Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 24 (Friday, February 10, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 24 (Friday, February 10, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1086-S1090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HHS Secretary Tom Price

Madam President, I want to talk for a moment about Secretary Price,
now the new Secretary of Health and Human Services and just read a
couple of letters from people in Ohio and what this would mean to them.
A family physician from Cleveland, OH, wrote me:

I have seen firsthand the benefits of Medicaid expansion
here in Ohio. I also have a son who has had three brain
surgeries and has epilepsy as a result. His ability to get
health insurance in the future is a very real worry.

He is concerned about Dr. Price as Secretary of Health and Human
Services. He said:

His past record of trying to dismantle the ACA and his
opposition to women's reproductive health rights disqualify
him.

Another family wrote from Medina, OH, about the confirmation of
Congressman Price to be Secretary:

The ACA protections of coverage pre-existing conditions and
removal of lifetime caps were an absolute lifesaver for me,
literally.
As my disease has progressed, I have required multiple new
medications and treatments. Currently, my yearly maintenance
medications cost nearly $400,000. That doesn't include
additional appointments, testing, IV medications. . . .
Prior to the ACA being passed, I had a lifetime cap of 1
million dollars. If this cap came back--

And my colleagues want to repeal it. If this cap came back and they
reestablish the cap, reestablish the denial of coverage for preexisting
conditions--

If this cap came back, my insurance will last possibly less
than 2 years. Then what?
My husband and children will already lose me in the coming
years, regardless. I am simply asking that they not be forced
to lose everything else in the process.

So I hope we have learned from a really bad decision last night on
confirmation. I would hope that just two or three or four Republicans
could break from this party-line train running through this body, stand
up for the right things, stand up against the ethical challenges of
this nominee. I understand the President may call names, may tweet
about them, may try to ruin their careers. Show some courage. Show some
guts, and do the right thing. Vote no on Steven Mnuchin for Secretary
of Treasury.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I want to compliment my friend, the
Senator from Ohio, for his comments. I know my friend, the Senator from
Washington, is going to make comments after this, so I will try to make
mine as brief as possible.
I apologize. I joined the majority of Senators who are a little bit
raspy today after our late night last night.
I rise in opposition to the nomination of Steven Mnuchin to serve as
our Nation's next Secretary of the Treasury.
As the President's principal economic adviser, the Treasury Secretary
holds a special significance in our system of government. The Treasury
Department must ensure America's debts are paid, secure our role as a
global economic power, and develop policies that help build an economy
that works for all Americans.
Based on Mr. Mnuchin's record, my meeting with him, along with his
answers during the Senate Finance hearing and followup questions, I am
unable to support his nomination to serve as Treasury Secretary.
I want to take time today to discuss some specific policy issues that
Mr. Mnuchin and I disagree with and some of the areas where I hope that
if he is confirmed, we might be able to find common ground.
On financial reform and protecting the economy from too big to fail,
Mr. Mnuchin's comments, coupled with comments and announcements from
others in the administration, are deeply concerning.
Mr. Mnuchin's statements of ``concern'' about title II of Dodd-Frank,
in particular, revealed to my mind, at least, a disturbing lack of
understanding about how the financial system has evolved since the 2008
crash.
We should never forget that Lehman Brothers' collapse caused enough
uncertainty across the financial system to trigger a run on nearly
every other bank. The Lehman collapse also was part of the requirements
that required that $700 billion much fabled taxpayer bailout.
The resulting financial chaos destroyed millions of jobs, devastated
home values, and froze lending to consumers and small businesses. The
truth is, many Americans are still trying to dig their way out of that
financial crisis.
To ensure that taxpayers didn't end up on the hook again for another
bailout, Congress passed Dodd-Frank that required banks to put in
additional financial capital to make sure there were living wills so
these large, significant financial institutions actually had ways that
they could resolve themselves and, in a sense, get ready for
bankruptcy. But we also said, in the event that bankruptcy was not
adequate, there would be, as a cause of last resort, the ability using
the FDIC to unwind these large institutions.
Well, we are years later and what we have seen is that other
countries around the globe had basically modeled their systems after
what we created in terms of title I and II in Dodd-Frank.
Since 2010, our regulators have worked diligently with the Bank of
England and other foreign counterparts to ensure a global megabank can
be resolved without using taxpayer dollars.
I would further note that even the National Bankruptcy Conference,
which is composed of bankruptcy judges, lawyers, and academics, believe
``orderly liquidation authority under Title II should continue to be
available, even if the bankruptcy code is amended.''

[[Page S1087]]

Unfortunately, Mr. Mnuchin and other members of the administration
have expressed great concern with title II, and that causes me concern
in terms of his nomination.
In tax reform, the Secretary of the Treasury has also historically
played an important role. I have long argued that our Tax Code is
broken. It is simply not working for enough Americans and American
businesses.
I would welcome efforts to smartly--and on a bipartisan basis--work
to reform the Tax Code, but I am concerned about how a tax reform
process under this administration might play out.
First, Mr. Mnuchin has repeatedly said there should be no absolute
tax cut for the upper class. I found that good. Some have even started
to call this the ``Mnuchin rule.''
As the nominee, though, he has failed to commit to following his own
rule or to provide any specific answer on how he would reduce the tax
burden on middle class and working families. In fact, President Trump
campaigned on a plan that based upon independent budget analysis, would
add close to $5 trillion to our national debt and that would, in the
same amount, slash taxes for corporations and those at the top of the
income scale. Yet this same plan and any effort to be revenue-neutral
would end up then raising taxes on middle-class families.
The truth is, again, an independent analysis of President Trump's
plan shows that while middle-class earners might see a smaller increase
in their aftertax income, the increase and the benefits to the upper 1
percent would be where most of the benefits went to. That is before we
even get to issues like the President's plan to repeal the Affordable
Care Act and the implications that has for middle-class Americans.
Because of this and because of his unwillingness to explain how we
would pay for this tax reform and the notion that somehow through
dynamic scoring this would all, in effect, self-correct leaves me with
great concerns. I would simply point out to my colleagues that when Mr.
Camp proposed a tax reform plan that I didn't agree with--but it at
least had some basis in financial reality--there were eight separate
dynamic scoring plans put together; in effect, magic dust that could
somehow resolve even big tax cuts that would suddenly, somehow
mysteriously pay for themselves.
We saw the effects of that kind of action with the Bush tax cuts
early in 2003. We have seen this well in terms of actions that have led
our country to $20 trillion in debt.
So I believe that Mr. Mnuchin's failure to come through with a truly
revenue-neutral or legitimate plan that would not misuse dynamic
scoring raises enormous concern as well.
Finally, I am concerned that Mr. Mnuchin lacks an understanding of
the critical role the Treasury Department plays in both crafting and
implementing economic standards.
It was useful to hear that Mr. Mnuchin committed to 100 percent
sanctions during his nomination. I am not sure, with some of the
actions of the administration since then, if we can actually hold him
to those commitments.
Treasury obviously has a role that is much more important than just
enforcement. Treasury's role vis-a-vis Iran, Treasury's role vis-a-vis
the Russian sanctions are extraordinarily important in his
unwillingness, particularly around Russia, to make a firm commitment.
Again, this raises a clear concern for me, and this is a concern that
is shared by both Democratic and Republican Members of the Senate who
feel that we need to keep the pressure on Mr. Putin's behavior not only
in the Middle East but in Ukraine and, candidly, Russia's unprecedented
involvement and interference in our own election.
Again, the Treasury Secretary plays an important and critical role.
There are areas--let me make clear though--where, if Mr. Mnuchin is
confirmed, I hope to work with him, and that one area in particular is
housing finance.
I believe very strongly--and having worked with many Members on the
other side--that we need to reform our housing finance system so we
don't have, in the case of Fannie and Freddie, instances where when
times are going good, there is private sector gain, but when crisis
happens, the taxpayer pays the bill.
We saw this take place back in 2008, where the American taxpayers
literally had to put up $188 billion of taxpayer money to bail out
Fannie and Freddie.
It is true, many years later, most of those funds have been repaid,
but as somebody who spent longer as a venture capitalist than I have as
a Senator, I can assure you, the taxpayer did not get fair return on
those funds that were taken out in the midst of the crisis.
Now we see certain hedge funds were trying to take advantage of this
arbitrage, buy in to Freddie and Fannie, and then hope that
policymakers will turn a blind eye and simply return to the old style
of doing business, where as long as things are going well, hedge funds
and others will do well by owning Fannie and Freddie, but if the stuff
hits the fan again, taxpayers will be caught holding the bill.
I was happy to hear--and I was pleased to hear that Mr. Mnuchin went
on record during the Finance hearing, opposing the so-called recap and
release plan and was supporting a bipartisan solution to reform these
entities.
Again, if Mr. Mnuchin is confirmed, I look forward to working with
him in this area.
Finally, there is an area that I think most of us on both sides of
the aisle realize that we can't play Russian roulette with and that is
dealing with our debt ceiling. Here again was an area where I would
actually give Mr. Mnuchin some credit because he acknowledged that the
notion that some have put forward that if America would prioritize to
pay one bill and not another is both financially unsound and
practically impossible. On that item, I want to give Mr. Mnuchin his
due.
On balance, because of some of the comments that Mr. Mnuchin has made
around tax reform, around sanctions, around the issues related to
making sure we have a vigorous and independent Treasury, I don't
believe he brings the characteristics and qualities needed to be a
Treasury Secretary. So I will not be able to support his nomination,
and I will urge my colleagues in joining me to oppose him when his vote
comes up on Monday.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon
with my colleagues to speak about the nomination of Steve Mnuchin for
the Secretary of Treasury.
We all know this is a very important economic position in our Federal
Government, but it is also a position of great importance for the
entire world economy. The Secretary of Treasury is a key Presidential
adviser on important economic and tax policy, and has an impact on the
lives of millions of people across the United States. But most
importantly, the Secretary will be on the front lines protecting and
restoring our economy from the unbelievable economic crisis that we
faced in 2008.
I like to say that this crisis--which, according to the Dallas Fed,
which cost us $14 trillion--is not over. That is, average Americans
still have not recovered from the crisis when it comes to their 401(k)
or their pension or the opportunity to send their kids to school or
perhaps even homeownership. It is very important that we have a
Treasury Secretary who not only says that they will protect the United
States in the future from another financial crisis, but that they are
also on the job making sure we restore economic opportunities for
everyday Americans.
I would have to say that Mr. Mnuchin certainly has lived the American
dream. You would say that he is a man who has achieved financial
success. But is he going to fight for the average American who has not
achieved that success because of the economic downturn in 2008? Is he
going to make sure that our resources and dollars not only grow the
economy, but make sure that those who have been impacted the most are
restored in some way?
I personally did not support the bailout of the banks. I did not give
the keys of the Treasury to those big organizations, and many people in
the State of Washington and across America during this last campaign
want to know why they did not receive financial help during that
downturn, but people were so willing to bail out these

[[Page S1088]]

large organizations. So it is very important that we look at the
nomination today in light of what has transpired and what we are going
to do moving forward to help the economic security of so many
Americans.
This position, which includes chairing the Financial Stability
Oversight Council and moderating systemic risk to our entire financial
system, is a very big job. It requires someone with both expertise in
policy and experience in public service, as well, because you are
balancing these issues for the public.
I find it sometimes very difficult to explain in detail those
policies to my constituents, particularly about balancing the public
interest, when they have seen that all some want to do, as I said, is
give the keys to the Treasury to those large financial organizations.
There is a lot to talk about that here today.
In my opinion the Treasury Department needs a seasoned and
experienced public servant who understands our ship has been sailing
through turbulent waters, and will focus on making sure that America
returns to economic stability.
I had an opportunity to meet with the Treasury Secretary nominee. He
has admitted throughout his confirmation hearing that he was the chief
fundraiser for President Trump during his election. In fact, when I
asked him why he wanted to be Treasury Secretary, he told me that he
had spent many hours campaigning with the President-elect around the
United States and he wanted to continue that relationship. This isn't
exactly the type of experience that I am looking for. I want somebody
who is going to continue to help us dig out of those economic problems
that plague so many average Americans--on many issues, whether it is
pensions or investing in education or growing our economy at a robust
rate, that bring everybody up to a higher economic standard of living.
One issue that plagues me the most in thinking about this particular
nominee is the issue of Glass-Steagall, the separation of commercial
and investment banking.
Why would that issue be so important?
It is so important because this was the law of the land for more than
60 years in the United States of America after the Great Depression.
Why? Because people understood we should not be putting individual
savings--and taxpayer money--at risk when you have a financial crisis.
So we implemented that law of the land.
I have not been shy about trying to work with my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and, during the
financial regulatory reform debate, make sure we were putting strong
laws on the books. I always felt that there would be a time when
average Americans really could look back on all that Congress had done
and say they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the rules that were in
place.
Well, I think that time happened during the last election. There was
a lot of discussion that while we had passed what was then called Dodd-
Frank--the regulatory reform that this Congress passed, I felt like we
could do more. A lot of the discussion was that Dodd-Frank didn't go
far enough, that somehow we needed to do more. The compromise shaped
here in the Senate, was said by some people, was as much as we could
do, and that we should put those rules in place and see how they worked
for the U.S. economy. I supported it because it was enough to get on
the books, to start getting disclosure, to start making sure that these
transactions would have more oversight, but I never thought--never
thought--it was the bright line that we needed to separate commercial
and investment banking.

So you can imagine that it was to my great delight when I saw last
summer the debate between the Republican and Democratic platforms in
which the Republican platform actually started to embrace Glass-
Steagall. They had a campaign, they had a Presidential candidate, and
they certainly had a Presidential campaign manager who were all
embracing it and touting it. I don't know if that was an effort to try
to distinguish between some of the candidates on the other side of the
aisle, or my colleague from Vermont who has also been a big supporter
of Glass-Steagall, but they clearly put in their platform something
that was unambiguous. It basically said: ``We support reinstating the
Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prohibits commercial banks from being
engaged in high-risk investment.'' That is what their platform said,
and that is what our now-President's then campaign manager also said
they were for. That caught my ear because I thought maybe we had
finally reached a point with the frustration of the American public
about how they had been left behind after the financial crisis, and
that they finally were seeing two candidates and several campaigns
talking about this issue, putting it in their platform, and moving
ahead.
It was the Trump campaign manager who said:

``We are supporting the small banks and Main Street. We
talk about legislation that affects, you know, some of the
mistakes that were made in repealing Glass-Steagall.''

This was the party platform of the other side of the aisle. In fact I
have to say I almost thought it was probably a better platform than we
had on the Democratic side, and I wanted to make sure that my
colleagues knew and understood that. But now I see that it was nothing
more than a cynical ploy to try to convince the American people that
somehow the Trump administration was really going to be on the side of
Main Street against Wall Street.
In fact, one of my first conversations with Secretary-nominee Mr.
Mnuchin was to ask him whether he in fact supported Glass-Steagall. He
said to me: No, that was just a campaign promise in our platform. That
is not what we are going to do.
That caught me by surprise because I really had hoped that maybe
President Trump, having been in business, having seen the challenges of
working with big banks, maybe was really going to be on the side of
Main Street, was really going to fight to make sure that we protected
the capital that needed to go into small business, that needed to go
into investment, that needed to go into new products and manufacturing,
and protect us from those kinds of Wall Street shenanigans.
My constituents want to make something in America besides exotic
financial instruments. They want those dollars to be invested in small
businesses that are creating products and selling them in a worldwide
market.
Mr. Mnuchin, instead, came to the Finance Committee and basically
said he is not for that version of what was in their party platform. In
fact, he and the President now support rolling back the minimal law
that we put on the books, known as the Volcker rule, within Dodd-Frank.
So, the fact is that not only are they not supporting what we were led
to believe they did support, but they are now putting someone in the
position of the chief economic official on these issues, who is saying:
Let's start rolling back the regulations that already exist.
So I am very frustrated by that, and I can say just on that point
alone that I would oppose Mr. Mnuchin's nomination to be Treasury
Secretary. I think it is time that we have someone who is not like
putting the fox in the hen house, but is instead there to do the job
and will protect our investment in the future and hopefully unwind this
economic problem from the past.
There are other reasons, though, why I don't support Mr. Mnuchin's
nomination to Treasury Secretary, and many of my colleagues here this
morning have already talked about that as related to the economic
crisis. OneWest Bank, with Mr. Mnuchin as chair, booked billions in
profits on the backs of foreclosure victims. According to reports, Mr.
Mnuchin's investors pocketed nearly $4 billion in the time they
controlled the bank. Mr. Mnuchin reportedly made $100 million when he
sold OneWest in 2015 for double what he paid the government.
We saw this in the Northwest, and I can tell you it was a great
frustration. These profits were booked on the backs of thousands of
struggling Americans, and we don't know exactly how these people
suffered because we don't have all the information.
The victims of OneWest are at least 50,000, including 1,600 in the
State of Washington. OneWest used ethically troubling and actually
illegal methods to seize homes from struggling homeowners and not give
them a fair process.

[[Page S1089]]

Under their agreement with regulators, they were supposed to modify
mortgages whenever possible and keep people in their homes. However,
according to the California attorney general, OneWest engaged in
``widespread misconduct'' to kick many people out of their homes. Even
Mr. Mnuchin admitted this. In 2011 he signed a consent order with the
U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision that found that OneWest had filed or
caused to be filed potentially false affidavits ``not based on personal
knowledge or review of relevant books and records.''
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record one of these
actual agreements.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING

CIT BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, vs. YVONNE C CARR, an
individual; MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, a limited liability company;
and all other persons, parties, or occupants unknown claiming
any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or
interest in the real property described in the complaint
herein, adverse to Plaintiff's title, or any cloud on
Plaintiff's title to the Property.--Defendants.
CASE NUMBER: COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF DEED OF
TRUST
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff, CIT BANK, N.A., (``Plaintiff) is a
corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State
of Washington.
2. Defendant YVONNE C CARR, an individual (hereinafter
referred to as ``Defendant'') is a resident of King County,
Washington.
3. Defendant MIDLAND FUNDING LLC is a limited liability
company doing business in the state of Oregon.
4. Venue is proper in this action as the Defendant resides
in King County and the property that is the subject of this
Complaint is located in King County.
5. Defendant is the record owner of the real property
commonly known as: 4916 48TH AVE SOUTH, SEATTLE, WA 98118
(``Property'') and legally described as: ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT
``1.''
6. On or about November 9, 2010 the Defendant, for valuable
consideration, made, executed, and delivered to EAGLE HOME
MORTGAGE LLC (``Eagle Home Mortgage LLC'') a promissory note.
A copy of the Note is attached as Exhibit ``2.''
7. At the same time that the Defendant executed and
delivered the Note, and as part of the same transaction, the
Defendant, in order to secure payment of the Note, made,
executed, and delivered to Eagle Home Mortgage LLC a Deed of
Trust encumbering the Property, which is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit ``3'' (``Deed of
Trust''). The Deed of Trust was recorded on November 15, 2010
with the King County Auditor under Instrument No.
20101115001766.
8. Defendant MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, has, or claims to have,
some interest in the subject property or some part thereof by
reason of a judgment in the amount of $1,353.05. Said
judgment was entered by King County Circuit Court on January
26, 2015 and relates to case no. 145-16318.
9. Plaintiff is holder of the Note and assignee of the Deed
of Trust.
10. As of January 29, 2016 the balance due and owing is
$230,364.41 plus interest at 5.390% per diem, which continues
to accrue until paid. The amount due is comprised of the
following:

Principal Advances...................................... $167,175.00
Accrued Interest........................................ $53,842.70
Initial MIP............................................. $4,352.00
Monthly MIP............................................. $4,994.71
Grand Total......................................... $230,364.41

11. Plaintiff has exercised and does hereby exercise the
option granted in the Note and Deed of Trust to declare the
whole of the balance of both the principal and interest
thereon due and payable, as the property has ceased to be the
principal residence of the borrower.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that All Other Persons, Parties, or Occupants Unknown
Claiming any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien,
or Interest in the Real Property Described in the Complaint
Herein, Adverse to Plaintiff's Title, or any Cloud on
Plaintiff's Title to the Property are individuals having a
subordinate claim or interest in the Property. The interests
of said Defendant in the Property shall be eliminated at the
time of the foreclosure sale by Plaintiff. As of the date of
the filing of this Complaint, the identities of these
Defendants are not known. Once the identities of these
Defendants are known, these pleadings will be amended to
reflect their true names,
13. No other suit or action has been instituted or is now
pending upon said Note or to foreclose the Deed of Trust.
14. The terms of the Note and Deed of Trust provide that,
in the event of any action to collect the same or to
foreclose the Deed of Trust, there shall be included in the
Judgment a reasonable sum for attorney's fees, together with
all expenses incurred in pursuing a default action and
including the costs of title evidence.
15. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment permitting it to bid
all or part of its judgment sale.
16. Plaintiff does not seek a monetary judgment against
Defendant MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC. Rather, Plaintiff seeks to
foreclose its deed of trust which secures its promissory note
against the Property, and extinguish all subordinate
interests in the property thereby.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants
as follows:
1. For judgment in the sum of $230,364.41 together with
interest from January 29, 2016 at the rate of 5.930% per
diem, late charges, and for such other sums advanced under
the terms of the Note and Deed of Trust, for taxes,
assessments, municipal charges, and other items which may
constitute liens on the Property, together with insurance and
repairs necessary to prevent impairment of the security,
attorney's fees and costs of reasonable and necessary
amounts, if this matter is uncontested, or as submitted by
counsel, and such other amounts as the Court shall deem
reasonable in case this action is contested, together with
the costs and disbursements herein;
2. It be adjudged, in the event of non-payment of the
judgment forthwith upon its entry, that the Deed of Trust be
declared as valid first lien upon the land and premises
described herein; that the Deed of Trust be foreclosed and
that the Property covered thereby sold at a foreclosure sale
in the manner provided by law, and the proceeds thereof be
applied on said judgment and increased interest and such
additional amounts as the Plaintiff may advance for taxes,
assessments, municipal charges, and such other items as may
constitute lien upon the Property, together with insurance
and repairs necessary to prevent impairment of the security,
together with interest thereon from the date of payment;
3. By such foreclosure and sale, the rights, claims,
ownership, liens, and demands of each of the Defendants and
persons claiming by, through or under them subsequent to the
execution of the Deed of Trust should be adjudged inferior
and subordinate to the Deed of Trust lien and be forever
foreclosed, except only for the statutory right of redemption
allowed by law and surplus funds allowed by law, if any;
4. The Plaintiff be permitted to become a bidder and
purchaser at the foreclosure sale;
5. Adjudging that each of the Defendants and all persons
claiming under each Defendant, after execution of the Deed of
Trust, whether as lien claimant, judgment creditor, claimant
under a junior trust deed, purchaser, lien holder, or
otherwise be barred and foreclosed from all rights, claims,
interests, or equity of redemption in the Property and every
part of the Property when the time for redemption has
elapsed;
6. For an Order directing the Sheriff, after the time for
redemption has elapsed, to execute a deed to the purchaser of
the Property at the sale, and directing that any such
purchaser be let into possession of the Property upon
production of the Sherriff's Deed;
7. For an Order eliminating such redemption rights should
the subject property be found vacant for at least 6 months
prior to application for judgment; and
8. For such other and further relief as the court deems
just and proper.
DATED: February 9, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
MALCOLM CISNEROS, A Law Corporation.

Nathan F. Smith, WSBA. #43160, Attorneys for Plaintiff,
MALCOLM CISNEROS, A Law Corporation.
____

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF
WASHINGTON

CIT BANK, N.A., Plaintiff/Petitioner, vs. Yvonne C. Carr,
an individual; et al., Defendant/Respondent.
Cause No. 16-2-03164 1.
Hearing Date:
DECLARATION OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF AN ACTION;
SUMMONS; COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF DEED OF TRUST;
DECLARATION OF NON-MILITARY STATUS.
The undersigned hereby declares: That s(he) is now and at
all times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United
States, over the age of eighteen, not an officer of a
plaintiff corporation, not a party to nor interested in the
above entitled action, and is competent to be a witness
therein.
On the 23rd day of February, 2016 at 12:50 PM at the
address of 4916 48TH AVE. S., SEATTLE, King County, WA 98116;
this declarant served the above described documents upon
YVONNE C. CARR by then and there personally delivering 1 true
and correct copy(ies) thereof, by then presenting to and
leaving the same with YVONNE C. CARR, Who accepted service,
with identity confirmed by verbal communication, a black
female approx. 55-65 years of age, 5'4''-5'6'' tall, weighing
120-140 lbs with brown hair.
No information was provided or discovered that indicates
that the subjects served are members of the United States
military.
Service Fee Total: $ 75.00.
Declarant hereby states under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of Washington that the statement above is
true and correct.
DATED 2/23/16.
Joshua Douglas, Reg. # 1418458, King County.

Ms. CANTWELL. This is an actual foreclosure document from one of my
constituents. What is most amazing

[[Page S1090]]

about this is that they are basically saying that this property should
be seized and foreclosed on, saying that there was no one living there.
But when one actually sees the service of the document, the service of
the document shows that it was served at an address where somebody
answered the door and took the document. So even in and of itself, you
can see how ludicrous this operation was--just going through a robo-
list of names, signing documents, and putting people out of their
homes, when in reality, they were there living in them and should not
have been foreclosed on.
Many of these behaviors have been described by my colleagues, and I
hope that we get to the bottom of this issue. We heard from victims of
a foreclosure, where on a 98-year-old woman, being 27 cents short on a
payment, and another where they changed the locks on her home in
Minnesota in the middle of a blizzard.
Is that what we did for Goldman Sachs? I don't think so. I think we
gave them the keys to the Treasury.
This behavior, the callousness of this issue, is another reason why I
cannot support Mr. Mnuchin's nomination for Treasury Secretary.
Mr. Mnuchin's answers to questions about the administration's tax
reform plan are another issue. His tax reform policy and that of the
administration just doesn't add up to me. The nonpartisan analysts who
have looked at the President's tax reform plan found that it would do
just the opposite of what Mr. Mnuchin says, and it would actually
increase the deficit by $7.2 trillion over 10 years.
I don't think those are economics that I can support, and I don't
think I can support his nomination.
I would just say, in concluding, that there are other issues that
also concern me with this nominee and his responsibility to help us
solve our economic challenges.
I did have a chance to talk to Mr. Mnuchin about our pension
programs. One-third of Americans have zero retirement savings or a
pension plan--one-third. Those who do are not saving nearly enough and
the median balance for those nearing retirement is only $14,500. This
is going to be a crisis for us.
According to the National Institute on Retirement Security, our
nation's retirement savings gap is somewhere between $6.8 trillion and
$14 trillion. That is the gap that we are looking at in the United
States.
So, yes, when the Dallas Fed says that bailing out Wall Street and
the implosion of the Wall Street problems cost our economy $14
trillion, and that just happens to be the same gap in pensions and
retirement savings, it makes me furious.
I want to see a Treasury Secretary who has a plan on how we are going
to deal with these issues. The Secretary of the Treasury sits on the
Board of Directors of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. They
make important decisions as it relates to the multi-employer pension
plans and the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act. The PBGC currently has
a deficit of $76 billion.
These issues are so important, not just to mineworkers but to average
Americans. When Mr. Mnuchin sat on the board of Sears, he oversaw the
finances of the company's pension, which was massively underfunded and
accumulated $8.3 billion in net losses. We cannot afford to let that
happen to the PBGC.
If that is not enough, I want a Treasury Secretary who is going to be
aggressive in protecting the American taxpayer from further cause and
effects of the crisis in Puerto Rico. I was not a fan of the plan that
we crafted here in the Congress. Why? Because, again, we gave Wall
Street all the opportunity and left the taxpayers of the United States
and Puerto Rico with all the cost. That is going to be a challenge for
all of us in the future, and I hope that we will have a Treasury
Secretary who will be aggressive in recouping our losses as taxpayers
from Wall Street.
So while I know that people here and on the other side of the aisle
think their minds are made up, I would just ask them to look at his
record, to look at what we need to do as a country to move our economy
forward to recoup from the financial crises, and to say that Mr.
Mnuchin is not the man to lead us where we need to go. He certainly has
realized his financial dreams, but we have not heard enough from him
that makes me convinced he is going to help Americans realize theirs.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

____________________