This story being updated with comments received the day after it was originally posted from Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Darrell Issa, who were both critical of removing tthe natural-disaster deduction.

Tax-reform plans before Congress would limit or eliminate the natural-disaster deduction, meaning future victims of wildfires like the ones raging throughout Southern California could no longer deduct losses of property that is uninsured or under-insured.

The House and Senate proposals, which are in the process of being reconciled, would not affect natural-disaster deductions filed for the 2017 tax year.

Democrats have been most vocal in maintaining the natural-disaster deduction after this year, which the House proposal would do away with entirely. California Republicans in Congress also have expressed a desire to help victims of wildfires – but not necessarily by continuing existing provisions.

Rep. Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Beach, is sponsoring a bipartisan bill that would expand current tax relief for victims of the October wildfires. In addition to current deduction provisions, the measure would allow those with losses to make penalty-free withdrawals from retirement accounts. There is discussion of amending the bill to include victims of this week’s fires.

Several GOP House members in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties indicated they could be open to maintaining the deductions.

“Congress must approve and provide tax relief to victims of the California wildfires,” Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona, a co-sponsor of the Walters bill, said Thursday. “We could do this broadly in the larger tax package or in a more targeted manner as stand-alone legislation.”

Reps. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Costa Mesa, and Darrell Issa, R-Vista — both of who voted against the proposed House tax reform — issued statements Friday that were critical the plan’s removal of the natural-disaster deduction.

“This is just another way that the tax bill as written continues to pick winners and losers,” Issa said, a reference to wildfire- and earthquake-prone California not being a state that benefits from the propsal.

Rohrabacher spokesman Ken Grubbs said, “He voted against the first bill because of provisions like that one and hopes the next version will be free of such ill-considered provisions.”

If a current version of tax reform proposal is passed, it’s unclear whether losses incurred this year could be deducted in filings for future tax years.

Democrats are pushing to retain the existing provisions, saying special legislation should not be required for each incident to provide tax breaks to victims of natural disasters.

“It defies common sense to do away with deductions like this,” said Rep. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach. “People displaced or financially injured in a disaster are the perfect example of a good reason to offer tax breaks. The House bill would only see fit to grant this deduction if legislation could be passed and signed by the president exempting each individual disaster. In a fractured House, this does not bode well for any areas not represented by the majority.”

The Senate version of the proposed tax reform would retain the natural-disaster deduction for events only if they are declared a national disaster by the president. Critics complain that would likely exclude those who lose their homes to smaller, less dramatic fires and could result in politically motivated declarations by whomever is president.

“Unlike other natural disasters, wildfires don’t typically receive a federal declaration, so this change would put wildfire victims on unequal footing in our tax code,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-San Francisco. “It’s appalling Republicans are taking money from any wildfire victims to pay for tax cuts for the rich. A family who loses everything in a wildfire shouldn’t have to pray for a federal declaration so they can recover. Tax relief should be available to help all victims regardless of the type of natural disaster.”

Three of California’s 14 GOP House members voted against the House tax-reform proposal, saying it was inadequate to help the state’s middle-class residents. At least two others – Reps. Walters and Ed Royce, R-Fullerton, said that while they voted for the plan, changes were needed before final approval.