Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 3823, the Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act, for one simple reason.

This is an anemic response to these disasters, whether they occur on the mainland of the United States or within American possessions.

This should have been done on Friday afternoon with the two parties working together. Instead, once again, this was put together by one party, with minimal input from our side. These are all members of the American family that have been impacted by what has happened with this terrible weather.

The chance here for us to work together to make this an expanded package, where we could be talking about a host of opportunities for these folks who have been put in such a precarious situation, is now being missed. There are 90 Members of this Congress who actually voted against direct aid in the past for relief for members of the American family, where we should have taken the position here, clearly: Let's try to figure out what we can do for a robust tax package, what we can do for immediate aid, and highlight the role that FEMA plays. And I certainly have expressed to Mr. Curbelo time and again I am there on board. I just think this needs to be more, and I think that is the position that we are offering today.

Furthermore, a partisan position had to be taken in terms of many priorities that we should have been consulted on, and even those could have been turned into bipartisan moments. I support the disaster relief that is in this bill, but it is clear that the package is woefully inadequate. I would hope that we could work together on these provisions.

The disaster relief package included in this bill does not provide the comprehensive package of incentives and relief that will drive investment and speed up recovery in the American communities that include Texas, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

Without the fix that we want on this side, the effect of lost revenue is going to mean that money is lost that otherwise would be needed for normal operations and the response effort. It is going to take years to adequately respond to what has happened and the devastation that these folks are up against. We need to be sitting here, both parties working together, to say: They are all members of the American family. Let's get it done.

I consider this a missed opportunity, and I hope that we can do more in the next few days to get back on track to help them bounce back from these, indeed, tragedies. We should be sitting down here in the next 48 hours and putting together a massive package of relief for these States and for these possessions and making sure that they have what is necessary, rather than doing a piecemeal fix on what is sure to be a very tormented time for members of these communities and these States and these possessions.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the gentleman from California that when you talk about graduate medical education, believe me, in Massachusetts, we are for graduate medical education. Be assured of that.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say that we all support reauthorization of the FAA. What has happened here again is a breakdown in the conversation that used to meld this institution together.

There was a chance on Friday for Republicans to consult with us in the minority, put together a bipartisan package of many very important provisions that are important to Mr. Curbelo, important to certainly Texas, important to the Virgin Islands. It is certainly important to Puerto Rico.

Let me give you a quick example of how this institution used to work.

We used to call this the national principle. The national principle essentially said if there was an earthquake in California, we all rose to the support of California. If there were forest fires in Alabama, which there were, we would all come to the aid of the people of Alabama. If there was a horrific, torrential downpour in Texas, we simply said: We don't ask if it is a red State or a blue State, or if they are Libertarians or Socialists or Democrats or Republicans. We said: They are members of the American family. We said: Do what has to be done and then send us the bill. We believe that there will be ample opportunity to debate and discuss the size of the portionality at that moment.

Instead, where we had this opportunity right here to provide a robust package to the people of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Florida, and Texas, we decide to come back with an anemic proposal.

We are coming up short on our responsibility. We had a tornado in my hometown 5 years ago. Those Federal employees did a spectacular job everywhere in eight communities, and nobody said: Too much government.
They said: Let's fix this for, again, the American family to get this straightened out.

I have said to Mr. Curbelo, and I will repeat it, we will put up 195 Democrats immediately for a bigger package for the people of Florida, Texas, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, not to piecemeal this together.

By the way, let me use this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for those of us from the Northeast, the idea that 90 Members of this institution voted against direct relief just a couple of weeks ago looking for a pay-for, I wonder if they are going to use that same application of consistency when we get to the tax proposals that are about to consume our time.

We want to provide adequate relief to these families and the communities that need it. We could do this in the next 48 hours without any problem whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, because this is not big enough and not supportive enough of the American family, I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source