[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7553-H7567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISASTER TAX RELIEF AND AIRPORT AND AIRWAY EXTENSION ACT OF 2017
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
538, I call up the bill (H.R. 3823) to amend title 49, United States
Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and
expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to provide
disaster tax relief, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, the
amendment printed in House Report 115-333 is adopted, and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3823
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Disaster
Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--FEDERAL AVIATION PROGRAMS
Sec. 101. Extension of airport improvement program.
Sec. 102. Extension of expiring authorities.
Sec. 103. Federal Aviation Administration operations.
Sec. 104. Small community air service.
Sec. 105. Air navigation facilities and equipment.
Sec. 106. Research, engineering, and development.
Sec. 107. Funding for aviation programs.
TITLE II--AVIATION REVENUE PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Expenditure authority from Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
Sec. 202. Extension of taxes funding Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
TITLE III--EXPIRING HEALTH PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Extension of certain public health programs.
Sec. 302. Extension of Medicare Patient IVIG Access Demonstration
Project.
[[Page H7554]]
Sec. 303. Funds from the Medicare Improvement Fund.
TITLE IV--DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE FLOOD INSURANCE MARKET
Sec. 401. Private flood insurance.
TITLE V--TAX RELIEF FOR HURRICANES HARVEY, IRMA, AND MARIA
Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Special disaster-related rules for use of retirement funds.
Sec. 503. Disaster-related employment relief.
Sec. 504. Additional disaster-related tax relief provisions.
Sec. 505. Budgetary effects.
TITLE I--FEDERAL AVIATION PROGRAMS
SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Section 48103(a) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``and $1,670,410,959 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2017, and ending on March 31, 2018.''.
(2) Obligation of amounts.--Subject to limitations
specified in advance in appropriations Acts, sums made
available pursuant to the amendment made by paragraph (1) may
be obligated at any time through September 30, 2018, and
shall remain available until expended.
(3) Program implementation.--For purposes of calculating
funding apportionments and meeting other requirements under
sections 47114, 47115, 47116, and 47117 of title 49, United
States Code, for the period beginning on October 1, 2017, and
ending on March 31, 2018, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall--
(A) first calculate such funding apportionments on an
annualized basis as if the total amount available under
section 48103 of such title for fiscal year 2018 were
$3,350,000,000; and
(B) then reduce by 50 percent--
(i) all funding apportionments calculated under
subparagraph (A); and
(ii) amounts available pursuant to sections 47117(b) and
47117(f)(2) of such title.
(b) Project Grant Authority.--Section 47104(c) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended in the matter preceding
paragraph (1) by striking ``September 30, 2017,'' and
inserting ``March 31, 2018,''.
SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF EXPIRING AUTHORITIES.
(a) Section 47107(r)(3) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``October 1, 2017'' and inserting ``April
1, 2018''.
(b) Section 47114(c)(1)(F) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in the subparagraph heading by striking ``for fiscal
year 2017''; and
(2) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ``for
fiscal year 2017 an amount'' and inserting ``for each of
fiscal years 2017 and 2018 an amount''.
(c) Section 47115(j) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``and for the period beginning on
October 1, 2017, and ending on March 31, 2018'' after
``fiscal years 2012 through 2017''.
(d) Section 47124(b)(3)(E) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by inserting ``and not more than $5,160,822 for
the period beginning on October 1, 2017, and ending on March
31, 2018,'' after ``fiscal years 2012 through 2017''.
(e) Section 47141(f) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``September 30, 2017'' and inserting
``March 31, 2018''.
(f) Section 186(d) of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (117 Stat. 2518) is amended by inserting
``and for the period beginning on October 1, 2017, and ending
on March 31, 2018,'' after ``fiscal years 2012 through
2017''.
(g) Section 409(d) of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 41731 note) is amended by
striking ``September 30, 2017'' and inserting ``March 31,
2018''.
(h) Section 140(c)(1) of the FAA Modernization and Reform
Act of 2012 (126 Stat. 28) is amended by striking ``2017''
and inserting ``2018''.
(i) Section 411(h) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act
of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 42301 prec. note) is amended by striking
``September 30, 2017'' and inserting ``March 31, 2018''.
(j) Section 822(k) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act
of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 47141 note) is amended by striking
``September 30, 2017'' and inserting ``March 31, 2018''.
(k) Section 2306(b) of the FAA Extension, Safety, and
Security Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 641) is amended by striking
``October 1, 2017'' and inserting ``April 1, 2018''.
SEC. 103. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS.
Section 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (E) by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) $4,999,191,956 for the period beginning on October 1,
2017, and ending on March 31, 2018.''; and
(2) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``and for the period
beginning on October 1, 2017, and ending on March 31, 2018''
after ``fiscal years 2012 through 2017''.
SEC. 104. SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE.
(a) Essential Air Service Authorization.--Section
41742(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``and $175,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 and
2017'' and inserting ``$175,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2016 and 2017, and $74,794,521 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2017, and ending on March 31, 2018,''.
(b) Airports Not Receiving Sufficient Service.--Section
41743(e)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``and $4,986,301 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2017, and ending on March 31, 2018,'' after
``fiscal years 2012 through 2017''.
SEC. 105. AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT.
Section 48101(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) $1,423,589,041 for the period beginning on October 1,
2017, and ending on March 31, 2018.''.
SEC. 106. RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT.
Section 48102(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (8) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (9) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) $88,008,219 for the period beginning on October 1,
2017 and ending on March 31, 2018.''.
SEC. 107. FUNDING FOR AVIATION PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Section 48114 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``2017'' and inserting
``2018''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``2017'' and inserting
``2018''.
(b) Compliance With Funding Requirements.--The budget
authority authorized in this title, including the amendments
made by this title, shall be deemed to satisfy the
requirements of subsections (a)(1)(B) and (a)(2) of section
48114 of title 49, United States Code, for the period
beginning on October 1, 2017, and ending on March 31, 2018.
TITLE II--AVIATION REVENUE PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY FROM AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST
FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 9502(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking
``October 1, 2017'' and inserting ``April 1, 2018''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A) by striking the semicolon at the
end and inserting ``or the Disaster Tax Relief and Airport
and Airway Extension Act of 2017;''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9502(e)(2) of such Code
is amended by striking ``October 1, 2017'' and inserting
``April 1, 2018''.
SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF TAXES FUNDING AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST
FUND.
(a) Fuel Taxes.--Section 4081(d)(2)(B) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``September 30,
2017'' and inserting ``March 31, 2018''.
(b) Ticket Taxes.--
(1) Persons.--Section 4261(k)(1)(A)(ii) of such Code is
amended by striking ``September 30, 2017'' and inserting
``March 31, 2018''.
(2) Property.--Section 4271(d)(1)(A)(ii) of such Code is
amended by striking ``September 30, 2017'' and inserting
``March 31, 2018''.
(c) Fractional Ownership Programs.--
(1) Treatment as noncommercial aviation.--Section 4083(b)
of such Code is amended by striking ``October 1, 2017'' and
inserting ``April 1, 2018''.
(2) Exemption from ticket taxes.--Section 4261(j) of such
Code is amended by striking ``September 30, 2017'' and
inserting ``March 31, 2018''.
TITLE III--EXPIRING HEALTH PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS.
(a) Extension of Program of Payments to Teaching Health
Centers That Operate Graduate Medical Education Programs.--
Section 340H(g) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
256h(g)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and $60,000,000'' and inserting ``,
$60,000,000''; and
(2) by inserting ``, and $15,000,000 for the first quarter
of fiscal year 2018'' before the period at the end.
(b) Extension of Special Diabetes Program for Indians.--
Section 330C(c)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 254c-3(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) $37,500,000 for the first quarter of fiscal year
2018.''.
(c) Technical Corrections.--Part D of the Public Health
Service Act is amended by redesignating--
(1) the second subpart XI (42 U.S.C. 256i; relating to a
community-based collaborative care network program) as
subpart XII; and
(2) the second section 340H (42 U.S.C. 256i) as section
340I.
SEC. 302. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE PATIENT IVIG ACCESS
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
Section 101(b) of the Medicare IVIG Access and
Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012 (42
U.S.C. 1395l note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``for a period of
3 years'' the following: ``and, subject to the availability
of funds under subsection (g)--
[[Page H7555]]
``(A) if the date of enactment of the Disaster Tax Relief
and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017 is on or before
September 30, 2017, for the period beginning on October 1,
2017, and ending on December 31, 2020; and
``(B) if the date of enactment of such Act is after
September 30, 2017, for the period beginning on the date of
enactment of such Act and ending on December 31, 2020''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following
new sentences: ``Subject to the preceding sentence, a
Medicare beneficiary enrolled in the demonstration project on
September 30, 2017, shall be automatically enrolled during
the period beginning on the date of the enactment of the
Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of
2017 and ending on December 31, 2020, without submission of
another application.''.
SEC. 303. FUNDS FROM THE MEDICARE IMPROVEMENT FUND.
Section 1898(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395iii(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``during and after
fiscal year 2021, $270,000,000'' and inserting ``during and
after fiscal year 2021, $220,000,000''.
TITLE IV--DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE FLOOD INSURANCE MARKET
SEC. 401. PRIVATE FLOOD INSURANCE.
(a) Flood Insurance Mandatory Purchase Requirement.--
(1) Amount and term of coverage.--Section 102 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a) is amended
by striking ``Sec. 102. (a)'' and all that follows through
the end of subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``Sec. 102. (a) Amount and Term of Coverage.--After the
expiration of sixty days following the date of the enactment
of this Act, no Federal officer or agency shall approve any
financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes
for use in any area that has been identified by the
Administrator as an area having special flood hazards and in
which the sale of flood insurance has been made available
under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, unless the
building or mobile home and any personal property to which
such financial assistance relates is covered by flood
insurance: Provided, That the amount of flood insurance (1)
in the case of Federal flood insurance, is at least equal to
the development or project cost of the building, mobile home,
or personal property (less estimated land cost), the
outstanding principal balance of the loan, or the maximum
limit of Federal flood insurance coverage made available with
respect to the particular type of property, whichever is
less; or (2) in the case of private flood insurance, is at
least equal to the development or project cost of the
building, mobile home, or personal property (less estimated
land cost), the outstanding principal balance of the loan, or
the maximum limit of Federal flood insurance coverage made
available with respect to the particular type of property,
whichever is less: Provided further, That if the financial
assistance provided is in the form of a loan or an insurance
or guaranty of a loan, the amount of flood insurance required
need not exceed the outstanding principal balance of the loan
and need not be required beyond the term of the loan. The
requirement of maintaining flood insurance shall apply during
the life of the property, regardless of transfer of ownership
of such property.''.
(2) Requirement for mortgage loans.--Subsection (b) of
section 102 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42
U.S.C. 4012a(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (7);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7);
(C) by striking the subsection designation and all that
follows through the end of paragraph (5) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Requirement for Mortgage Loans.--
``(1) Regulated lending institutions.--Each Federal entity
for lending regulation (after consultation and coordination
with the Financial Institutions Examination Council
established under the Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council Act of 1974) shall by regulation direct
regulated lending institutions not to make, increase, extend,
or renew any loan secured by improved real estate or a mobile
home located or to be located in an area that has been
identified by the Administrator as an area having special
flood hazards and in which flood insurance has been made
available under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968,
unless the building or mobile home and any personal property
securing such loan is covered for the term of the loan by
flood insurance: Provided, That the amount of flood insurance
(A) in the case of Federal flood insurance, is at least equal
to the outstanding principal balance of the loan or the
maximum limit of Federal flood insurance coverage made
available with respect to the particular type of property,
whichever is less; or (B) in the case of private flood
insurance, is at least equal to the outstanding principal
balance of the loan or the maximum limit of Federal flood
insurance coverage made available with respect to the
particular type of property, whichever is less.
``(2) Federal agency lenders and mortgage insurance and
guarantee agencies.--
``(A) Federal agency lenders.--A Federal agency lender may
not make, increase, extend, or renew any loan secured by
improved real estate or a mobile home located or to be
located in an area that has been identified by the
Administrator as an area having special flood hazards and in
which flood insurance has been made available under the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, unless the building or
mobile home and any personal property securing such loan is
covered for the term of the loan by flood insurance in
accordance with paragraph (1). Each Federal agency lender may
issue any regulations necessary to carry out this paragraph.
Such regulations shall be consistent with and substantially
identical to the regulations issued under paragraph (1).
``(B) Other federal mortgage entities.--
``(i) Coverage requirements.--Each covered Federal mortgage
entity shall implement procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that, for any loan that--
``(I) is secured by improved real estate or a mobile home
located in an area that has been identified, at the time of
the origination of the loan or at any time during the term of
the loan, by the Administrator as an area having special
flood hazards and in which flood insurance is available under
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, and
``(II) is made, insured, held, or guaranteed by such
entity, or backs or on which is based any trust certificate
or other security for which such entity guarantees the timely
payment of principal and interest,
the building or mobile home and any personal property
securing the loan is covered for the term of the loan by
flood insurance in the amount provided in paragraph (1).
``(ii) Definition.--For purposes of this subparagraph, the
term `covered Federal mortgage entity' means--
``(I) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, with
respect to mortgages insured under the National Housing Act;
``(II) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to loans
made, insured, or guaranteed under title V of the Housing Act
of 1949; and
``(III) the Government National Mortgage Association.
``(C) Requirement to accept flood insurance.--Each Federal
agency lender and each covered Federal mortgage entity shall
accept flood insurance as satisfaction of the flood insurance
coverage requirement under subparagraph (A) or (B),
respectively, if the flood insurance coverage meets the
requirements for coverage under such subparagraph and the
requirements relating to financial strength issued pursuant
to paragraph (4).
``(3) Government-sponsored enterprises for housing.--The
Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation shall implement procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that, for any loan that is--
``(A) secured by improved real estate or a mobile home
located in an area that has been identified, at the time of
the origination of the loan or at any time during the term of
the loan, by the Administrator as an area having special
flood hazards and in which flood insurance is available under
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, and
``(B) purchased or guaranteed by such entity,
the building or mobile home and any personal property
securing the loan is covered for the term of the loan by
flood insurance in the amount provided in paragraph (1). The
Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation shall accept flood insurance as
satisfaction of the flood insurance coverage requirement
under paragraph (1) if the flood insurance coverage provided
meets the requirements for coverage under that paragraph and
the requirements relating to financial strength issued
pursuant to paragraph (4).
``(4) Requirements regarding financial strength.--The
Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, in
consultation with the Federal National Mortgage Association,
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development, the Government National
Mortgage Association, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall
develop and implement requirements relating to the financial
strength of private insurance companies from which such
entities and agencies will accept private flood insurance,
provided that such requirements shall not affect or conflict
with any State law, regulation, or procedure concerning the
regulation of the business of insurance.
``(5) Applicability.--
``(A) Existing coverage.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), paragraph (1) shall apply on the date of
enactment of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994.
``(B) New coverage.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) shall apply
only with respect to any loan made, increased, extended, or
renewed after the expiration of the 1-year period beginning
on the date of enactment of the Riegle Community Development
and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. Paragraph (1) shall
apply with respect to any loan made, increased, extended, or
renewed by any lender supervised by the Farm Credit
Administration only after the expiration of the period under
this subparagraph.
``(C) Continued effect of regulations.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this subsection, the regulations to carry
out paragraph (1), as in effect immediately before the date
of enactment of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, shall continue to apply
until the regulations issued to carry out paragraph (1) as
amended by section 522(a) of such Act take effect.
``(6) Rule of construction.--Except as otherwise specified,
any reference to flood insurance in this section shall be
considered
[[Page H7556]]
to include Federal flood insurance and private flood
insurance. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
supersede or limit the authority of a Federal entity for
lending regulation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, a
Federal agency lender, a covered Federal mortgage entity (as
such term is defined in paragraph (2)(B)(ii)), the Federal
National Mortgage Association, or the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation to establish requirements relating to
the financial strength of private insurance companies from
which the entity or agency will accept private flood
insurance, provided that such requirements shall not affect
or conflict with any State law, regulation, or procedure
concerning the regulation of the business of insurance.'';
and
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(8) Definitions.--In this section:
``(A) Flood insurance.--The term `flood insurance' means--
``(i) Federal flood insurance; and
``(ii) private flood insurance.
``(B) Federal flood insurance.--The term `Federal flood
insurance' means an insurance policy made available under the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.).
``(C) Private flood insurance.--The term `private flood
insurance' means an insurance policy that--
``(i) is issued by an insurance company that is--
``(I) licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage
in the business of insurance in the State in which the
insured building is located, by the insurance regulator of
that State; or
``(II) eligible as a nonadmitted insurer to provide
insurance in the home State of the insured, in accordance
with sections 521 through 527 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 8201 through
8206);
``(ii) is issued by an insurance company that is not
otherwise disapproved as a surplus lines insurer by the
insurance regulator of the State in which the property to be
insured is located; and
``(iii) provides flood insurance coverage that complies
with the laws and regulations of that State.
``(D) State.--The term `State' means any State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin
Islands, and American Samoa.''.
(b) Effect of Private Flood Insurance Coverage on
Continuous Coverage Requirements.--Section 1308 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(n) Effect of Private Flood Insurance Coverage on
Continuous Coverage Requirements.--For purposes of applying
any statutory, regulatory, or administrative continuous
coverage requirement, including under section 1307(g)(1), the
Administrator shall consider any period during which a
property was continuously covered by private flood insurance
(as defined in section 102(b)(8) of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(8))) to be a
period of continuous coverage.''.
TITLE V--TAX RELIEF FOR HURRICANES HARVEY, IRMA, AND MARIA
SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Hurricane Harvey Disaster Zone and Disaster Area.--For
purposes of this title--
(1) Hurricane harvey disaster zone.--The term ``Hurricane
Harvey disaster zone'' means that portion of the Hurricane
Harvey disaster area determined by the President to warrant
individual or individual and public assistance from the
Federal Government under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by reason of Hurricane
Harvey.
(2) Hurricane harvey disaster area.--The term ``Hurricane
Harvey disaster area'' means an area with respect to which a
major disaster has been declared by the President before
September 21, 2017, under section 401 of such Act by reason
of Hurricane Harvey.
(b) Hurricane Irma Disaster Zone and Disaster Area.--For
purposes of this title--
(1) Hurricane irma disaster zone.--The term ``Hurricane
Irma disaster zone'' means that portion of the Hurricane Irma
disaster area determined by the President to warrant
individual or individual and public assistance from the
Federal Government under such Act by reason of Hurricane
Irma.
(2) Hurricane irma disaster area.--The term ``Hurricane
Irma disaster area'' means an area with respect to which a
major disaster has been declared by the President before
September 21, 2017, under section 401 of such Act by reason
of Hurricane Irma.
(c) Hurricane Maria Disaster Zone and Disaster Area.--For
purposes of this title--
(1) Hurricane maria disaster zone.--The term ``Hurricane
Maria disaster zone'' means that portion of the Hurricane
Maria disaster area determined by the President to warrant
individual or individual and public assistance from the
Federal Government under such Act by reason of Hurricane
Maria.
(2) Hurricane maria disaster area.--The term ``Hurricane
Maria disaster area'' means an area with respect to which a
major disaster has been declared by the President before
September 21, 2017, under section 401 of such Act by reason
of Hurricane Maria.
SEC. 502. SPECIAL DISASTER-RELATED RULES FOR USE OF
RETIREMENT FUNDS.
(a) Tax-Favored Withdrawals From Retirement Plans.--
(1) In general.--Section 72(t) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 shall not apply to any qualified hurricane
distribution.
(2) Aggregate dollar limitation.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
aggregate amount of distributions received by an individual
which may be treated as qualified hurricane distributions for
any taxable year shall not exceed the excess (if any) of--
(i) $100,000, over
(ii) the aggregate amounts treated as qualified hurricane
distributions received by such individual for all prior
taxable years.
(B) Treatment of plan distributions.--If a distribution to
an individual would (without regard to subparagraph (A)) be a
qualified hurricane distribution, a plan shall not be treated
as violating any requirement of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 merely because the plan treats such distribution as a
qualified hurricane distribution, unless the aggregate amount
of such distributions from all plans maintained by the
employer (and any member of any controlled group which
includes the employer) to such individual exceeds $100,000.
(C) Controlled group.--For purposes of subparagraph (B),
the term ``controlled group'' means any group treated as a
single employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of
section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(3) Amount distributed may be repaid.--
(A) In general.--Any individual who receives a qualified
hurricane distribution may, at any time during the 3-year
period beginning on the day after the date on which such
distribution was received, make one or more contributions in
an aggregate amount not to exceed the amount of such
distribution to an eligible retirement plan of which such
individual is a beneficiary and to which a rollover
contribution of such distribution could be made under section
402(c), 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), 408(d)(3), or 457(e)(16), of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as the case may be.
(B) Treatment of repayments of distributions from eligible
retirement plans other than iras.--For purposes of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if a contribution is made
pursuant to subparagraph (A) with respect to a qualified
hurricane distribution from an eligible retirement plan other
than an individual retirement plan, then the taxpayer shall,
to the extent of the amount of the contribution, be treated
as having received the qualified hurricane distribution in an
eligible rollover distribution (as defined in section
402(c)(4) of such Code) and as having transferred the amount
to the eligible retirement plan in a direct trustee to
trustee transfer within 60 days of the distribution.
(C) Treatment of repayments for distributions from iras.--
For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if a
contribution is made pursuant to subparagraph (A) with
respect to a qualified hurricane distribution from an
individual retirement plan (as defined by section 7701(a)(37)
of such Code), then, to the extent of the amount of the
contribution, the qualified hurricane distribution shall be
treated as a distribution described in section 408(d)(3) of
such Code and as having been transferred to the eligible
retirement plan in a direct trustee to trustee transfer
within 60 days of the distribution.
(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) Qualified hurricane distribution.--Except as provided
in paragraph (2), the term ``qualified hurricane
distribution'' means--
(i) any distribution from an eligible retirement plan made
on or after August 23, 2017, and before January 1, 2019, to
an individual whose principal place of abode on August 23,
2017, is located in the Hurricane Harvey disaster area and
who has sustained an economic loss by reason of Hurricane
Harvey,
(ii) any distribution (which is not described in clause
(i)) from an eligible retirement plan made on or after
September 4, 2017, and before January 1, 2019, to an
individual whose principal place of abode on September 4,
2017, is located in the Hurricane Irma disaster area and who
has sustained an economic loss by reason of Hurricane Irma,
and
(iii) any distribution (which is not described in clause
(i) or (ii)) from an eligible retirement plan made on or
after September 16, 2017, and before January 1, 2019, to an
individual whose principal place of abode on September 16,
2017, is located in the Hurricane Maria disaster area and who
has sustained an economic loss by reason of Hurricane Maria.
(B) Eligible retirement plan.--The term ``eligible
retirement plan'' shall have the meaning given such term by
section 402(c)(8)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(5) Income inclusion spread over 3-year period.--
(A) In general.--In the case of any qualified hurricane
distribution, unless the taxpayer elects not to have this
paragraph apply for any taxable year, any amount required to
be included in gross income for such taxable year shall be so
included ratably over the 3-taxable-year period beginning
with such taxable year.
(B) Special rule.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), rules
similar to the rules of subparagraph (E) of section
408A(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply.
(6) Special rules.--
(A) Exemption of distributions from trustee to trustee
transfer and withholding rules.--For purposes of sections
401(a)(31), 402(f), and 3405 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, qualified hurricane distributions shall not be treated
as eligible rollover distributions.
[[Page H7557]]
(B) Qualified hurricane distributions treated as meeting
plan distribution requirements.--For purposes the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, a qualified hurricane distribution
shall be treated as meeting the requirements of sections
401(k)(2)(B)(i), 403(b)(7)(A)(ii), 403(b)(11), and
457(d)(1)(A) of such Code.
(b) Recontributions of Withdrawals for Home Purchases.--
(1) Recontributions.--
(A) In general.--Any individual who received a qualified
distribution may, during the period beginning on August 23,
2017, and ending on February 28, 2018, make one or more
contributions in an aggregate amount not to exceed the amount
of such qualified distribution to an eligible retirement plan
(as defined in section 402(c)(8)(B) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986) of which such individual is a beneficiary and
to which a rollover contribution of such distribution could
be made under section 402(c), 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), or
408(d)(3), of such Code, as the case may be.
(B) Treatment of repayments.--Rules similar to the rules of
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (a)(3) shall apply
for purposes of this subsection.
(2) Qualified distribution.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``qualified distribution'' means any
distribution--
(A) described in section 401(k)(2)(B)(i)(IV),
403(b)(7)(A)(ii) (but only to the extent such distribution
relates to financial hardship), 403(b)(11)(B), or
72(t)(2)(F), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
(B) received after February 28, 2017, and before September
21, 2017, and
(C) which was to be used to purchase or construct a
principal residence in the Hurricane Harvey disaster area,
the Hurricane Irma disaster area, or the Hurricane Maria
disaster area, but which was not so purchased or constructed
on account of Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, or Hurricane
Maria.
(c) Loans From Qualified Plans.--
(1) Increase in limit on loans not treated as
distributions.--In the case of any loan from a qualified
employer plan (as defined under section 72(p)(4) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to a qualified individual made
during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act and ending on December 31, 2018--
(A) clause (i) of section 72(p)(2)(A) of such Code shall be
applied by substituting ``$100,000'' for ``$50,000'', and
(B) clause (ii) of such section shall be applied by
substituting ``the present value of the nonforfeitable
accrued benefit of the employee under the plan'' for ``one-
half of the present value of the nonforfeitable accrued
benefit of the employee under the plan''.
(2) Delay of repayment.--In the case of a qualified
individual with an outstanding loan on or after the qualified
beginning date from a qualified employer plan (as defined in
section 72(p)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)--
(A) if the due date pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (C) of
section 72(p)(2) of such Code for any repayment with respect
to such loan occurs during the period beginning on the
qualified beginning date and ending on December 31, 2018,
such due date shall be delayed for 1 year,
(B) any subsequent repayments with respect to any such loan
shall be appropriately adjusted to reflect the delay in the
due date under paragraph (1) and any interest accruing during
such delay, and
(C) in determining the 5-year period and the term of a loan
under subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 72(p)(2) of such
Code, the period described in subparagraph (A) shall be
disregarded.
(3) Qualified individual.--For purposes of this
subsection--
(A) In general.--The term ``qualified individual'' means
any qualified Hurricane Harvey individual, any qualified
Hurricane Irma individual, and any qualified Hurricane Maria
individual.
(B) Qualified hurricane harvey individual.--The term
``qualified Hurricane Harvey individual'' means an individual
whose principal place of abode on August 23, 2017, is located
in the Hurricane Harvey disaster area and who has sustained
an economic loss by reason of Hurricane Harvey.
(C) Qualified hurricane irma individual.--The term
``qualified Hurricane Irma individual'' means an individual
(other than a qualified Hurricane Harvey individual) whose
principal place of abode on September 4, 2017, is located in
the Hurricane Irma disaster area and who has sustained an
economic loss by reason of Hurricane Irma.
(D) Qualified hurricane maria individual.--The term
``qualified Hurricane Maria individual'' means an individual
(other than a qualified Hurricane Harvey individual or a
qualified Hurricane Irma individual) whose principal place of
abode on September 16, 2017, is located in the Hurricane
Maria disaster area and who has sustained an economic loss by
reason of Hurricane Maria.
(4) Qualified beginning date.--For purposes of this
subsection, the qualified beginning date is--
(A) in the case of any qualified Hurricane Harvey
individual, August 23, 2017,
(B) in the case of any qualified Hurricane Irma individual,
September 4, 2017, and
(C) in the case of any qualified Hurricane Maria
individual, September 16, 2017.
(d) Provisions Relating to Plan Amendments.--
(1) In general.--If this subsection applies to any
amendment to any plan or annuity contract, such plan or
contract shall be treated as being operated in accordance
with the terms of the plan during the period described in
paragraph (2)(B)(i).
(2) Amendments to which subsection applies.--
(A) In general.--This subsection shall apply to any
amendment to any plan or annuity contract which is made--
(i) pursuant to any provision of this section, or pursuant
to any regulation issued by the Secretary or the Secretary of
Labor under any provision of this section, and
(ii) on or before the last day of the first plan year
beginning on or after January 1, 2019, or such later date as
the Secretary may prescribe.
In the case of a governmental plan (as defined in section
414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), clause (ii)
shall be applied by substituting the date which is 2 years
after the date otherwise applied under clause (ii).
(B) Conditions.--This subsection shall not apply to any
amendment unless--
(i) during the period--
(I) beginning on the date that this section or the
regulation described in subparagraph (A)(i) takes effect (or
in the case of a plan or contract amendment not required by
this section or such regulation, the effective date specified
by the plan), and
(II) ending on the date described in subparagraph (A)(ii)
(or, if earlier, the date the plan or contract amendment is
adopted),
the plan or contract is operated as if such plan or contract
amendment were in effect, and
(ii) such plan or contract amendment applies retroactively
for such period.
SEC. 503. DISASTER-RELATED EMPLOYMENT RELIEF.
(a) Employee Retention Credit for Employers Affected by
Hurricane Harvey.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, in the case of an eligible employer,
the Hurricane Harvey employee retention credit shall be
treated as a credit listed in subsection (b) of such section.
For purposes of this subsection, the Hurricane Harvey
employee retention credit for any taxable year is an amount
equal to 40 percent of the qualified wages with respect to
each eligible employee of such employer for such taxable
year. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the amount of
qualified wages which may be taken into account with respect
to any individual shall not exceed $6,000.
(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) Eligible employer.--The term ``eligible employer''
means any employer--
(i) which conducted an active trade or business on August
23, 2017, in the Hurricane Harvey disaster zone, and
(ii) with respect to whom the trade or business described
in clause (i) is inoperable on any day after August 23, 2017,
and before January 1, 2018, as a result of damage sustained
by reason of Hurricane Harvey.
(B) Eligible employee.--The term ``eligible employee''
means with respect to an eligible employer an employee whose
principal place of employment on August 23, 2017, with such
eligible employer was in the Hurricane Harvey disaster zone.
(C) Qualified wages.--The term ``qualified wages'' means
wages (as defined in section 51(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, but without regard to section 3306(b)(2)(B) of
such Code) paid or incurred by an eligible employer with
respect to an eligible employee on any day after August 23,
2017, and before January 1, 2018, which occurs during the
period--
(i) beginning on the date on which the trade or business
described in subparagraph (A) first became inoperable at the
principal place of employment of the employee immediately
before Hurricane Harvey, and
(ii) ending on the date on which such trade or business has
resumed significant operations at such principal place of
employment.
Such term shall include wages paid without regard to whether
the employee performs no services, performs services at a
different place of employment than such principal place of
employment, or performs services at such principal place of
employment before significant operations have resumed.
(3) Certain rules to apply.--For purposes of this
subsection, rules similar to the rules of sections 51(i)(1)
and 52, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall apply.
(4) Employee not taken into account more than once.--An
employee shall not be treated as an eligible employee for
purposes of this subsection for any period with respect to
any employer if such employer is allowed a credit under
section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect
to such employee for such period.
(b) Employee Retention Credit for Employers Affected by
Hurricane Irma.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, in the case of an eligible employer,
the Hurricane Irma employee retention credit shall be treated
as a credit listed in subsection (b) of such section. For
purposes of this subsection, the Hurricane Irma employee
retention credit for any taxable year is an amount equal to
40 percent of the qualified wages with respect to each
eligible employee of such employer for such taxable year. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, the amount of qualified
[[Page H7558]]
wages which may be taken into account with respect to any
individual shall not exceed $6,000.
(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) Eligible employer.--The term ``eligible employer''
means any employer--
(i) which conducted an active trade or business on
September 4, 2017, in the Hurricane Irma disaster zone, and
(ii) with respect to whom the trade or business described
in clause (i) is inoperable on any day after September 4,
2017, and before January 1, 2018, as a result of damage
sustained by reason of Hurricane Irma.
(B) Eligible employee.--The term ``eligible employee''
means with respect to an eligible employer an employee whose
principal place of employment on September 4, 2017, with such
eligible employer was in the Hurricane Irma disaster zone.
(C) Qualified wages.--The term ``qualified wages'' means
wages (as defined in section 51(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, but without regard to section 3306(b)(2)(B) of
such Code) paid or incurred by an eligible employer with
respect to an eligible employee on any day after September 4,
2017, and before January 1, 2018, which occurs during the
period--
(i) beginning on the date on which the trade or business
described in subparagraph (A) first became inoperable at the
principal place of employment of the employee immediately
before Hurricane Irma, and
(ii) ending on the date on which such trade or business has
resumed significant operations at such principal place of
employment.
Such term shall include wages paid without regard to whether
the employee performs no services, performs services at a
different place of employment than such principal place of
employment, or performs services at such principal place of
employment before significant operations have resumed.
(3) Certain rules to apply.--For purposes of this
subsection, rules similar to the rules of sections 51(i)(1)
and 52, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall apply.
(4) Employee not taken into account more than once.--An
employee shall not be treated as an eligible employee for
purposes of this subsection for any period with respect to
any employer if such employer is allowed a credit under
subsection (a), or section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, with respect to such employee for such period.
(c) Employee Retention Credit for Employers Affected by
Hurricane Maria.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, in the case of an eligible employer,
the Hurricane Maria employee retention credit shall be
treated as a credit listed in subsection (b) of such section.
For purposes of this subsection, the Hurricane Maria employee
retention credit for any taxable year is an amount equal to
40 percent of the qualified wages with respect to each
eligible employee of such employer for such taxable year. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, the amount of qualified
wages which may be taken into account with respect to any
individual shall not exceed $6,000.
(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) Eligible employer.--The term ``eligible employer''
means any employer--
(i) which conducted an active trade or business on
September 16, 2017, in the Hurricane Maria disaster zone, and
(ii) with respect to whom the trade or business described
in clause (i) is inoperable on any day after September 16,
2017, and before January 1, 2018, as a result of damage
sustained by reason of Hurricane Maria.
(B) Eligible employee.--The term ``eligible employee''
means with respect to an eligible employer an employee whose
principal place of employment on September 16, 2017, with
such eligible employer was in the Hurricane Maria disaster
zone.
(C) Qualified wages.--The term ``qualified wages'' means
wages (as defined in section 51(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, but without regard to section 3306(b)(2)(B) of
such Code) paid or incurred by an eligible employer with
respect to an eligible employee on any day after September
16, 2017, and before January 1, 2018, which occurs during the
period--
(i) beginning on the date on which the trade or business
described in subparagraph (A) first became inoperable at the
principal place of employment of the employee immediately
before Hurricane Maria, and
(ii) ending on the date on which such trade or business has
resumed significant operations at such principal place of
employment.
Such term shall include wages paid without regard to whether
the employee performs no services, performs services at a
different place of employment than such principal place of
employment, or performs services at such principal place of
employment before significant operations have resumed.
(3) Certain rules to apply.--For purposes of this
subsection, rules similar to the rules of sections 51(i)(1)
and 52, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall apply.
(4) Employee not taken into account more than once.--An
employee shall not be treated as an eligible employee for
purposes of this subsection for any period with respect to
any employer if such employer is allowed a credit under
subsection (a) or (b), or section 51 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, with respect to such employee for such period.
SEC. 504. ADDITIONAL DISASTER-RELATED TAX RELIEF PROVISIONS.
(a) Temporary Suspension of Limitations on Charitable
Contributions.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in paragraph
(2), subsection (b) of section 170 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 shall not apply to qualified contributions and
such contributions shall not be taken into account for
purposes of applying subsections (b) and (d) of such section
to other contributions.
(2) Treatment of excess contributions.--For purposes of
section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986--
(A) Individuals.--In the case of an individual--
(i) Limitation.--Any qualified contribution shall be
allowed only to the extent that the aggregate of such
contributions does not exceed the excess of the taxpayer's
contribution base (as defined in subparagraph (G) of section
170(b)(1) of such Code) over the amount of all other
charitable contributions allowed under section 170(b)(1) of
such Code.
(ii) Carryover.--If the aggregate amount of qualified
contributions made in the contribution year (within the
meaning of section 170(d)(1) of such Code) exceeds the
limitation of clause (i), such excess shall be added to the
excess described in the portion of subparagraph (A) of such
section which precedes clause (i) thereof for purposes of
applying such section.
(B) Corporations.--In the case of a corporation--
(i) Limitation.--Any qualified contribution shall be
allowed only to the extent that the aggregate of such
contributions does not exceed the excess of the taxpayer's
taxable income (as determined under paragraph (2) of section
170(b) of such Code) over the amount of all other charitable
contributions allowed under such paragraph.
(ii) Carryover.--Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph
(A)(ii) shall apply for purposes of this subparagraph.
(3) Exception to overall limitation on itemized
deductions.--So much of any deduction allowed under section
170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as does not exceed
the qualified contributions paid during the taxable year
shall not be treated as an itemized deduction for purposes of
section 68 of such Code.
(4) Qualified contributions.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``qualified contribution'' means any charitable contribution
(as defined in section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) if--
(i) such contribution--
(I) is paid during the period beginning on August 23, 2017,
and ending on December 31, 2017, in cash to an organization
described in section 170(b)(1)(A) of such Code, and
(II) is made for relief efforts in the Hurricane Harvey
disaster area, the Hurricane Irma disaster area, or the
Hurricane Maria disaster area,
(ii) the taxpayer obtains from such organization
contemporaneous written acknowledgment (within the meaning of
section 170(f)(8) of such Code) that such contribution was
used (or is to be used) for relief efforts described in
clause (i)(II), and
(iii) the taxpayer has elected the application of this
subsection with respect to such contribution.
(B) Exception.--Such term shall not include a contribution
by a donor if the contribution is--
(i) to an organization described in section 509(a)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or
(ii) for the establishment of a new, or maintenance of an
existing, donor advised fund (as defined in section
4966(d)(2) of such Code).
(C) Application of election to partnerships and s
corporations.--In the case of a partnership or S corporation,
the election under subparagraph (A)(iii) shall be made
separately by each partner or shareholder.
(b) Special Rules for Qualified Disaster-Related Personal
Casualty Losses.--
(1) In general.--If an individual has a net disaster loss
for any taxable year--
(A) the amount determined under section 165(h)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be equal to the sum
of--
(i) such net disaster loss, and
(ii) so much of the excess referred to in the matter
preceding clause (i) of section 165(h)(2)(A) of such Code
(reduced by the amount in clause (i) of this subparagraph) as
exceeds 10 percent of the adjusted gross income of the
individual,
(B) section 165(h)(1) of such Code shall be applied by
substituting ``$500'' for ``$500 ($100 for taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2009)'',
(C) the standard deduction determined under section 63(c)
of such Code shall be increased by the net disaster loss, and
(D) section 56(b)(1)(E) of such Code shall not apply to so
much of the standard deduction as is attributable to the
increase under subparagraph (C) of this paragraph.
(2) Net disaster loss.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term ``net disaster loss'' means the excess of qualified
disaster-related personal casualty losses over personal
casualty gains (as defined in section 165(h)(3)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
(3) Qualified disaster-related personal casualty losses.--
For purposes of this subsection, the term ``qualified
disaster-related
[[Page H7559]]
personal casualty losses'' means losses described in section
165(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986--
(A) which arise in the Hurricane Harvey disaster area on or
after August 23, 2017, and which are attributable to
Hurricane Harvey,
(B) which arise in the Hurricane Irma disaster area on or
after September 4, 2017, and which are attributable to
Hurricane Irma, or
(C) which arise in the Hurricane Maria disaster area on or
after September 16, 2017, and which are attributable to
Hurricane Maria.
(c) Special Rule for Determining Earned Income.--
(1) In general.--In the case of a qualified individual, if
the earned income of the taxpayer for the taxable year which
includes the applicable date is less than the earned income
of the taxpayer for the preceding taxable year, the credits
allowed under sections 24(d) and 32 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 may, at the election of the taxpayer, be
determined by substituting--
(A) such earned income for the preceding taxable year, for
(B) such earned income for the taxable year which includes
the applicable date.
In the case of a resident of Puerto Rico determining the
credit allowed under section 24(d)(1)(B)(ii) of such Code,
the preceding sentence shall be applied by substituting
``social security taxes (as defined in section 24(d)(2)(A) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)'' for ``earned income''
each place it appears.
(2) Qualified individual.--For purposes of this
subsection--
(A) In general.--The term ``qualified individual'' means
any qualified Hurricane Harvey individual, any qualified
Hurricane Irma individual, and any qualified Hurricane Maria
individual.
(B) Qualified hurricane harvey individual.--The term
``qualified Hurricane Harvey individual'' means any
individual whose principal place of abode on August 23, 2017,
was located--
(i) in the Hurricane Harvey disaster zone, or
(ii) in the Hurricane Harvey disaster area (but outside the
Hurricane Harvey disaster zone) and such individual was
displaced from such principal place of abode by reason of
Hurricane Harvey.
(C) Qualified hurricane irma individual.--The term
``qualified Hurricane Irma individual'' means any individual
(other than a qualified Hurricane Harvey individual) whose
principal place of abode on September 4, 2017, was located--
(i) in the Hurricane Irma disaster zone, or
(ii) in the Hurricane Irma disaster area (but outside the
Hurricane Irma disaster zone) and such individual was
displaced from such principal place of abode by reason of
Hurricane Irma.
(D) Qualified hurricane maria individual.--The term
``qualified Hurricane Maria individual'' means any individual
(other than a qualified Hurricane Harvey individual or a
qualified Hurricane Irma individual) whose principal place of
abode on September 16, 2017, was located--
(i) in the Hurricane Maria disaster zone, or
(ii) in the Hurricane Maria disaster area (but outside the
Hurricane Maria disaster zone) and such individual was
displaced from such principal place of abode by reason of
Hurricane Maria.
(3) Applicable date.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term ``applicable date'' means--
(A) in the case of a qualified Hurricane Harvey individual,
August 23, 2017,
(B) in the case of a qualified Hurricane Irma individual,
September 4, 2017, and
(C) in the case of a qualified Hurricane Maria individual,
September 16, 2017.
(4) Earned income.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term ``earned income'' has the meaning given such term under
section 32(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(5) Special rules.--
(A) Application to joint returns.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), in the case of a joint return for a taxable
year which includes the applicable date--
(i) such paragraph shall apply if either spouse is a
qualified individual, and
(ii) the earned income of the taxpayer for the preceding
taxable year shall be the sum of the earned income of each
spouse for such preceding taxable year.
(B) Uniform application of election.--Any election made
under paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to both sections
24(d) and 32, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(C) Errors treated as mathematical error.--For purposes of
section 6213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, an
incorrect use on a return of earned income pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall be treated as a mathematical or clerical
error.
(D) No effect on determination of gross income, etc.--
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied without regard to any
substitution under paragraph (1).
(d) Application of Disaster-Related Tax Relief to
Possessions of the United States.--
(1) Payments to united states virgin islands and puerto
rico.--
(A) United states virgin islands.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall pay to the United States Virgin Islands
amounts equal to the loss in revenues to the United States
Virgin Islands by reason of the provisions of this title.
Such amounts shall be determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury based on information provided by the government of
the United States Virgin Islands.
(B) Puerto Rico.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay
to Puerto Rico amounts estimated by the Secretary of the
Treasury as being equal to the aggregate benefits that would
have been provided to residents of Puerto Rico by reason of
the provisions of this title if a mirror code tax system had
been in effect in Puerto Rico. The preceding sentence shall
not apply with respect to Puerto Rico unless Puerto Rico has
a plan, which has been approved by the Secretary of the
Treasury, under which Puerto Rico will promptly distribute
such payments to its residents.
(2) Definition and special rules.--
(A) Mirror code tax system.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``mirror code tax system'' means, with
respect to any possession of the United States, the income
tax system of such possession if the income tax liability of
the residents of such possession under such system is
determined by reference to the income tax laws of the United
States as if such possession were the United States.
(B) Treatment of payments.--For purposes of section 1324 of
title 31, United States Code, the payments under this
subsection shall be treated in the same manner as a refund
due from a credit provision referred to in subsection (b)(2)
of such section.
(C) Coordination with united states income taxes.--In the
case of any person with respect to whom a tax benefit is
taken into account with respect to the taxes imposed by any
possession of the United States by reason of this title, the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied with respect
to such person without regard to the provisions of this title
which provide such benefit.
SEC. 505. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
(a) Emergency Designation.--This title is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)).
(b) Designation in Senate.--In the Senate, this title is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, with
40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Financial Services.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) each will control 20 minutes. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Maxine Waters) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
General Leave
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Irma's direct hit to the lower and middle Keys
was devastating to my district. Many lost everything to the storm's
130-mile-an-hour winds and significant storm surge. Some lost their
lives.
But fortunately, the Keys' recovery is well underway, and the
resiliency and generosity of Conchs and other south Florida residents
have been on display before, during, and after the storm.
While facing the prospects of receiving the full force of the storm,
Key West police and fire departments decided to remain on the ground,
risking their personal safety. They wanted to be there for their
neighbors when the storm had passed.
Navy personnel, under the leadership of Captain Bobby Baker, who
sacrifice for our country every day, once again answered the call to
serve and stayed behind to ensure they would be there to get the
runways open and ready to receive aid. Coast Guard Captain Jeff Janszen
also stayed to make sure the Port of Key West could open.
Two days after the storm had passed, I visited with both of these
leaders. They were working tirelessly to stand up their bases and had
not yet checked on the interior of their own homes.
Monroe County Sheriff Rick Ramsay rode out the storm at the Marathon
shelter because he felt it was his responsibility to be there to
protect his community. Officials from local municipalities from the
city of Key West
[[Page H7560]]
to Ocean Reef have been working around the clock with their teams to
get utilities up and running, roads cleared, and government offices
operational.
I am grateful to our first responders and all the public officials
and employees who have been working hard to serve the people of the
Florida Keys.
I also want to thank my office's Florida Keys director, Nicole
Rapanos, who has dedicated long hours to assist our constituents and
our neighbors in the Keys so that they can get the resources they need.
I am grateful for her dedication to her neighbors and proud to have her
on my staff.
Community organizations are also playing an instrumental role in the
Keys' recovery. Nonprofit groups like Star of the Sea Outreach, Rotary
Club of Key West, and the Florida Keys Outreach Coalition, just to name
a few, have been volunteering their time, coordinating donations, and
serving direct relief to the community.
Private companies and small businesses have also stepped up to help.
Robert Spottswood, whose family owns the Marriott Beachside, opened up
the hotel to first responders, Navy personnel, and others who chose to
ride out the storm.
Baby's Coffee, which was left with its own damage from the storm, was
providing their entire stock to residents of Key West, along with hot
meals and coffee.
Ikon Builders and UDT have brought supplies to the food banks and
donation distribution centers. The Marathon EOC, which has been
operating 24/7 and where approximately one-third of employees had lost
their homes, these people continued working to help in recovery and
rebuilding, and the list goes on.
On the individual level, people have gone above and beyond to show
their true Conch spirit. They have shared their own supplies and taken
time to go help neighbors. The outpouring of support from local heroes
in the Florida Keys has been so extraordinary, I could be here all day
telling the stories of thousands upon thousands of acts of kindness.
This powerful sense of community and humanity is one of the many
reasons I am proud to represent these local heroes.
Mr. Speaker, clearly the Keys' recovery is well underway. Tourism
will be opening up again next week, nearly 3 weeks earlier than
anticipated. I have no doubt continued recovery efforts will make the
Florida Keys an even greater one-of-its-kind paradise Americans from
across the country and people from all over the world have come to
love.
But the truth is, the Keys' tourism-based economy has been stalled,
and perhaps the greatest devastation is the financial strain on
individuals, families, and small entrepreneurs. Many of those facing
hardship are themselves working to assist their fellow survivors,
putting their personal interests aside. This community is doing its
part to help their own, Mr. Speaker.
Now it is time for Congress to do our part to help our fellow
Americans in my district and in similar communities throughout my home
State of Florida, in Texas, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
When we debated this bill on Monday, I told my colleagues about how
the tax credit for wages would allow small business owners like Owen, a
crab and lobster fisherman whose traps were destroyed in the storm, to
claim a tax credit for 40 percent of employee wages, up to $6,000 per
employee, helping him get his team back to work as soon as possible.
This legislation would also allow up to 415,000 hurricane survivors
in Miami-Dade and nearly 7,500 in Monroe County keep more of their
paycheck by referring to earned income from the immediately preceding
year for purposes of determining the earned income tax credit.
We are also making it easier for taxpayers to deduct more of the
costs from the extensive property damage these storms left behind and
allowing anyone struggling with initial recovery efforts to have
immediate access to their retirement savings without penalty.
Lastly, this legislation will encourage more American businesses and
individuals to continue generously supporting qualified hurricane
relief organizations by lifting caps on charitable giving to these
groups.
Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico need Congress to act. On Monday,
this bill was derailed by political games, posturing, and name calling.
I hope that will not be the case today because my constituents and
those in other communities like my district don't have time to wait.
This tax relief package deserves bipartisan support from my colleagues.
I want to thank Chairman Brady and the Ways and Means Committee staff
for allowing me to shape this legislation for the benefit of south
Florida residents, especially those in Monroe County who were hardest
hit by Hurricane Irma. I want to thank Chairman Sessions and the Rules
Committee for making in order my amendment that will provide additional
benefits that are critical for our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico and
the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands. In the aftermath of Hurricane
Maria, they are facing a terribly difficult uphill battle to rebuild
their communities. I stand in complete solidarity with my friends
Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon
of Puerto Rico, and will work to get them everything they need to
rebuild their communities. I hope for their sake we can finally get
this done today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to acknowledge those individuals that Mr.
Curbelo pointed out and congratulate them for their courage and their
kindness as they attempt to get southern Florida back on its feet.
But the key phrase here that my friend from Florida mentioned was the
following: Now it is time for us to do our part.
``Our part'' calls for a much more vigorous effort, a much more
robust investment, and it could, it should, be done now. We don't have
to wait to get this done. We don't have to parcel this out in the small
amounts that are being suggested.
Now, earlier this week, I rose in opposition to H.R. 3823, the
Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act, as well.
Today, I am disappointed to say that I am not going to support today's
updated version of the legislation either, based on the word ``more.''
I take no issue with a clean 6-month extension of the FAA expenditure
authority, but today's bill includes an extensive list of extraneous
provisions.
If we are to include extraneous measures on this must-pass
legislation, then the process of compiling the bill should have been
done in a bipartisan manner. Instead, our Republican friends assembled
their near-term priorities barely, if at all, consulting the Democratic
minority, even though many of these issues are indeed bipartisan.
Worse, rather than work together to solve what is rapidly becoming an
American humanitarian crisis, they chose to take most of the day off to
unveil the tax cut for the wealthiest people in America.
The priorities at this moment are misguided. As I noted earlier this
week, while I support the disaster tax relief in this bill, the package
is plainly insufficient. I had hoped that we might work together in a
manner on these provisions, but that has not occurred.
Traditionally, in this body, we honored and used to respect what is
known as the national principle. It was a code of honor that bound us
together when one part of the Nation was beset by disaster. Whether it
was an earthquake in California, a hurricane in North Carolina, a
tornado in Massachusetts, floods in Missouri, or forest fires in
Alabama, we did not ask about gender, race, geography. We simply said
the national principle prevails and the Federal Government will offer a
robust response.
{time} 1745
We are failing in that respect to set the precedent today. Instead,
unfortunately, this disaster relief package that we will consider does
not provide the comprehensive package of incentives and relief that
will drive investment and speed up recovery in American communities in
Texas, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the devastation across
Puerto Rico.
[[Page H7561]]
These hurricanes left massive devastation in their wake, and the
ongoing situation in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are dire.
The situation not only justifies but demands a comprehensive package of
incentives and relief to help these communities and their residents get
back to their feet.
Republicans will hide behind an amendment they added to the Rules
Committee last night. It is really a fig leaf, amounting to $68 per
person in tax relief. We can do much more for our American brothers and
sisters in the Caribbean, especially given that the administration
continues to drag its feet in terms of sending an emergency
supplemental request. That should be done forthwith. We can do better,
and we must do better.
They are making vague assurances that we will get around to
considering a more extensive package later, but delay and uncertainty
will make the situation worse, not better.
Today's package should have included other powerful and proven tax
incentives that we have extended in the past disaster recovery efforts
consistently. I consider this a missed opportunity.
We need to do more to help our fellow Americans recover from these
tragedies. Therefore, I intend to oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the distinguished chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Mr. Curbelo
for his leadership in crafting this disaster relief package for our
communities, and Chairman Shuster for his leadership on this bill as
well.
I rise today not only on behalf of the people in my district in Texas
who have been just hammered, but on behalf of everyone in Texas, Puerto
Rico, Florida, and the Virgin Islands, who have been devastated by this
fall's destructive hurricanes.
These are people who desperately need the support of our bill, the
Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act. Hundreds of
thousands of families have lost everything, even loved ones. This bill
will help them begin to recover through meaningful, targeted tax relief
they need now.
Earlier this week, as communities continued to be decimated by
record-high wind gusts, flooding, and storm surges, regrettably, my
House Democratic friends opposed this critical bill, putting politics
above the very people they represent.
I stand here today to say we all have to do better. We have to show
the Nation we can stand together in times of great tragedy to help each
other and our neighbors, just as our people did in our district in the
aftermath of Hurricane Harvey.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge support for this bill.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out, as all of us, to those
impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. I am committed to
providing the resources necessary for Federal response and recovery.
We all voted for the money a week and a half ago. That took 3 days.
Other storms in the past took 3 months, so let's set the record
straight.
I am pleased to support aid to those affected by Harvey, Irma, Maria,
and I will continue to do so. We urgently need to deliver relief and
assistance to those currently impacted by Hurricane Maria in the U.S.
Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, where the entire island has lost power
and many are without water.
I can't support a bill before us today which is not even close to
providing the robust relief that Puerto Rico needs. You know it, and we
know it. The Congress and this administration need to step up, help
Puerto Rico recover.
I plan to reintroduce legislation to extend the earned income tax
credit to residents of Puerto Rico, and I hope my colleagues will
support it.
The bill before us today completely circumvented the committee
process. I am not a process person, but this bill did not have any
hearing, despite the fact that myself and my Republican colleague from
New York, Mr. Reed, have had legislation on comprehensive disaster
relief for the last 5 years.
I want to address something my good friend from Texas, the chairman
of the Ways and Means Committee, put out yesterday in response to my
position and others. He said that Democrats were using hurricane relief
as a ``bargaining chip'' and ``playing politics'' to enact our own
agenda. He also tweeted that we were ``sick,'' which I can only hope
was tweeted by an overzealous staffer.
This is where I usually fly off the handle, but I am going to keep
cool, I am going to keep calm, and I am going to make sure that I am a
real American, not judging people on where they live. I promised myself
I would stay calm for the rest of what I have to say.
My only agenda, Mr. Speaker, is to help those who have been hurt by
disasters, regardless of where in the United States they live,
regardless of what they look like, regardless of how they cook their
food. If that is a political agenda, I don't know what world we are
living in.
As for ``playing politics,'' as I mentioned, the gentleman from New
York and I introduced the National Disaster Tax Relief Act to take
politics out of the process, to avoid having to have debates like
these.
Congress shouldn't pick and choose who gets disaster relief and who
doesn't based on political whims. Tax relief should not be reserved
only for victims of a storm that happened to impact the home district--
--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this bill needlessly pits residents of
Texas and Florida against residents of New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Louisiana, West Virginia, Utah, and other States. We
should treat everyone fairly, and the Reed-Pascrell bill would do that.
Tax relief provisions would kick in automatically for federally
declared disaster situations, even in Montana, even in Alaska. We
should not play favorites when it comes to helping those in need.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, so let's be clear about who is playing
politics here. New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut continue to feel
the effects of Hurricane Sandy, just as Carolinians, Utahns, people
from West Virginia and Louisiana still feel the effects of the major
floods of 2015 and 2016. This is true in many other States.
So while this bill takes a few provisions from our bill, it does not
get into the real meat and potatoes as to how we can help everybody.
This bill doesn't do enough in the first place, and it doesn't include
victims of other disasters.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to demand robust and fair disaster
tax relief. And if that is politics, so be it. I plead guilty. I want
fairness.
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3823.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear what is at stake if Congress
fails to pass the FAA extension. Starting on October 1, no aviation
taxes will be collected. Approximately $40 million of revenue will be
lost each day; the revenue that would have been used for airport
infrastructure funding and the FAA's important safety, operational, and
research functions.
No new Airport Improvement Program grants will be issued to airports
in the communities across the country.
All FAA accounts funded out of the aviation trust fund--the
Facilities and Equipment; AIP; Research, Engineering, and Development
accounts--will be impacted.
Thousands of employees will be furloughed and some will be required
to show up to work for no pay.
We must also be clear on the impact to hurricane recovery efforts
currently underway by the FAA and funded from the Facilities and
Equipment account,
[[Page H7562]]
including those in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The FAA is currently trying to restore radars, navigational aids, and
other equipment damaged during Hurricane Maria. This is happening while
stranded passengers in the San Juan airport wait without air-
conditioning and electricity for flights off the island.
The FAA technicians are working around the clock to restore services,
but because of the extent of the damage and the challenges of the
terrain where equipment is located, it is difficult to determine when
full restoration will happen.
For instance, as we debate this bill, technicians are making their
way to a long-range radar site on a mountain in Puerto Rico. The last
two miles to the site through the rainforest are impassable, so the
technicians are using chainsaws to clear a path for themselves and
their replacement equipment. The radar and navigation equipment are
critical for the safe operation of flights.
We will have plenty of time to debate aviation policy in the coming
weeks, and I look forward to it. But the FAA extension we are
considering this week is not a pawn in a Washington game of political
brinksmanship.
It is time for Congress to ensure the FAA's authorities, funding, and
disaster recovery efforts continue uninterrupted in order to help those
impacted by the hurricanes that are desperately needed.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this critical
legislation.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio), who is the ranking member of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this would be the fourth FAA extension in 2
years. It didn't have to be this way. We had a bill come out of the
committee in the last Congress and this Congress that was bipartisan
except for one provision; that is the privatization of the Air Traffic
Organization.
Now, there is a citizen group out there called Citizens for On Time
Flights--actually, Airlines for America funds this--who are saying that
we have to fly these old zigzag routes with 1950s' radar, and if only
we, the airlines--the same airlines, by the way, that have had their
dispatch and reservation systems go down 39 times in the last 2 years.
The national air traffic system hasn't gone down in the last 2 years.
But, anyway, they could do better, they say--or Citizens for On Time
Flights say. But, unfortunately, it is based on lies.
We have deployed a system where we could fly planes closer together.
It is operational, actually, but the airlines haven't purchased the
equipment to use it, and they are not going to purchase that equipment
until 2020 or after.
So they are saying the FAA is dragging its feet; the FAA is over
budget; the FAA is this, the FAA is that. No. Actually, it is the
airlines that haven't purchased the equipment to use that system.
Now, the other most egregious part of this privatization proposal is
the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Brady, has decided to give
taxing authority to the private corporation. Now, they are not going to
call it taxes. It is fees. Okay.
But right now we finance our Air Traffic Organization with a 7\1/2\
percent tax, a progressive tax; the more expensive your ticket, the
more you pay. That is how we finance, predominantly, our Air Traffic
Organization.
Well, this bill repeals that ticket tax. First thing that happens is
the airlines raise their tickets by 7\1/2\ percent. They already did
that once 5 years ago when there was a temporary lapse. Only two
airlines didn't, Spirit and Alaska. Everybody else grabbed the money
and ran, $400 billion.
So Congress repeals the ticket tax. They raise prices 7\1/2\ percent,
and then they would get three seats on the board. Three seats will go
to direct airlines interests to decide what passengers and how people
will pay to use the national airspace. So they, in all probability,
will come up with a head tax.
So, in addition to paying $7 billion a year for baggage fees, now we
are going to start charging people to use the national airspace with a
flat tax. So, hey, that is a big, great win for the people with first
class tickets. The people, of course, who have got a $100 coach seat
are now going to be paying more like 20 percent or 25 percent. And the
person with a $2,000 ticket is going to pay, basically, 3-point-
something percent.
So this is all really unfortunate because we could have passed
already out of this House a bipartisan bill, sent it to the Senate.
Instead of trying to jam them with this bill that is loaded down with
riders, we would be jamming them with good, long-term policy for the
FAA and the traveling public and the aviation industry in America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr Speaker, we have already heard from the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), who is a member of the committee, who is
going to oppose the bill because of provisions regarding private flood
insurance. He thinks it will cause Federal flood insurance to collapse.
And the two Senators from Louisiana who they are attempting to jam with
this bill are saying they are going to oppose the bill and block it in
the Senate. So we may end up with no continuing authorization for the
FAA because they wanted to put these flood insurance provisions and
other riders on this bill instead of passing them as separate
legislation.
{time} 1800
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the distinguished
chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding and for his tremendous leadership on this important
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Disaster Tax Relief and Airport
and Airway Extension Act of 2017. It also includes a 3-month extension
for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. This is an important
program for many of the Tribes that I represent in my district.
It is also a 3-month extension of the Teaching Health Center Graduate
Medical Education program that is set to expire at the end of this
week.
It is estimated that we could have a national doctor shortage of
23,000 by 2025, and when you look at the rural areas like mine in
eastern Washington, it is especially stark. We know primary care saves
lives, and that is why it is so important to include these provisions
in the long-term reauthorization of the THCGME program.
This program specially trains residents in some of the larger
shortage areas; and when you compare it to the traditional Medicare
program, the Teaching Health Center residents are 3\1/2\ times more
likely to practice primary care, twice as likely to work in rural
areas, and 2\1/2\ times more likely to work in the underserved areas.
It is a part of the solution in solving our primary care crisis, but
it must be funded. That is why it is so important to continue this
funding and this legislation. Without the funding, the program will
unravel. The centers could be forced to ramp down. Residents could be
terminated, and some centers may be shut down and their programs
eliminated altogether.
I encourage my colleagues to recognize the importance of this program
and encourage them to continue working with me on a long-term solution
that ensures the future success of this vital program.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for his leadership. He has been particularly helpful in
thinking through how we can work together on the multiple crises that
Texas, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico are facing.
Let me thank the manager of the bill for working on these issues as
well.
Let me first of all indicate, as I have done earlier today, that I
understand that the FAA extension is a clean extension which I will
support, recognizing the international airport that is in my district.
But again, I will seek the important leadership on the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee, and particularly, the ranking
[[Page H7563]]
member, when it comes to dealing with not supporting privatization of
air traffic controllers.
I want to speak specifically to the hurricane tax relief. As I do so,
let me particularly make mention that I had hoped this bill would have
an extension of the CHIP program and the community health centers.
Maybe we can work on that, because I know in many of our communities
impacted by the hurricanes, those elements are important, community
health centers, and, certainly, the Children's Health Insurance
Program.
I do want to make a point to say that I wish we could have gone
further. I know that there were at least 21 different tax credits or
exemptions that we could have had to help those who are impacted by the
hurricanes, but these, I want to cite and say that I appreciate them
being utilized for my constituents now.
The bill would provide tax credit deductions and other relief to
taxpayers in disaster areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and
Maria. Most measures would apply to taxpayers in parts of Florida,
Puerto Rico, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
In particular, access to one's retirement funds, the bill would waive
the 10 percent penalty on each distribution from retirement accounts
for taxpayers in affected areas. Individuals will be eligible to make
the withdrawal if their primary residence was in one of the disaster
areas as of the date of the storm and they sustained an economic loss.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the bill would increase the size of a
loan an individual can take from their employee retirement fund under
the retirement plan loans. It would also provide a credit for
businesses that were rendered inoperable by the hurricanes but that
retained employees, and on the charitable deduction for those who are
giving dollars between the 23rd and December 31.
What I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is to look at some form of a
disaster relief tax scheme, if you will, to enhance what we are doing
now and to listen, where we can do this in a bipartisan way, working
with Mr. Neal, working with the chairman of the committee, and really
making sure we have a long-term response to the journey that my
constituents and others will have to take.
I close by saying that now we are up to 185,000 homes that have been
severely damaged or damaged. We have got problems with mortgage
deductions and a number of other issues, and, therefore, I am hoping we
can work together.
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3823, the Disaster
Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017, which provides
additional time to debate the future of our Nation's air traffic
control system.
Earlier this week, I visited Charlotte Douglas' air traffic control
tower and learned firsthand from the controllers about the importance
of modernizing our traffic control system. Fortunately, Chairman Bill
Shuster exercised leadership through spearheading H.R. 2997, the 21st
Century AIRR Act, that does just that, by shifting the current
bureaucratic and broken air traffic control to a stakeholder-managed,
not-for-profit corporation. With NextGen projected to ultimately cost
$120 billion, it is imperative that we fix our air traffic control in
this Congress.
Importantly, the 21st Century AIRR Act also strengthens air service
in rural communities through ensuring that general aviation will have
full access to U.S. airspace. It advances the remote air traffic
control tower program, which means that rural communities are fully
integrated into our Nation's air traffic control system.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
critical issue facing the Fifth District of South Carolina.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Velazquez), and I must tell you that anybody who has
witnessed her heartfelt advocacy on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico
in the last 24 hours would be moved. I also would say that nobody in
this Chamber knows more about what has happened in Puerto Rico right
now than the gentlewoman from New York, Nydia Velazquez.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I really
appreciate those kind words.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. As we all know, many
people are hurting in the areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma,
and Maria. Sadly, the response by the administration has been bumbling,
inexcusably weak, and inadequate.
While some of the proposals in the bill are needed, these measures
are necessary, but far from sufficient to help Puerto Rico recover. If
anything, these half steps are an insult to the American citizens
living in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Puerto Rico is hurting. They do not need legislative lip service
passed just so that the majority can claim they are helping. Instead of
taking real and meaningful steps to provide much-needed relief for
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, this bill ignores the challenges
they face.
Providing personal casualty assistance and penalty-free withdrawals
from retirement accounts is commendable, but not for Puerto Rico. Just
under half the island is living in poverty, and the average median
income is under $20,000. In fact, 67 percent of workers have no money
left to save for retirement after paying bills, and only one in five
workers is contributing to retirement savings.
So I ask you, what savings will they pull from, and how and when will
this happen? American citizens in Puerto Rico cannot even get cash out
of an ATM without waiting hours in line. Providing funds based on the
assessed value of those provisions for Puerto Rico is insufficient. It
is a fig leaf offered by Republicans so that they can check it off
their list.
In order to truly help the many victims affected by the hurricanes,
Congress needs to start by providing the economic support required to
recover.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, this bill is unworkable for Puerto Rico
as it stands now. I applaud the effort and speed with which this was
drafted, but it must be strengthened to truly address the needs of
Americans in these disaster areas.
Even today, I got a call from the most important medical institution,
and they are running out of antibiotics. The veterans hospital that
treats 200,000 soldiers who have participated in every war, they do not
have access to healthcare. This is how we honor their service? No, Mr.
Speaker.
Vote down this legislation.
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, you just heard the eloquent testimony from Ms. Velazquez
about what the people of Puerto Rico are facing right now.
I wish that the majority would have approached this process
differently. The reauthorization of the FAA could have been a simple,
straightforward exercise. It could have and should have been a
bipartisan effort. They saddled the FAA with unrelated partisan
priorities, incorporated with little input from Democrats, and
presented a weak tax package to address the recent major national
disasters.
As I said when a version of this bill came up earlier this week, I
wish the disaster tax relief section were better designed and more
extensive. This updated bill still doesn't provide adequate relief to
the affected families and communities who desperately need it. You just
heard from Ms. Velazquez on that basis.
While waiving penalties on the withdrawal of retirement savings and
expanding EITC and child tax credit provisions are helpful, the
majority inexplicably left out some of the most economically powerful
tax incentives on the shelf, including those that would be helpful to
rebuild devastated infrastructure.
Given this damage and the needs of hard-hit areas, especially the
Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, I cannot understand why we are not
including proven
[[Page H7564]]
assistance contained in previous disaster tax packages as we did to our
family and friends in places like Texas and Louisiana.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I truly deplore the way some colleagues have decided to
politicize such a sensitive, urgent, and important issue.
There are people in my community who are suffering, who lost their
homes, yet they are still working hard to help their neighbors rebuild.
For them to find out that this institution would oppose a measure to
help them because some colleagues think it is just not good enough--
now, you heard them. They recognize there is a lot of good in this
package, but it is not enough.
I am the Representative of the district that was hit the hardest by
Hurricane Irma. Chairman Brady was here. He has been working hard back
home to help his community recover while managing his responsibilities
here as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He is calling for
passage of this legislation that he sponsored.
Also putting their names on this legislation, Jenniffer Gonzalez-
Colon, the Resident Commissioner elected by Puerto Ricans on the island
to this Chamber, she has added her name to this legislation.
Also, Stacey Plaskett, a member of the minority who represents the
Virgin Islands, she has added her name to the amendment we filed to
make this legislation even stronger.
So the Members representing the districts that were hit the hardest,
where people are suffering--and the gentlewoman from New York is
absolutely correct; the suffering in Puerto Rico cannot be compared to
anything else that we are seeing here on the mainland--their
representatives want to see this legislation pass, but some of our
colleagues say it is just not good enough. So because this is not good
enough for them, people should get nothing.
We wonder. We wonder why so many Americans don't trust this
institution, why so many Americans are frustrated with the politics in
this country: because if it isn't perfect, if it isn't exactly what I
want, then I am against it.
{time} 1815
Now, fortunately, not all of the Members of the minority agree with
this. When we first had this vote on Monday, 26 Democrats voted in
favor of the legislation. And I thank them--not just for me, but on
behalf of all of my constituents, the people of the Florida Keys, south
Florida, and, of course, the people of Texas, Louisiana, Puerto Rico,
and U.S. Virgin Islands. I thank my Democratic colleagues and all of my
Republican colleagues that supported this package. I invite more
Members from both parties to support this package today because this is
not the time to play political games.
Now, I understand some people here are frustrated about what may have
happened in the past. I wasn't here, and I belong to a new generation
of Members of this institution. Quite frankly, I think none of us on
either side is interested in relitigating the old fights and the old
debates. We want to see the solutions for today and tomorrow.
The people of Florida--Monroe County, the Florida Keys, and Miami-
Dade--the people of Texas, Louisiana, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto
Rico, they need us now. They need this solution now.
Can we do more later?
Absolutely. Everyone knows that this Chamber and the other will soon
consider additional funding for FEMA--much-needed funding. I will
support a robust package for FEMA because the agency is strained and it
is working hard to help people all over this country and out in the
Atlantic.
But to say that this is not good enough, so instead we will do
nothing is just unacceptable.
I urge my colleagues to reconsider because I think it is important
that we send a message of national unity to help those who are hurting.
If we can do more in the future, we will and we should.
So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just thank all of my colleagues
that understand how urgent this situation is, how much pain and
suffering are being experienced in these communities, and I ask them
respectfully to please support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for the Committee on Ways and Means
has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the terrible tragedy and suffering from
Harvey, Irma, and Maria. We have seen the shattered homes, and we have
seen the shattered lives. I have been to Houston and my native Texas to
visit with a number of the victims.
There are many tragedies, Mr. Speaker, out of these hurricanes and
flooding, but one of the tragedies--one of the tragedies--is that in
Harris County, where Houston is, 80 percent of the homes that were
flooded didn't have flood insurance.
Now, why didn't they have flood insurance, Mr. Speaker?
I believe one of the reasons is because we have a government monopoly
called the National Flood Insurance Program. Many people don't even
know of its existence. Many people think they were safe because they
were 3 feet outside of the government designated 100-year floodplain.
Many thought that somehow this was simply rolled into their homeowners'
insurance policy, but it wasn't.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to make sure that people have
more affordable options for flood insurance.
Wouldn't it be wonderful that for every time you saw a life insurance
commercial or an auto insurance commercial, you saw something about
flood insurance to help educate the American people about the need for
this basic insurance policy?
We could see the savings occur as people rolled this into their
homeowners' policy.
In the very small portion of the market, Mr. Speaker, where there is
competition, people are saving not just hundreds of dollars, but
thousands of dollars.
We have heard from the Megoulas family in Pennsylvania: ``NFIP
insurance would have cost me $2,700 a year, but I was able to find
private coverage for only $718. . . . ''
We heard from the Cyr family, also of Pennsylvania: ``I have
benefited from switching to private market flood insurance from FEMA. I
save about $1,000 per year.''
So, Mr. Speaker, there is a piece of legislation known as the Flood
Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act, also known as Ross-
Castor. I want to thank my colleague from Florida (Mr. Ross) for his
leadership on this issue. It is very simple. It simply clarifies
congressional intent that people ought to have more options.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, as people begin to rebuild after these
hurricanes, they need better options for flood insurance, particularly
with the NFIP $30 billion in debt, facing another bailout, and facing
an uncertain future. Now we need to take care of that.
That is why I have proposed, along with Chairman Duffy, a 5-year,
long-term reauthorization. We are currently operating under a temporary
90-day authorization. But as we do, let's work on something that we can
all agree on. The last time this bill came up in the House, Mr.
Speaker, 419-0. It has recently come out of the Financial Services
Committee 58-0.
I am not sure you can get that kind of vote tally for a Mother's Day
resolution. It is bipartisan. It is the very definition of bipartisan.
So let's take one important step today to help the victims of Harvey,
Irma, and Maria as they begin to rebuild their homes, to have more
flood insurance options, more affordable insurance options. As we work
through what we might disagree on in the NFIP authorization, let's pass
today what we can agree on and help the victims today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill, which began as
a must-pass reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration but
has
[[Page H7565]]
now become a Christmas tree for unrelated Republican priorities.
Puerto Rico is on the brink of a humanitarian crisis following
Hurricane Maria that is being exacerbated by Trump's and Congress'
failure to adequately respond. Tens of thousands in Texas and Florida
are just beginning to pick up the pieces following Hurricanes Harvey
and Irma. Yet, other than the small initial down payment of disaster
aid we passed--which I might add Chairman Hensarling voted against--
Congress has yet to pass a single policy reform that will actually
improve the lives of any of those who found themselves in harm's way.
This is the first time in this Congress that we are debating a flood
insurance policy change on the House floor. However, this is not a
policy change that would address the resilience of the Flood Insurance
Program, help families to recover, or improve our country's response to
natural disasters. No. The Republican response to the catastrophic
storms of these last 2 months is to muscle through the expansion of
private flood insurance, which has long been sought by the insurance
industry.
Now, let me be clear. I don't oppose this policy. I voted for it last
Congress and I voted for it when we marked it up in committee this
year. But moving this bill at this time, while ignoring all the other
policy responses needed but the Flood Insurance Program and the ongoing
natural disasters in our country, is simply irresponsible.
The NFIP will expire on December 8 of this year, and we still lack a
credible plan to ensure that it is reauthorized for the long term.
Therefore, I will oppose any and all efforts to break apart the debate
on substantive reforms to the NFIP from the reauthorization debate we
should so desperately be having.
The bill before us today does absolutely nothing to address the
stability of the NFIP, which is in jeopardy following a devastating
series of catastrophic hurricanes across several States and U.S.
territories. We know that we will need to increase the NFIP's borrowing
authority so that policyholders from Harvey, Irma, and Maria can be
made whole, but the chairman has no plan to deal with the debt,
frequently telling those of us who have urged him to consider debt
forgiveness to just forget about that idea.
I have long called for Congress to forgive NFIP's debt, particularly
because of the unsustainable burden placed on policyholders paying
hundreds of millions of dollars a year just on the interest for the
government to pay itself back. Flood insurance is already unaffordable.
So why are we continuing to make it worse by saddling policyholders
with interest on a debt that will never be repaid?
We need thoughtful, comprehensive solutions to a long-term
reauthorization that addresses the debt, affordability, mapping, and
mitigation. That is not what we have before us today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Ross), who is the author of the bipartisan Flood Insurance
Market Parity and Modernization Act, which passed this body in the last
Congress 419-0. He is the vice chairman of the Housing and Insurance
Subcommittee and the real leader for affordable private flood
insurance.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Disaster Tax Relief and Airport
and Airway Extension Act of 2017, and I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this desperately needed legislation.
Included in this bill are two provisions that are particularly
important to my constituents in central Florida. One is tax relief for
families and small businesses recovering from the destruction of
Hurricanes Harvey, Maria, and Irma. The other is language taken from my
legislation, the Private Flood Insurance Market Development Act, which
will allow private sector insurers to compete with the National Flood
Insurance Program.
The catastrophic impact of the three major hurricanes is
heartbreaking and tragic. However, it has been inspiring to witness the
outpouring of charity and goodwill from our communities in response.
Now it is time for this Congress to rise to the occasion. The tax
relief for disaster victims in this legislation is a great first step.
This bill will help individuals in the disaster areas keep their
jobs, support retirement savers paying for recovery, encourage
charitable contributions to help victims, and put more money in the
pockets of families trying to get their lives back on track after
having lost everything.
To deny our constituents this relief because it is not enough is
simply irresponsible. To be sure, I agree that more aid will likely be
needed.
But is that really a good excuse to do nothing?
I certainly don't think so.
Mr. Speaker, this bill isn't just about providing immediate relief.
Thankfully, it also provides some measure of long-term relief to
communities vulnerable to floods--the most costly of all natural
disasters.
Thanks to the inclusion of my legislation, H.R. 1422, this bill will
provide consumers with more options and lower costs in the flood
insurance marketplace as well as help to reduce the unacceptable number
of homes not insured for flood losses.
Last Congress, this House passed nearly identical legislation by a
vote of 419-0. That is why I was so disheartened to hear some
characterize this reform as a long-time Republican priority. This isn't
a Republican priority, and it is not a Democratic priority. This is a
national priority.
The NFIP is more than $25 billion in debt and runs an annual deficit
of $1.4 billion. Folks, this is an insurance company on the brink of
being unable to pay out claims to policyholders without another
taxpayer bailout.
The NFIP desperately needs to off-load some of its risk, and we can
help by allowing the private sector to do what it does best: compete
for customers by offering better service, lower prices, and more
comprehensive coverage.
I understand some of my colleagues think competition will destabilize
the NFIP. First, we need to be clear that the NFIP in its current state
is beleaguered, it is not stable, and it is not sustainable. Reforms
must be made.
Second, I would urge my colleagues to recognize that by forcing
nearly all of the flood risk in this Nation into a single, government-
run insurance program, we contribute to the NFIP's bloated and unstable
risk portfolio.
{time} 1830
So the NFIP needs some help, and consumers need competition. More
coverage options will help make flood insurance an attractive
investment for everyone, thereby reducing the number of uninsured
homes.
With the NFIP alone, our constituents are severely limited. For
example, an NFIP policy only covers up to $250,000 of damages.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. ROSS. In addition, NFIP policies do not cover homeowners
displaced by living expenses.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation has an untold number of supporters. I
include in the Record a letter from 15 major insurance, housing,
banking, and trade associations in support of the private flood
insurance provisions in H.R. 3823.
September 26, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The undersigned trades
and organizations strongly support the ``Development of a
Private Flood Insurance Market'' title of H.R. 3823, the
Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of
2017. This package includes bipartisan, clarifying language,
introduced by Representative Dennis A. Ross (FL-15) and
Representative Kathy Castor (FL-14), to increase acceptance
of private flood insurance products. This will increase flood
insurance options for consumers, thereby providing more
competition and coverage options to families and businesses.
The Ross-Castor language passed the House last year by a
vote of 419-0, and it was ordered reported out of the House
Financial Services Committee in June by a vote of 58-0. The
bipartisan fix clarifies what is already in federal law
(following the passage of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2012 and reinforced in the Homeowners Flood
Insurance Affordability Act of 2014) intended by Congress to
allow lenders to accept private flood insurance in lieu of
federal
[[Page H7566]]
coverage to satisfy the mandatory purchase requirement.
The undersigned trades and organizations strongly support
inclusion of the bipartisan Ross-Castor language in the
Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of
2017 that allows consumers the choice of government or
private flood insurance coverage. We ask for you to vote in
favor of this important legislative package when it is
considered by the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI)
Reinsurance Association of America (RAA)
National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC)
National Apartment Association (NAA)
American Bankers Association (ABA)
Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers (CIAB)
American Insurance Association (AIA)
National Association of REALTORS (NAR)
National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA)
Financial Services Roundtable (FSR)
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (Big
``I'')
Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA)
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC)
Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA)
National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions
(NAFCU).
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), a senior member of the
Financial Services Committee.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let me start off by letting
the America people know fully why we Democrats on this side of the
aisle are opposed to this bill.
Nobody has worked as hard as Democrats on this bill, Mr. Speaker, but
the reason we object to it is that the flood insurance part of this
bill was a result of cherry-picking items that they wanted. The
American people deserve better than that. Then they attach it to an FAA
bill with a 6-month extension. That is no way to treat the issues that
we have today.
All you have got to do is click on the television and look at what is
happening to American citizens in Puerto Rico, Florida, Texas. And you
are going to put something where they cherry-picked this together to
solve this particular problem?
There is no sense of urgency here, Mr. Speaker.
Another reason is that, unlike all of our other disaster tax credit
relief packages, every time we have had an expansion added to the bill,
we expanded these tax credits for low-income people, expanded the tax
credits for the new markets area for people to immediately come in and
invest. Not in this bill. There is no expansion in this bill.
My friends over there talk about bipartisanship. My middle name is
bipartisanship. There is nobody on that committee who works harder for
bipartisanship than David Scott.
But the one piece of bipartisanship--our amendment that I worked
feverishly on with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), in which
we were able to address the issue of the penalties of expense on those
poor people who chose to have their monthly installments there and not
be punished for it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman
an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. We worked together on that and cut that
cost in half. That one bipartisan piece of endeavor in our Financial
Services Committee is not even included in this bill. That is why we
are opposed to it.
Let's treat the American people the way they deserve. There is no
better time. You are talking about expanding the help. Our people,
American citizens in Puerto Rico, Florida, and Texas, deserve for us to
have a complete flood insurance program, not piecemeal.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3823.
First, I would like to mention I have deep concerns over Republicans'
failure to extend vital healthcare programs that expire this Saturday,
including important bipartisan programs like CHIP, Community Health
Centers, and the National Health Service Corps. If we fail to act,
access to affordable and quality care for children and vulnerable
populations nationwide will be jeopardized.
However, I want to focus on another issue that is extremely important
to my constituents: flood insurance.
This bill would undermine efforts to comprehensively reform the
National Flood Insurance Program by allowing the development of a
private flood insurance market while not confronting challenges to
NFIP, like increasing affordability, investing in mitigation, and
ensuring transparency and accountability. It would not even reauthorize
the flood insurance program, which is due to expire on December 8; or
raise its borrowing authority, which is due to run out in the coming
weeks and could impact claims from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.
When Superstorm Sandy devastated New Jersey 5 years ago, some of the
hardest hit communities were in my district, and the NFIP did not help
them the way it should have. Too many of my constituents are still
dealing with high premiums, inaccurate flood maps, or still waiting for
their Sandy claims appeals to be decided.
That is why I helped introduce the bipartisan SAFE NFIP
Reauthorization Act, which would reauthorize the program, cap premium
rate increases, authorize funding for more flood mapping, reform the
appeals process, and cap the compensation of flood insurance companies.
These are changes that we must pursue. The legislation we consider does
none of this.
Mr. Speaker, we should be working together to comprehensively improve
the NFIP. Doing anything less is an abdication of our responsibility. I
encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this legislation and work
towards meaningful flood insurance reform.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of
my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), a true expert on
flood insurance issues.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk during this discussion
about the flood insurance program, about making sure we are providing
for the hurricane victims. There is talk about the FAA.
Let me be clear: we support the FAA. We support making sure that we
provide all the resources necessary for the hurricane victims, from
Hurricanes Irma, Harvey, and Maria. Where things are getting distorted
is that this bill includes extraneous provisions that will actually
undermine these very objectives.
I want to explain.
Under the legislation that has been attached--the flood insurance
legislation--it does allow private insurers to come in, which all of us
support, but not in a vacuum. What is going to happen when you do this
in a vacuum is that you are going to cause premiums to be diverted from
the program.
This is the program where these people have been paying premiums for
years, and the program is not going to have the resources to pay their
claims, which means it is going to have to borrow more money, which is
going to make the premiums go up even greater.
You are going to see the private insurers come in and cherry-pick
low- and moderate-risk policies, which is only going to leave the high-
risk policies in the program trying to pay a debt and not having a
diverse portfolio of low-, moderate-, and high-risk policies.
This is a flawed approach. It needs to be addressed on December 9,
when this current program expires. We should be addressing this
holistically.
I want to say it again. Those of you who have hurricane victims are
undermining their very recovery by supporting this legislation.
One of the other major flaws is this, Mr. Speaker. This shows
flooding in Louisiana last year, flooding in Texas this year.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
[[Page H7567]]
Duffy), chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee and a leader
on flood insurance in the House today.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment and thank Ms. Castor
and Mr. Ross for their hard work on this legislation.
There are some here in this body who have said: if we let free
markets into the National Flood Insurance Program that is run by the
Federal Government, you are going to undermine the premiums that come
into the national flood insurance pool.
It is $25 billion in debt and is structured in a way where premiums
can't rise. This doesn't undermine the program.
What we are doing is saying: Listen, if you are in the National Flood
Insurance Program right now, the way it is structured, there is only
one place you can buy insurance. But this is a provision that will open
up the market and let private companies come in and offer families
better policies at better prices. If they don't, you can stay in the
NFIP. You don't have to go private. You can stay government. But you
give people a choice.
It is like saying: Listen, you have to keep the United States Postal
Service as your one carrier. You can't have FedEx or UPS. You don't get
those choices.
People want a choice. In Houston, instead of having only 20 percent
of the people who had coverage, you might have had 40, 50, or 60
percent of the people who would have had coverage. More people would
have had protection.
I have got to tell you, I am disappointed in the partisanship.
I am going to quote a person I rarely quote, but a person I truly
like. She once said in the process of this bill: ``This is an example
of real compromise.''
Then, on the substance of the bill, this fine woman from California
said: ``We can have the opportunity for our constituents to have some
choice. I think that is real compromise, that is substantive
compromise, that is meaningful compromise, and that is the kind of
compromise that reasonable people can engage in.''
Mr. Speaker, that was the gentlewoman from California, who is now in
opposition to this bill.
When this came up by itself--the same bill--last Congress, everyone
voted for it. When it came up in committee, everyone voted for it.
Democrats and Republicans voted for this bill because they knew that it
was going to offer more choice and better prices to American families.
That is why it was bipartisan.
I think this is a moment where our Congress can stand together on
behalf of the American people who don't have flood insurance, who don't
have a reasonably priced policy. Let's stand with them today and pass
the Ross-Castor bill. By the way, Ross and Castor are both from
Florida. Two Florida Members, Republican and Democrat, came together.
Let's get it done, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 538, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R.
3823 is postponed.
____________________