Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I came to the floor yesterday to speak on the devastating impact the Republican tax plan would have on working families in my home State of Illinois and other States across the Nation.

It is no secret that the Republican plan would finance massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. They just can't help themselves. Every time they look at the Tax Code, they think there has to be a way to help the wealthiest people in our country. They usually look at the estate tax, which is paid for by 1 out of every 1,000 Americans, and say: We have just got to spare these poor people who have a net worth of over $11 million from paying any taxes to the government. We have to spare them from paying this government for the benefit that this great Nation has brought to them and their families and businesses. That is where they start.

Then they do the alternative minimum tax, which is a tax that was created so that if your accountants and bookkeepers and lawyers are the sharpest on Earth and ended up finding that you had no tax liability, you still paid a fair share for sustaining this great Nation that you call home. They want to get rid of that, too, or at least dramatically modify it.

They start off with the premise of making these tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America the beginning point of tax reform, these giveaways to people who are not even asking for them. They can't help themselves. They always start there, and the American people know it.

When you ask the American people, what is this tax reform all about, they say it is tax cuts for wealthy people. That is where it always starts, and it does when the Republicans are the authors. That is what we face again.

They try to argue that it is going to help working families. It will help some--let me be honest about that--and yet you are going to find many working families who are going to pay more instead of less because of this so-called tax reform. Why would we ever do that?

Why would we give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America-- permanent tax breaks--and then turn around and say to working families: Sorry. Some of you will get help, but many of you will not.

In my home State of Illinois, the elimination of the State and local tax exemption is going to be devastating to our State. We are in the top five of States where the people in my State who pay income tax, sales tax, and property tax can deduct those taxes from their Federal income that is subject to taxation.

That is not a new idea. It has been around for decades. It really is premised on the following: Americans should not have to pay tax on a tax. If I pay $100 a month, and I pay my local property taxes, I shouldn't be taxed on that $100. It is a double hit. It is not fair, but the Republican plan believes that is what we should do.

I will tell the seven Republican Congressmen in my State, they ought to go home and ask the people whom they represent what they think about this one, the idea of double taxation that they would vote for and go home and try to defend. I think it is going to be tough, very tough.

It is no secret that these tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations will end up raising taxes on a lot of Americans and blowing a massive hole in the deficit.

I am going to quote a fellow who has been retired a few years from Congress. His name is Dave Obey. He was a Congressman from Wisconsin. Dave Obey used to say over and over again--and I am going to repeat it, and I have credited him with it: Too many times politicians are posing for holy pictures, but when it comes to the deficit and the debt, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pose for holy pictures about the national debt whenever there is a Democratic President and then get a swift case of amnesia whenever there is a Republican President.

Here we go again. They are ignoring the reality that the tax cuts they are promoting for the wealthiest and biggest corporations are going to end up blowing a hole in the deficit--a hole in the deficit, which is going to have to be paid for by future generations.

I used to watch as my Republican colleagues would get red in the face talking about our national debt, but that, of course, was under a Democratic President. Under a Republican President, it doesn't seem to be a major issue. Incidentally, there is a way to plug that hole, and somewhere along the way someone slipped and told us what it was.

If you want to plug the hole of $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy and big corporations, they propose cutting Medicare benefits and Medicaid benefits, cutting the basic health insurance plans that seniors and people in low-income categories use. Is that a sound policy, to try to patch a hole in the deficit by taking healthcare protection away from senior citizens in America--the 40-plus million who count on it--or those who are under Medicaid? I think it is not.

It turns out that Chairman Hatch had a new surprise for us this week. At 10:30 p.m. last night, Chairman Orrin Hatch released additional changes to this bill, which is evolving before our eyes. It is a bill which was not publicly announced until last Friday and is currently being debated in the hopes that when we return a week after our Thanksgiving recess, we will take it up and vote on it.

Does it seem like it is a hurried operation? Of course, it is. They know that if these bills sit out long enough and people read them and consider them, there will be a lot of questions asked that they can't answer.

Chairman Hatch released additional changes to the bill, and they decided to fund permanent tax cuts for some corporations. That is a high priority for the Republicans--wealthy people, big corporations. So how do they pay for permanent tax cuts for the biggest corporations? It turns out that in addition to raising taxes on working families, the Senate Republican tax bill would also raise health insurance premiums on middle-income families. That is right. The Republicans propose that their tax bill would also repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that an estimated 13 to 14 million Americans will lose their health insurance protection because of the Republican tax giveaway plan. I thought that plan was supposed to help working families. It ends up taking away their health insurance.

For those who can still remain in the market buying health insurance, they can anticipate their premiums for health insurance going up 10 percent. What kind of tax cut is this that ends up raising the cost of health insurance for working families and ends up eliminating health insurance for many middle-income families?

I find it hard to believe the satisfaction so many Republicans take to be able to boast and brag that they passed a bill that took away health insurance for Americans. You are proud of that? I wouldn't be. We should be doing the opposite--expanding the reach of health insurance, making sure every American has the peace of mind and health insurance they need for them and their families.

Remember when Republicans campaigned on the promise of increasing the number of people with insurance and decreasing premiums? This tax bill does just the opposite.

Haven't my Republican colleagues learned the lessons of the ACA-- Affordable Care Act--repeal by now? We spent the whole year in a vain effort by the Republicans to repeal and barely replace. The American people don't want it. Overwhelmingly, they are against it.

My hospitals in Illinois and across this Nation don't want what the Republicans are proposing in their bill. Patients don't want it. Nurses don't want it. Clinics don't want it. The disabled community doesn't want it. The Republicans are determined to do it anyway.

Senior leaders are against it, faith leaders are against it, the American people are against it, but this is going to be the feather in the cap for the Republican majority; that by the end of this year, they hope to pass a tax reform bill that is going to give tax breaks to the wealthiest, give a permanent tax break to the biggest corporations, make the middle-income families pay for it, eliminate 13 to 14 million Americans' health insurance, and raise their premiums. What a package. You have to work overtime to put together a package that damaging to working families in America, but that is what they are pushing. That is what they are determined to do.

Mr. President, last week my home State of Illinois took a major step forward in protecting student loan borrowers.

On November 7, the Illinois House of Representatives voted 98 to 16 to override Governor Rauner's veto of the Illinois Student Loan Bill of Rights, which was designed to protect student loan borrowers from the well documented abuses of Federal student loan servicers. The Illinois Senate previously voted 37 to 19 to override. With the house's action, the bill became law.

I would like to thank all of those in the general assembly who voted for this bill, including Senator Daniel Biss and Representative Will Guzzardi, who sponsored the legislation. I would also like to thank the legislation's author, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, for her leadership and tireless efforts to investigate and hold Federal student loan servicers accountable.

Federal student loan servicers are contracted by the U.S. Department of Education to handle the billing and other services related to the repayment of a Federal student loan. Too often, these contractors make it more difficult for students to repay their loans by giving them incorrect or incomplete information and guidance, refusing to provide benefits to which students are entitled under Federal law, or incorrectly processing payments. I have heard complaints about servicers from countless of the 1.5 million Illinoisans holding a cumulative total of $51 billion in Federal student loan debt.

Attorney General Madigan has heard those complaints too. In response, she initiated an investigation which resulted in an ongoing lawsuit against the Nation's largest student loan servicer, Navient. Navient has become the poster child for poor customer service and abusive practices that make it more difficult for struggling borrowers to repay their Federal student loans.

The Illinois Student Loan Bill of Rights will help to protect Illinois borrowers from these practices. Among other things, the law requires servicers to inform borrowers about their eligibility for income-driven repayment plans and other affordable repayment options. It also prohibits servicers from misleading borrowers, requires them to correctly process payments, and requires servicers to inform borrowers about their eligibility for loan forgiveness due to a disability or harmful actions by the school.

I have worked at the Federal level to provide similar protections for all student loan borrowers. I authored the Federal Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights, which I will reintroduce in the coming months. This bill was the basis for reforms to student loan servicing contracts initiated by President Obama. Unfortunately, much of that work has been rolled back by Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Thanks to Attorney General Madigan and the bipartisan actions of the Illinois General Assembly, borrowers in our State will now have new rights and protections that neither Governor Rauner nor Secretary DeVos can take away.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, it was 16 years ago that I introduced a bill known as the DREAM Act. The purpose of the DREAM Act was to give undocumented young people brought to the United States under the age of 18 an opportunity to go through a background check and to earn their way to legal status--16 years ago. The bill passed the Senate at various times and it passed the House, though never quite in the same year at the same time.

Now we face a crisis, literally. It is a crisis involving hundreds of thousands of these young people across America. It was just September 5 when the President of the United States announced that he was going to eliminate DACA.

DACA was the Executive order of President Obama that allowed these Dreamers to come forward, pay a filing fee of about $500 or $600, submit themselves to a criminal background check, and, after that background check, if they cleared it, to be given a 2-year allowance to live in the United States without fear of deportation--2 years at a time--and the legal capacity to work. That was what DACA was about.

So 780,000 young people did it. They came forward. They surrendered the information about themselves and their families. They submitted themselves to criminal background checks, and they ended up getting the protection of DACA. They went on to go to school, to go to work, to become teachers or engineers, to go to medical school, and to do things that really mean that they will have a future in this country that will be a benefit to them and to all of us.

So President Trump said that program will end on March 5, 2018, and he established a deadline, for those who were going to see their DACA eligibility end during that period of time, for them to renew. The deadline was October 5. It meant that they had to come forward with the filing fee and at least apply to go through the process again. It was quite a hardship on many of these young people to come up with the money for the filing fee and to realize that the clock was ticking in a very meaningful way about their ability to protect themselves. Many of them stepped forward and asked for help from families, from churches, and from friends to come up with the filing fee to make sure that they renewed their DACA eligibility in time.

Let me tell you what happened to some of them who went through this process.

Here is one case. On September 14, Allison Baker, a lawyer for the Legal Aid Society in New York, sent one of these young individuals' application to renew this permit that would let him stay and work in the United States legally as part of DACA. The date of September 14 should be remembered because the deadline for filing was October 5. To be sure, this lawyer sent this renewal application for this young man by certified mail. Back in the day when I practiced law, that was one way to make sure you had written proof of when you actually mailed something far in advance of a deadline. Tracking data from the U.S. Postal Service showed that the envelope arrived in Chicago on September 16. It was mailed from New York on September 14 and arrived in Chicago September 16, on its way to a regional processing warehouse of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that administers the program known as DACA.

Then the packet started circling the Chicago postal system in a mysterious holding pattern. From September 17 to September 19, it was in transit to destination, according to the Postal Service. Then its tracking whereabouts disappeared until October 4, where, once again, the Postal Service assured the sender that it was ``on its way.''

On October 6, the day after the deadline, this certified application, which was sent on September 14, arrived, and the application for this 24-year-old man was rejected by our government.

He wasn't alone. We know of at least 33 other cases just like this. Congressman Luis Gutierrez, of my State of Illinois, told the story of another application renewal sent on September 13 for an October 5 deadline. It arrived on October 6, as well. Another sent their paperwork on September 21. It wasn't received until October 9. What Congressman Gutierrez said is very obvious: Because somebody else did not do their job correctly, we are taking innocent young immigrants and making them deportable. That is unacceptable, Congressman Gutierrez said.

What does the U.S. Postal Service have to say about what I just read to you, those two or three cases? On Thursday, in a rare admission from a Federal agency, the U.S. Postal Service took the blame. David Partenheimer, a spokesman for the Postal Service, said that there had been ``an unintentional temporary mail processing delay in the Chicago area.''

Remember what I am saying here. Young people, undocumented had applied successfully and had been accepted into the DACA Program. The President announced he was going to end

the program, and those--many of them--had to re-sign up, renew, by October 5. They did it. They mailed it. Their application didn't arrive in time.

It doesn't take a big leap of faith or intelligence to realize what should be done. Clearly, this agency should be giving these young people a chance. Once again, they have done everything they can think of to comply with the law and trust our government. They trusted our government to give them DACA status to allow them to stay in the United States, and they trusted the Postal Service, in a matter of 2 weeks, to be able to deliver a letter.

Yesterday I spoke to the USCIS Director, Francis Cissna, and I asked him about this. I said to him: There must be a way for us to acknowledge the obvious. These young people, in good faith, did everything we could ask of them to comply with the law, and now they have been rejected. Now they are subject to deportation because the Postal Service didn't do its job. I asked him: Are you prepared to at least reconsider this decision and give them a chance to renew their DACA status?

He said he was aware of the situation and that it was being considered at the highest levels of the Department of Homeland Security.

I raise this issue because real lives are at stake. These are real people. These are young men and women who are doing everything they can think of to become part of America's future. They are hiring lawyers, they are raising money, and they are filing the documents that are asked of them in the hopes they can stay in the United States of America, and the system is fighting them every step of the way. In this situation, this is totally unfair.

Our government is better than this. Our people are better than this. Our values are better than this. I am pleading with the Department of Homeland Security and those who are seeking positions in that Department to show some common sense and a little bit of heart when it comes to these young people who are simply trying to make a future for themselves and a better United States of America.

Mr. President, this week, Republicans in Congress are determined to barrel ahead at full speed in a rushed, partisan effort to pass a tax plan at any cost. Make no mistake, for working families in Illinois and across the United States, this is a mistake.

Preliminary analysis from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation revealed that by 2019, more than 13 million Americans who make less than $200,000 a year will experience not a tax cut but a tax increase under the Senate Republican plan. That number jumps from 13 million to 21 million by the year 2025.

In my State of Illinois, taxpayers at every income bracket are going to see their taxes increase for this tax reform that is being pushed through at the last minute of this session.

Fourteen percent of the middle fifth of taxpayers in Illinois--those who are the very definition of middle income--will see an average tax hike under the Senate plan of $1,400. So much for a tax cut. It is a tax increase. Mr. President, I don't know about taxpayers in your State, but in my home State of Illinois, a $1,400 tax hike is a gut punch to a working family.

That is not all. Further analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that in addition to the millions of households which will see their taxes rise under this Senate Republican plan, 53 million households--that is 40 percent of all households earning less than $200,000 per year--will see no significant tax change under the new plan.

Let's be clear. If you are a middle-income family listening to that and you are thinking you might want to take your chances under this Republican plan, please look at the facts. Even if you are one of the lucky ones who manage not to pay more under the Republican tax plan, make no mistake, when this plan blows a $1.5 trillion hole in our Nation's deficit, it will be working families who end up paying the bill.

When Republicans' fake math indeed falls short and the deficit is skyrocketing, the Republican budget has already identified how they are going to pay for these tax cuts in the future. Are you ready? They are going to do it with an additional $470 billion in cuts in Medicare benefits--Medicare. They are paying for a tax cut for wealthy people by reducing the benefits paid out under Medicare to retired Americans and another $1 trillion cuts in Medicaid. Remember Medicaid? That is the program where the major expense is to maintain the lives and health of two-thirds of Americans who are in nursing homes.

So the Republicans want to give a tax break to the wealthy. They are going to ask seniors who are retired to pay more or receive less from Medicare and make a dramatic cut in Medicaid as well. There is no hiding. Congressional Republicans have made clear that one way or another, working families in America are going to pay for what they call tax reform. At the heart of the Republican playbook for how to bankroll massive tax cuts for the wealthy few and the largest corporations is the elimination of three vital tax breaks for working families.

The House Republican plan will be voted on this week. They are dead set to get this done in a matter of days, and they are going to eliminate in the House plan the medical expense deduction. What does that mean? It means, if someone in your family is diagnosed with a serious illness--God forbid, cancer or whatever it is--and your family ends up incurring massive debts, making sure that person survives, if you incur those debts, you currently can deduct them from your taxes that you pay, but the House Republican plan eliminates the deduction.

In my State of Illinois, 370,000 or more used the medical expense deduction. Their medical bills are that high. The Republicans in the House eliminate that deduction. That isn't going to help working families. It puts them at risk of bankruptcy. The No. 1 reason for bankruptcy in America is medical bills. The House Republican tax plan makes it tougher. More than 370,000 Illinoisans claim an average of a $10,000 deduction for medical expenses, for hospital care, long-term nursing home care, prescription drug costs. That is just wrong.

There is more. The House plan also eliminates the student loan interest deduction. Think about that for a second. Here, we have 1.5 million young people in Illinois paying off student loans. You know what they face: $20,000, $40,000, $60,000, $80,000 in debt. Some of them are still living in their parents' basement because of their student loans. We give them one little break. You know what it is? The deductibility on the interest on student loans, and yet here comes the Republicans to eliminate that deduction.

Why would we ever want to make it harder for these students and their families to pay off that mountain of debt that they incur going to college? But that is part of the so-called Republican tax reform.

They also include the one provision I know my colleague from New York, the Democratic leader, feels very intensely about because our States share the same problem. This compromise proposed in the Senate eliminates the State and local property tax deduction for State income tax, sales tax, and property tax currently in New York and Illinois and many other States. We hold to the basic principle, Americans should not have to pay a tax on a tax.

Unfortunately, the Republicans in the Senate believe they want to change that. The net result of that is to increase dramatically the burden so many taxpaying families already face. We have seen increases in our State income tax. We face regular increases in property taxes. This is the one deduction that gives these families a little bit of help, and Republicans are eliminating it.

It was a week ago when I had a press conference with the Realtors in my State and the homebuilders, who are dramatically opposed to the elimination of this deduction and other changes that are being made when it comes to purchasing homes and homeownership. They have told me: If you want real economic growth in Illinois or any State, you start with people who are building and buying homes. Sadly, the Republican approach, when it comes to tax reform, refuses to take that into consideration.

We need to stand up for working families in our States of Illinois and New York and across this Nation. This tax reform plan that has been proposed by the Republicans, who are determined to get it done in just a matter of a few

days, is going to be damaging to so many, and it is not going to help America grow. Middle-income families are going to pay for the cost of giveaways to the wealthiest taxpayers in America.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today I want to take a few moments to acknowledge former mayor of Evanston, IL--and my friend--Liz Tisdahl.

Liz began her service to Evanston in 1989 on the Evanston Township School Board. After 2 years as president of the board, Liz was appointed to the Evanston City Council in 2003 by Mayor Lorraine Morton. Mayor Morton had met Liz years earlier when she was picking up her youngest granddaughter from softball practice. She didn't recognize the new coach and asked about her. It was Liz Tisdahl. Liz didn't have a child on the team, but she wanted to lend a helping hand in the community.

When Lorraine Morton became mayor, she always remembered how Liz stepped up just to help other people, so when it came time for Mayor Morton to decide whom she wanted to replace her, the first and only name that came to mind was Liz Tisdahl. When Liz was first approached to run, her answer was ``absolutely not,'' but after giving it more thought, Liz answered the call to run to help out Evanston's residents who were leaving the community due to the increasingly high cost of living. Liz Tisdahl wasn't running for mayor to help herself, but like her time coaching that softball team years earlier, she was doing it for other people.

Early in Liz's tenure as mayor, she quickly learned what it meant to be the ``face of Evanston'' and the good she could accomplish. At the time, too many Evanston residents struggled to afford housing, so Liz wrote a Federal grant application and flew to Washington, DC, to lobby for money to expand affordable housing in her community--and it worked. Evanston received an $18 million grant. I remember calling her with the good news. Liz later said that was ``the day that I realized that there really was something to this `being a mayor' thing.''

Liz Tisdahl also has successfully lobbied to secure a designation for a Federal qualified health center in Evanston, resulting in the establishment of the Erie Evanston/Skokie Health Center. Since 2012, the Erie Evanston/Skokie Health Center has treated nearly 12,000 patients and provided immediate care for the residents of Evanston.

In 2009, when Liz Tisdahl first ran for mayor of Evanston, she campaigned under a simple platform: ``Diversity, Sustainability, and Economic Development.'' First, Liz set out to increase employment. She expanded the Mayor's Summer Youth Employment Program, which had 167 jobs in 2009. Since 2012, the program has grown by 100 jobs each year, employing 750 young people in 2016. Liz also created partnerships with Northwestern University, NorthShore University HealthSystem, and other businesses to establish job training and apprenticeship programs for the community's most vulnerable people. In 2009, the unemployment rate of Evanston was 8 percent. When Mayor Tisdahl left office earlier this year, unemployment was down to 4.1 percent.

Liz Tisdahl also worked to make Evanston greener and--as promised-- brought changes to the city's sustainability efforts. According to a 2015 emissions report, Evanston reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 18 percent between 2005 and 2015. In 2014, Evanston became one of America's first two cities to receive a four-star rating from the Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating Communities Initiative. For her environmental work and focus on sustainability issues, Liz received the Climate Protection Award from the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Earlier this year, after two terms in office, Liz Tisdahl decided not to run for a third. When asked why, her answer was simple. Although she loved being mayor, she had accomplished her goals. Liz Tisdahl went out on top.

Despite her many achievements, Liz's proudest accomplishment is her family. Now that she is retired, I know she is enjoying more time with her children and grandchildren, but this isn't the last we have heard from Liz Tisdahl. She will continue to be a fearless advocate for the people of Evanston. Since retiring, Liz has joined the board at Curt's Cafe, an Evanston coffee shop that trains at-risk youth, prepares them to become job-ready, and helps them to transition into full-time employment. One thing is clear, Liz Tisdahl is not done helping the community she loves.

I want to congratulate Liz Tisdahl on her distinguished career and thank her for her outstanding service to the people of Evanston. Now as she enters the next chapter in her life, I wish her and her family all the best.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.