[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.

                          ____________________