[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 206 (Monday, December 18, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8063-S8064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Compton Nomination

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Paul 
Compton, which came out of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
Committee. I might add that he is President Trump's nominee to serve as 
general counsel of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  Mr. Compton is a longtime affordable housing and financial services 
attorney in the State of Alabama. Mr. Compton, if confirmed, would 
bring a deep familiarity with affordable housing to the Office of 
General Counsel. That part I like. With 11 million families paying over 
half their income for rent and with homelessness on the rise for the 
first time in years, a nominee who appreciates the importance of 
affordable housing could be a positive addition at HUD. Think about 
that. There are 11 million families who pay more than half their income 
on rent.
  In a book written by Matthew Desmond called ``Evicted: Poverty and 
Profit in the American City,'' the author said of the people at that 
income level: When your paycheck comes, the rent eats first. Everything 
depends on being able to stay in your home and not being foreclosed on. 
When 11 million people pay over half their income on rent, homelessness 
is going to be on the rise.
  I appreciate Mr. Compton's commitment to me during our Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing that he would look out for 
the interests of renters and homeowners if confirmed, but I am voting 
against him because I am concerned about the administration's approach 
to fair housing protections and the role that he will likely play in 
helping to carry that out.
  I was troubled to learn that Secretary Carson had said that he plans 
to ``reinterpret'' HUD's affirmatively furthering fair housing--or 
AFFH--rule. Since 1968, the Fair Housing Act has required HUD and its 
grantees to affirmatively further fair housing. Unfortunately, in the 
50 years since our country passed the Fair Housing Act, HUD has not 
provided enough direction to help communities meet this goal.
  A 2010 General Accountability Office report recommended that HUD 
improve its processes for meeting its obligations to affirmatively 
further fair housing. In response, HUD developed a revised rule to 
finally help local governments across the country support and foster 
fair housing policies throughout their communities.
  The rule gives clearer guidance to communities to help them think in 
new ways about how to create housing opportunities for all of their 
residents regardless of race or religion or disability or the size of 
their family. The rule helps them to assess their own fair housing 
needs, and it provides them publicly available data with which to 
inform their decisions while they set their own goals and timelines.
  Since its adoption 2-plus years ago, HUD has been working with 
communities to implement the new guidelines. That is the good news. The 
bad news is that the Secretary has said that he wants to reinterpret, 
but he is not elaborating on what he meant by his plan to reinterpret 
the rule. If the Secretary intends to reinterpret the rule in a way 
that undermines HUD's efforts to help communities fulfill their 
longstanding obligations under this 50-year-old law, Mr. Compton will 
be called upon to carry out this vision.
  I voted against his nomination in committee because of my concern 
that he could help guide administration efforts to reverse progress on 
this fair housing rule. More recent activities by administration 
officials have only heightened the concerns that many of us have about 
their approaches to fair housing.
  In 2013, HUD issued its discriminatory effects rule. This rule 
formalized HUD's longstanding prohibition against practices with 
discriminatory effects under the Fair Housing Act and provided uniform 
guidance for applying standards across the country.
  Because homeowners' insurance is central to the ability to obtain 
housing, HUD and the courts have held for decades that the Fair Housing 
Act applies to discriminatory practices in insurance--a very easy-to-
understand, logical step. Nevertheless, insurance industry 
representatives sued to block HUD's application of the discriminatory 
effects rule--also known as disparate impact--to their industry. HUD 
and the Department of Justice have been fighting this suit ever since. 
As general counsel, Mr. Compton would guide HUD's enforcement and 
litigation strategy.
  In response to a written question, Mr. Compton declined to provide 
his views on the discriminatory effects rule and whether it should 
apply to the insurance industry. He noted that ``it would be 
inappropriate'' for him to comment on the matter given the pending 
litigation.
  The administration, it seems, does not share his reluctance to 
comment on pending litigation. A month and a half ago, the Treasury 
Department issued a report entitled ``A Financial System that Creates 
Economic Opportunities--Asset Management and Insurance.'' In this 
report, Treasury recommends that HUD reconsider the use of the 
disparate impact rule.
  It is not that this administration decides to support the side of big 
insurance companies every time--maybe it doesn't every time--but it 
seems like it almost always does. It did it in this case. Yet Mr. 
Compton thinks that he shouldn't comment when other already confirmed 
Trump appointees have. The Treasury's report sides with arguments that 
have been made by the insurance industry despite the fact that 
litigation is pending, and HUD and the Department of Justice, at least 
until now, have been defending the rule. The next court date for the 
suit is scheduled for later this week.
  If the administration continues its drive to reconsider fair housing 
protections that are opposed to by industry, Mr. Compton will likely be 
called upon to help the administration in its efforts. Because he 
declined to answer my question, we don't know what his thinking will 
be.
  While I might be inclined to give Mr. Compton the benefit of the 
doubt, we have seen too many officials in this administration who are 
working against the missions of the agencies to which they have been 
appointed. Financial regulators so often come from Wall Street. 
Environmental regulators so often come from the chemical industry and 
the oil industry. We have seen it time and again.
  This is happening at a time when we see the administration taking 
steps to remove protections for average Americans and consumers in 
order to carry out the bidding of its supporters on Wall Street. These 
include sending in Mick Mulvaney, who once called the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau a ``sick, sad joke.'' He is now serving as 
its Director. It is his moonlighting job, as he is also the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget. His first act as Director of the 
CFPB was to block the payments of funds that were owed to consumers--
consumers who were cheated or wronged by Wells Fargo and other big 
banks or big financial institutions. The consumers, in many cases, were 
servicemembers who had been cheated by these financial institutions. On 
Mulvaney's first day on the job, he said: No, we are not going to move 
forward in collecting those penalties and in paying those consumers and 
those servicemembers and those seniors and those families.
  I am concerned about this emerging effort to roll back protections 
for consumers. I hope that Mr. Compton proves me wrong. I hope that he 
is a strong advocate within the agency and the administration for fair 
housing, for consumer protection, and for affordable housing. When 
given the chance to demonstrate his commitment to fair housing, he took 
a pass. These matters are too important to far too many Americans for 
us to leave their futures to chance. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing Mr. Compton's nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on behalf 
of Mr. Compton and to conclude my remarks before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of Paul Compton to serve 
as HUD's next general counsel.

[[Page S8064]]

  Mr. Compton has dedicated his entire legal career to affordable 
housing and community development and for many years has headed the 
affordable housing practice of a prominent Alabama law firm. Over his 
distinguished career, Mr. Compton has played a direct role in over 70 
transactions that have led to the creation of more than 5,000 units of 
affordable housing throughout the Southeastern United States. Among 
peers, he has come to be recognized as an industry-leading expert on 
the low-income housing tax credit, the new markets tax credit, public-
private partnerships, and the regulatory environment surrounding 
housing production.
  Mr. Compton's extensive track record, his experience, and his 
intimate familiarity with HUD programs make him an ideal fit to join 
the leadership team at HUD. As general counsel, Mr. Compton will not 
only serve as the principal legal adviser to Secretary Carson, but he 
will have a hand in nearly every departmental initiative. Once 
confirmed, I look forward to working with Mr. Compton to find solutions 
to our Nation's housing challenges, to eliminate barriers to safe and 
affordable housing, and to reform our housing finance system.
  This confirmation vote is long overdue and is sorely needed. 
Following the storms that ravaged through Houston, Florida, Puerto 
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and elsewhere, HUD has been deployed on the 
frontlines, alongside FEMA and other agencies, and has worked to 
provide emergency and transitional housing to the thousands of families 
who have been displaced. This work is far from over, and I urge this 
body to confirm Mr. Compton today, as well as to confirm the various 
other HUD nominees who are awaiting votes so that they can get to work 
for the American people.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Compton 
nomination?
  Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 318 Ex.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--34

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Baldwin
     Capito
     Duckworth
     McCain
  The nomination was confirmed.