. I say that because when we attempt to identify or provide statistical data on the Spanish-speaking community, as Ms. Dolbeare indicated, HUD has been very reluctant to provide that data.

Second, there is hardly any data being gathered by HUD relative to the Spanish-speaking community in and of itself. Some of the concerns we have seen out in the community-well, let's take for example the 235 program. Our community has probably the highest percentage of foreclosures within that program, yet it is also one of the lowest in the participation in that program. I think, you know, HUD's involvement with our community and the banks and what have you, I think that we have to evaluate the kind of involvement they have and the impact it has had in our community.

Additionally, there is not one single program funded nationally or regionally for the Spanish-speaking community dealing with housing programs. We used to have one about 3 years ago, but it was defunded by HUD. So there is very little emphasis or priority given to the Spanish-speaking people by HUD. That is reflected across the board in all the programs, not just the JUD's program, but in FHA and what have you. So that we are very concerned with that.

We are also concerned with the fact that a lot of the information that is being provided by HUD is not really communicated to the organizations involved at the local level. And I am talking about places like Brownsville, and places of that nature, which are essentially rural communities, and we are not getting sufficient information from HUD on that.

Additionally, you know, our concern is whether it is being provided in a language that they might be able to understand. So there is no advocacy within the agency for obtaining data for them.

I think additionally we are concerned with the allocation of housing units across the country, because our community always seems to come out at the bottom in obtaining or getting allocation of those housing units. I am concerned with the rural areas. You know, like many of the concerns that have been expressed to us concern many different communities across the country, and these are not just places like Los Angeles or El Paso or San Antonio, but also smaller communities in other States, like in Idaho, Utah, and Colorado. These areas have a tremendous need for housing units, but yet, because of the yearly allocation and the competition between different groups of minorities, the larger urban centers obtain those funds. It makes it extremely difficult for them to compete adequately for those

moneys.

So, again the report points out those concerns. I certainly hope and I know we will be providing you additional information relative to the updating of that report, because it is a year old. But again, it clearly points out the low level of emphasis that has been given to the Spanish-speaking community by HUD.