Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Building United States Infrastructure and Leveraging Development (BUILD) Act. This bipartisan legislation will spur billions of dollars in private investment toward surface transportation and freight transfer facilities, while giving state and local governments an important instrument to improve their communities.

It is no secret that America's infrastructure is falling apart while we fall behind our global competitors. America's roads, bridges, tunnels, and transit systems face a funding gap of more than $1.1 trillion by 2025. One in five miles of highway pavement is in poor condition and congestion costs the U.S. economy nearly $305 billion annually. Continued underinvestment will lead to longer trips to work or school, more costly maintenance expenses, and unsafe road conditions. We must do better.

As of December 1, 2020, the Department of Transportation doesn't have any additional surface transportation private activity bonds available, as the entire $15 billion statutory cap has been issued or allocated. This legislation builds on the success of these bonds by doubling the federal volume cap and clarifying that the use of the bonds must maintain strong labor standards. While public-private partnerships are not a panacea for solving all of our transportation challenges, they are an important piece of rebuilding and renewing America. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to enact this legislation as part of an infrastructure investment bill.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Preparing Localities for an Autonomous and Connected Environment (PLACE) Act. This legislation passed the House last session as Section 5303 of the Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2, 116th Cong.) and creates a federally funded highly automated vehicle clearinghouse to study the secondary impacts of autonomous vehicles and mobility innovation.

The transportation sector is changing at a faster pace than ever before. New mobility options like Uber and Lyft, bikeshare, and scooters have already disrupted how Americans get around. The private sector has invested more than $16 billion toward bringing semi- or fully-autonomous vehicles to market, and research publications on self- driving technology have quadrupled over the past three years. Many predict autonomous vehicles will become widely available within just a few years.

Done right, autonomous vehicles can solve some of the country's most vexing transportation problems while improving mobility for all. Done wrong, autonomous vehicles can exacerbate transportation's negative externalities, leaving communities struggling to make sense of an everchanging landscape. The PLACE Act will ensure that autonomous vehicles improve the livability of communities, allowing policymakers to understand their influence on land use, urban design, transportation, real estate, accessibility, municipal budgets, social equity, availability and quality of jobs, air quality and climate, energy consumption, and the environment. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue as part of a long-term surface transportation reauthorization package.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Bicycle Commuter Act of 2021. This legislation passed the House last session in Section 90436 of the Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2, 116th Cong.) and would reinstate and improve the bicycle commuter tax benefit.

The bicycle is the most efficient form of urban transportation ever devised. Cycling reduces carbon emissions, provides enormous physical and mental health benefits, and is one of the most cost-effective modes of transportation available. Communities across the country have realized these benefits and substantially invested in building better bike networks and improving facilities for biking to work. These investments are one of the reasons that rates of biking to work have increased by more than one-third since 2000. Still, however, only 0.51 percent of workers biked to work in 2019.

Despite these impressive developments, there is no commuter tax benefit for biking to work--like we have for parking and transit. First enacted in 2009, the bicycle commuter benefit was a tax benefit that employers could offer to provide a reimbursement of up to $20/month for expenses relating to bicycle commuting expenses. But if an employee elected

to take advantage of the bicycle commuting reimbursement, they were not eligible to receive transit or parking commuter benefits. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act suspended the bicycle commuting reimbursement benefit through 2025, taking away a valuable financial incentive for people who choose to bike to work.

With more employees choosing to bike to work, it is critical that Congress reinstates the bicycle commuter benefit and uses this opportunity to improve the benefit to reflect present-day commuting options. The Bicycle Commuter Act of 2021 reinstates the bicycle commuter benefit and changes the structure of the benefit by making it a pre-tax benefit, allowing employees to receive a higher benefit amount, allowing the benefit to be used with parking and transit, and adding bikeshare and electric bikes as an eligible expense.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to enact this legislation and provide Americans with cleaner, more efficient ways of commuting to work.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Bikeshare Transit Act of 2021. This legislation passed the House last session in Sections 1210 and 2102 of the Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2, 116th Cong.) and would make bikeshare systems eligible to receive funding to enhance related public transportation service or transit facilities.

America is in the middle of a bikeshare revolution: at least 119 communities have bikeshare systems, supporting a network of more than 100,000 bikes. In 2019, riders took 50 million trips on bikeshare systems, and the number of trips and systems has grown every year since 2010. The COVID-19 pandemic has further increased demand for bicycles and bikeshare systems as people seek transportation options. Systems are operating in communities of all sizes from Los Angeles and Portland to Topeka and Conway, Arkansas.

While some existing bikeshare programs received federal dollars to develop their systems, the lack of an established source of federal financial support has proved an impediment to many other projects. Since the term ``bikeshare'' is not included in federal law or described as a form of transit, bikeshare systems and departments of transportation are forced to operate in a gray area, creating challenges for funding and maintaining bikeshare systems.

This legislation makes bikeshare systems eligible to receive funding to enhance related public transportation service or transit facilities. Federal funding can be used for acquiring or replacing bikeshare- related equipment and constructing bikeshare facilities. Bikeshare systems will also be listed as eligible projects under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program. The Bikeshare Transit Act will remove significant barriers facing new and existing bikeshare projects applying for federal funding while underscoring that bikeshare programs drive economic development and are an important part of bringing choice and adding value to America's transportation system.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to include this legislation in a long-term surface transportation reauthorization package.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Road User Charge Advancement Act of 2021. This legislation passed the

House last session in Section 5401 of the Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2, 116th Cong.) and builds on the successful Surface Transportation Systems Funding Alternatives (STSFA) program to further enhance national understanding and competencies in collecting a road user charge.

Increased vehicle fuel efficiency and a stagnant federal gas tax have encouraged increased demand on our transportation system without proportionally contributing to necessary maintenance and investment. In just a few years, the United States will no longer be able to finance our transportation system based on gallons of fuel consumed. Surface transportation faces significant funding challenges which have only deepened during the COVID-19 pandemic. The federal gas tax, unchanged since 1993, has lost more than 71 percent of its purchasing power due to inflation and fuel efficiency gains. As a result, Congress has transferred more than $153 billion in general fund revenues to prop up the Highway Trust Fund since 2008. Without new sources of revenue, or increasing existing sources, the total Highway Trust Fund shortfall is projected to reach nearly $190 billion in the next 10 years.

Two national transportation study commissions, authorized in 2005, named a road usage charge based on vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the most promising revenue alternative to the gas tax and the ``consensus choice'' for the future. Since then, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming have operated or are operating pilot projects where drivers are charged for miles traveled as part of the STSFA program.

The Road User Charge Advancement Act of 2021 would reauthorize the STSFA program through Fiscal Year 2025, increase the authorization amount to $35 million, and reduce the state match requirement to incentivize more states to participate. The legislation also includes annual reporting requirements to provide more frequent knowledge- sharing opportunities and provides special consideration for states that are collecting revenues in their pilots.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to advance this legislation as part of a surface transportation reauthorization package and provide communities with longterm funding certainty to meet their infrastructure needs.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Primary Care Enhancement Act of 2019, which would open up more access to affordable primary care.

Direct Primary Care (DPC) is a membership-based alternative payment model for primary care in which patients, employers, or health plans pay a DPC physician practice monthly or periodic fees directly for unlimited access to primary care and prevention services. DPC affords the patient more time with

the doctor--sometimes an hour per visit--giving the doctor the time to build a true relationship with their patients, so they can better understand and address their health needs.

Today, DPC is providing high-quality care at lower cost for individuals of all ages and incomes across America. By partnering with wrap-around insurance plans that cover non-primary care services, DPC practices now serve patients with private insurance, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care. As opposed to ``concierge'' physician practices, DPC practices typically charge a low monthly fee of $50-$100 per month and serve low and moderate-income patients. However, IRS interpretation of the tax code prevents Americans with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) from using this promising alternative payment model.

The Primary Care Enhancement Act clarifies two small provisions in the Internal Revenue Code that treat these innovative primary care arrangements for employees and individuals as health plans rather than medical services. More than twenty states have passed laws defining DPC as a medical service and not a health plan regulated by state insurance law. Likewise, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rules on Essential Health Benefits clearly state that DPC arrangements are medical services, not health insurance. However, the current IRS interpretation of the statute prohibits individuals with HSAs from funding their accounts if they have a DPC arrangement. Furthermore, individuals cannot use their existing HSA dollars to pay for the monthly or annual DPC fees as qualified medical expenses, even though the fees are giving them access to their primary care doctor and primary care services that would otherwise be HSA-eligible.

As more individuals and employers seek to utilize the DPC delivery model, it is important that an outdated tax barrier not get in the way of patients accessing this successful model of care.

While many of us have philosophical differences about HSAs and their role in health care, my legislation is not an expansion of HSAs themselves; rather, it is a narrow clarification providing tax equity for individuals who want to use DPC arrangements. I urge my colleagues support this bipartisan effort to expand access and continue the movement towards better primary care at lower costs.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Chronic Disease Management Act of 2019, which would permit high- deductible health plans to provide chronic disease prevention services to plan enrollees prior to satisfying their plan deductible.

According to a 2017 Rand Corporation study, 90 percent of the United States' $3.3 trillion in annual health expenditures are for people with chronic and mental health conditions. Approximately 60 percent of the cost is paid by public sources: Medicare, Medicaid, and other U.S. federal and state health programs. The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease estimates that by 2030, 83 million people in the U.S. will have three or more chronic health conditions, up from 31 million in 2015. Preventing chronic diseases, or managing symptoms when prevention is not possible, can reduce these costs.

Currently, the cost of chronic care services often prevents individuals who have a chronic disease and high deductible health plan from seeking care. Many Americans struggle, particularly at the beginning of the year, when they have to pay out of pocket until they have met their deductible.

My legislation would address this problem by allowing health savings account eligible high deductible health plans to provide beneficiary coverage of chronic disease management care before reaching their deductible limit. My bill would lower costs for people living with chronic conditions by providing pre-deductible coverage of services critical in fending off the progression of chronic illness. That is why I am proud to sponsor the Chronic Disease Management Act of 2019, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I would first begin by extending my congratulations to the chair and the committee for taking a hard look at this legislation to better meet the needs of the military and the taxpayer in long-term, stable, careful military policy. I think they have made tremendous strides. I would like to try to make it just a tiny bit better.

Mr. Chair, we are looking at a Minuteman III extension on a land- based intercontinental ballistic missile system, and I am proposing that we have a study as to whether or not we could be better served by simply extending the life of the existing system as opposed to new development.

Frankly, there needs to be more attention by this Congress, and I appreciate the attention that the committee has given.

The ICBM is the leg of the triad that raises the most questions. There has been a RAND study on the future of the ICBM force that found that a new alternative is very likely to cost two or three times more than incremental modernization.

We are careening toward a $1.3 trillion or more investment in nuclear weapons that, frankly, do not help us for most of our national security challenges that we face now, weapons that we simply can't afford and can't afford to use.

I think by trying to right-size the work that we are doing and by taking a hard look at this element with a study on extending the life, it is a reasonable, responsible, cost-effective effort. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chair of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Mr. Chair, my colleague has the right to close?

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to reassure my good friend from Utah that the Minuteman missile doesn't have to remember what it was doing in the past. It simply has to launch.

To the notion that it is a Nixon-era weapon, we are flying B-52s, which are not just Lyndon Johnson but those are of the Kennedy era.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), my good friend.

Mr. Chair, did my friend from California not completely exhaust the time allotted?

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment here that would deal with a study on the cost-effectiveness of the W80-4 Life Extension Program.

We have been having these debates over the years before the committee on this issue of nuclear weapons. I am deeply troubled that we really haven't done a deep dive on the floor of the House in terms of the path we have been on.

I have settled, in the past, for trying to have some studies to determine whether or not what we are doing going forward is actually cost-effective.

In this case, the father of this device, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, has argued that there is scant justification for spending tens of billions of dollars on new weapons. General Mattis has stated numerous times that he is not sold on the LRSO.

I simply want to make sure that we know what we are getting into, what the costs are, in terms of some of the increases that are going forward.

We need to do a better job of our oversight, our debate. These weapons have not been used, as the gentleman said, since the end of World War II. It is not at all clear that we needed to have the volume of weapons we had, the number of delivery systems. In fact, there is strong argument that we could have done a better job, or just as good a job, of deterrence with less. And there have been a whole host of problems in the past in terms of mismanagement, accident that we have narrowly avoided disaster.

I think this is a small step forward, and I would respectfully request that the study be approved.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, let me just make three points.

First and foremost, anybody who thinks that we are standing still and defenseless is not in the real world. We are spending billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and delivery systems. And, in fact, we are relying on a delivery system from the Kennedy-era with the B-52. So I say to the gentleman, don't tell me that we cannot move these items forward.

Second, the gentleman does not have a good fix in terms of what is happening with the cost increases. This study is required to be able to have the additional money. If we can do the appropriate study and it makes sense, the money is there. But this is a step towards accountability and it is long, long overdue, and I hope we can start now approving this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this has been a very important week in the evolution of the Federal policy to end the failed policy of prohibition on cannabis.

Yesterday, the House overwhelmingly approved my amendment that would prohibit the Department of Justice from interfering with any State- legal cannabis activities. We had also approved an amendment that granted the same protections to the Tribes.

This is remarkable progress that we have seen, but it is just an effort by Congress to catch up to where the rest of the American public is.

For the last 23 years, American voters have changed the policies that are outmoded and dangerous. Most recently, we have seen a wave of activity dealing not just with medical marijuana but dealing with adult use. The public, by a two-thirds margin, supports this.

And, when we talk about medical marijuana, it is like the Fourth of July. Ninety percent of the American public believes that we ought to have access to medical marijuana.

I have been working in this Congress to extend the same opportunities to our veterans, who, if anything, need medical marijuana more than any other category of our citizens. We lost 7,000 people to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but we have lost over 100,000 veterans to suicides and opioid overdoses.

The VA, I am afraid, has not been as helpful as it should be. They prescribe opioids for our veterans at a rate 50 percent higher than others. Our veterans are twice as likely to die from overdose.

I am deeply concerned about that. That is why I have repeatedly advanced this amendment. Two sessions ago, it passed the House, it passed the Senate, and it was in the final version of the bill, only to be stripped out by the Republican leadership.

An illustration of how far we have evolved: The House leadership that

stripped this provision out was headed by Speaker Boehner, who is now a spokesperson for the cannabis industry, having described that he has evolved on this issue and thinks it is a good idea.

We haven't evolved, in this Congress, in providing protections for the VA. Even though this amendment has passed repeatedly, all of a sudden, the VA has decided, well, they would be putting their doctors at risk.

It never came up before. If we had known about it, we could work around it. And I think we can and should work to fix this.

It is outrageous. And if you talk to people like the Veterans Cannabis Coalition, or talk to veterans in your own district, they will tell you that their lives have been transformed by access to medical cannabis and they don't want highly addictive, dangerous opioids.

We need to do right by them. I am going to, reluctantly, withdraw this amendment, this amendment that has passed repeatedly on the floor of the House and is so badly needed.

And I hope that we will be able to work together to fix this little quirk, to make sure that VA doctors can do what doctors everywhere do in States where medical cannabis is legal and be able to work with their patients.

The VA ought to give their patients, our veterans, the same consideration to have them be able to have these conversations with the doctors that know them best.

As I say, Madam Chair, I will reluctantly withdraw it, confident that we can work together to solve it and, ultimately, give our veterans the access that they deserve and need.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership on this.

Sadly, invoking the memory of Teddy Roosevelt is not exactly the best symbol of conservation. He was one of the people that slaughtered thousands of buffalo and had trophy hunting around the world.

What is different today is that the scale is much greater, the populations we want to protect are dwindling.

At one point, we thought there was an inexhaustible supply of wild animals to kill. Even Teddy Roosevelt ended up supporting legislation to be able to protect endangered species, which he did in terms of the slaughter of wild birds.

We have seen these populations drop dramatically.

What trophy hunters do, they kill the strongest, the most magnificent animals, that if they are left in the population, would promote stronger herds of elephants and lions.

We are working against ourselves.

For a while here, the Federal Government took steps to limit the issuance of these permits, which as my friend Mr. Buchanan points out, even Donald Trump says is a horror show.

Now, I have been in Tanzania recently and looked at what happened on the ground. If you talk to those people there, their future is not slaughtering wildlife, it is protecting it.

The photo expeditions where they take the pictures and they don't kill them, that they reuse over and over and over again, is far more valuable and doesn't hurt the species.

Mr. Chair, I would respectfully request that we approve the gentleman's amendment, that we stop this barbaric practice, that we not undermine the protection of these species, and do everything we can to reverse the horrific condition they have faced over the course of the last 20 years.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment is simple. It would restrict the subsidization of logging roads in the Tongass wilderness.

There are currently more than 5,000 miles of road that are used for logging. They are not accessible to the public. These roads are subsidized simply because the timber industry in the Tongass cannot sustain itself. It could not exist other than the fact that we build logging roads for them.

It is a problem on several levels. First and foremost, there is a long-term liability associated with them. Currently, there is some $90 million worth of deferred maintenance, and if you do not adequately maintain these logging roads, they become an environmental liability.

But more fundamentally, it is undermining this great resource. The true value of the Tongass that makes it unique and the true economic driver of the region is tourism and fishing, which is sustainable.

Alaska has been damaged by climate change more than any other State. The temperature has risen twice what we see in the rest of the country. The Tongass is part of the effort to be able to reduce climate change by providing a carbon sink.

This amendment is supported by many environmental and taxpayer advocate groups: Alaska Wilderness Action, Earthjustice, the Sierra Club. But because it is a profligate waste of tax dollars, we have Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste that have supported this amendment, which has passed Congress in the past on a bipartisan basis.

I urge my colleagues to look hard at this unnecessary subsidization of the destruction of this precious resource making climate change worse while undermining the values that make the Tongass so valuable.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, first and foremost, my friend from Alaska--who is my friend, and I respect, and have enjoyed our give-and- take over the years--misses the point. What I am talking about is Federal subsidization of logging roads.

I mentioned that there is a deferred backlog that is expensive, that the logging operations that we have do not recover enough money to fully fund the operations and the deferred maintenance. I referenced the fact that we have an opportunity to be able to focus our attention on things that really do make a difference.

I haven't spent time in the Tongass; I have spent time in Alaska. But the principle applies in Oregon and other States in terms of heavily subsidized logging roads.

Logging roads don't make forests safer. They don't prevent forest fires. And as a matter of fact, when we look at logging operations, they are often less sustainable. In fact, logging sometimes causes forest fires and puts people in these areas who cause fires.

Now, I would just respectfully suggest that what I said about Alaska being threatened more by climate change than any other, I am happy to provide my good friend from Alaska the references in terms of verifying the statistics and facts that I have used, but the fact remains this is something we shouldn't do, we don't need, and I strongly urge adoption of the amendment.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to be here today to be able to deal with the first significant piece of legislation on the floor of the House this Congress dealing with the legalization of cannabis. There has been a sea change in this country over the course of the last 25 years as we have seen 47 States legalize some form of cannabis.

But there is an area that is deeply troubling, and this relates to Tribes. Tribes have an interest in being able to conduct activities that deal with cannabis, but currently the strictures that the Federal Government has dealing with its being illegal and the manifold connections that Tribes have with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and so forth make it something that they just don't feel comfortable doing.

There are Tribes that are moving forward. They want to be in this area. It is a multibillion dollar growth industry. It provides opportunities for health, economic development, and recreational activities. The States have been granted a certain amount of latitude moving into this space, but the Tribes have been denied.

This amendment is very simple. It just says that the Department of Justice will not interfere with Tribal decisions dealing with cannabis.

It is ironic. This is a substance that has been used by Tribes for healing going back millennia, and there is an opportunity for them to be able to be part of an economic opportunity that is taking place across the country. We need to grant them that authority.

Approval of this amendment says: Department of Justice, leave them alone.

It is similar to what we have enacted since 2014 dealing with medical marijuana in the States. It is something that continues as Federal policy, and we will be talking about that in another amendment.

I hope that there is a recognition that Tribes deserve this latitude and this empowerment and that we vote in favor of it to allow them to proceed as has taken place in States around the country.

Madam Chair, I respectfully request that the body supports this amendment. It will make a great deal of difference for Native Americans and be a step towards normalizing this relationship.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, one of the areas that has been most gratifying for me has been watching what has happened in a revolution in cannabis policy.

Starting in 1996 with the State of California, we have watched States across the country have their voters step up to make legalization with medical marijuana and more recently with adult use.

Additionally, there have been States that have taken action dealing with medical marijuana in a specialized form for children with extreme seizure disorders. So, in total, we now have 47 States that have some form of cannabis that is legal. We are watching the growth of this industry--a multibillion dollar industry. We are watching State after State move forward. Every one of us on the floor of the House who are here now represent areas that have taken action.

We have had embedded in our legislation protections for medical marijuana, and this would simply extend that same protection to prevent the Department of Justice from interfering with adult use.

I strongly urge that we build on the legacy that we have had in the past and that we move this forward to allow the Federal Government to start catching up with where the rest of the States are.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire the time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, let me just say that I am pleased to partner with Ms. Norton. The Federal Government needs to get right with the District of Columbia on this.

I disagree with my good friend from Alabama. If we were rescheduling drugs today, cannabis probably wouldn't be scheduled at all, and what would be Schedule I is tobacco, which is highly addictive and deadly.

It is widely known now that there are, in fact, medicinal purposes to be obtained from using cannabis. That is why the voters in the gentleman's own State just approved medical marijuana.

They are not goofy. They are not misled. They understand that there is compelling evidence, and any of us meeting with professionals can understand that. One of the reasons we don't have the research is because the Federal Government has interfered with research in terms of cannabis.

But the evidence is clear. You can find that out with children in your State who use medical cannabis to stop extreme seizure disorders; people who use cannabis to be able to stop the violent nausea associated with chemotherapy; or veterans that use it for PTSD, traumatic brain injury, or chronic pain.

This is what the American people have demanded, why it is now legal in 33 States, why it has some version in 47, and is supported by two- thirds of the American public and 90 percent for medical marijuana.

It is time that we extend this protection to these State legal activities so that they can thrive and move forward.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate his moving forward on the issue of retirement security, for which he has been a tireless champion.

We are facing a retirement crisis in this country. Nearly half of households headed by someone 55 or older lack retirement savings. One of the many reasons they are not saving enough is lack of access to retirement plans. This bill moves in that direction.

I appreciate it is going to increase access to employer retirement plans for people who work in small business and part-time workers.

Of particular interest to me is a provision in this bill that fixes a quirk in the current law that prevents many home care workers from participating in a 401(k) or saving with an individual retirement account, an IRA.

I heard directly from home healthcare workers in Oregon about this problem. I am pleased, working with the committee, we have been able to fix this quirk moving forward. I anticipate this is one of many bills that will be moving forward dealing with retirement security in America, and I look forward to that progress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the month of May as GBS/CIDP Awareness Month 2019 and ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the CIDP and MMN communities through cosponsoring the Medicare IVIG Access Enhancement Act.

The bill Act would provide much-needed assistance to Medicare patients suffering from two rare diseases, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) and Multifocal Motor Neuropathy (MMN). These debilitating conditions are the result of a patient's own immune system attacking their motor nerves, leading to compromised mobility and reduced quality of life.

Patients are frequently treated with intravenous immune globulin (IVIG), a plasma-derived medicine that can significantly improve health outcomes for these vulnerable patient populations. Given the mobility challenges associated with CIDP and MMN, treatment in the homes is the preferred site of care for many patients.

I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation by becoming a cosponsor. The establishment of a home infusion option for patients with CIDP and MMN will help promote therapy adherence, enhance quality of life and promote positive health outcomes for beneficiaries with CIDP and MMN.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Rebuild America Act of 2019. This legislation makes much-needed investments in America's roads, bridges, and transit systems by raising the federal gasoline excise tax by five cents a year for the next five years, indexing it to inflation, and expressing Congress' intention to repeal and replace the gas tax with a more sustainable funding source.

The United States faces the largest infrastructure funding gap in the world. The sector with the greatest shortfall is surface transportation, which the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates needs more than $1.1 trillion of investment by 2025. Worse, we are paying for 2019 infrastructure with 1993 dollars. Inflation and fuel efficiency improvements have reduced the gas tax's purchasing power by more than 40 percent since it was last raised in 1993.

Today, one in five miles of highway pavement is in poor condition, and damage due to rough roads costs the average motorist $599 a year. Americans waste nearly 100 hours a year stuck in traffic and congestion, costing the U.S. economy $305 billion annually--an average of $1,445 per driver. These costs fall especially hard on low-income individuals, who can't afford the unexpected burden of a blown tire, hourly wages lost to congestion, or the steadily increasing cost of transportation.

Since 2010, 35 states with legislatures controlled by both parties have voted to raise the gas tax. American families pay far more from continued neglect than a gas tax increase. Inaction will cost families $3,400 in annual disposable income by 2025, whereas a 25-cent gas tax increase costs the average driver less than $3.00 a week and contributes nearly $400 billion toward upgrading roads, bridges, and transit systems. Investment in American infrastructure is the jobs bill that our economy needs and the middle class deserves. Every $1.3 billion in infrastructure investment adds 29,000 construction jobs, yields $2 billion in economic growth, and reduces the federal deficit by $200 million.

This legislation is expected to invest nearly $400 billion in the next decade for surface transportation projects and deserves inclusion in a comprehensive infrastructure package that rebuilds and renews America.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2019. This bipartisan legislation would authorize 4,000 Afghan Special Immigrant Visas and require the State Department to report to Congress on the obstacles to protecting Iraqi and Afghan allies as well as suggestions for improving the program.

Since 2002, the United States Government has employed thousands of Afghan and Iraqi allies to serve alongside U.S. troops, diplomats, and other government employees. As a result of their service, these allies and their families have become the targets of anti-American persecution and violence. As U.S. Government agencies and personnel continue to rely on local partners to ensure critical mission capabilities, Afghan and Iraqi partners continue to be threatened, abducted, or assassinated for their willingness to assist the United States.

With broad bipartisan support, Congress created two Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) programs to provide pathways to safety for Iraqis and Afghans whose work with and allegiance to the U.S. Government has exposed them to direct threats, jeopardizing their safety and that of their loved ones. Although the Iraqi SIV program stopped accepting new applications in 2014, the Afghan SIV program continues protecting Afghan allies to this day.

In recent years, the SIV applicant backlog has continued to grow while Congress has struggled to allot enough visas to bring our allies to safety in the United States. While the recent Fiscal Year 2019 omnibus spending bill authorized 3,500 SIVs, the backlog remains at nearly 20,000 Afghans. Worse, the processing times for existing applications has slowed dramatically, forcing many to wait for years while living in fear of being targeted. Due to these issues and others facing the program, SIV arrivals have fallen by more than half over the last fiscal year.

This legislation makes more visas available for the thousands of applicants in the pipeline and starts the process of improving the program so our allies can be brought to safety faster. The safety of these brave men and women, security of our troops, and our international standing depend on the United States be true to our word. We can't leave anyone behind.