Matt Cartwright

Mr. CARTWRIGHT

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the FS-GG Subcommittee. Mr. Chair, here in Congress we have a big opportunity to fight drug trafficking in this country. Congress originally authorized the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, HIDTA, in 1988 and renewed it in 1993 and in 1998. The program provides significant financial assistance to State and local law enforcement and facilitates strong cooperation among those agencies and with Federal law enforcement. That cooperation has led to many successes in our efforts to disrupt the market for illegal drugs by interdicting and seizing drugs off of our shores and within our borders. This High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program removes the supply of illicit substances, making it harder for drug trafficking organizations to sell their products. For example, in 2021, the HIDTA program seized over 193 metric tons of cocaine products, 195 metric tons of methamphetamine, 2,900 metric tons of marijuana, 4 metric tons of heroin, and 9 metric tons of fentanyl. We all know the toll that the drug trafficking continues to take on communities across our country. Along our southern border, the Mexican cartels are using any means necessary to import precursor chemicals from China to produce synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. That is to meet a growing demand, a demand that has resulted in over 100,000 deaths of Americans in just 1 year. The accessibility and the affordability of these drugs leave Federal, State, local, and Tribal partners in a continuous defensive posture to keep dangerous narcotics out of our communities and successfully to combat the drug trafficking networks that are responsible. Nevertheless, still today we continue to see draconian cuts by the majority to law enforcement efforts not only in this bill, the FS-GG bill, but also in the bill produced by the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee where I am the ranking member. These cuts serve only to amplify the supply of illicit drugs. These cuts cause a proliferation in the violence associated with the drug trade. These cuts damage the important work of successful programs like HIDTA. Here in Congress we have the opportunity to build on the investments we have made in the war against drugs. We can provide the HIDTA program with the resources it needs to address its existing and emerging challenges in this war. We can send a clear signal to our adversaries on the global stage that we will not allow this attack on our communities without consequence. We can bring those responsible for this drug trafficking scum to justice. For these reasons, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to the committee. If the House rules permit, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to the bill. My amendment would increase the Office of National Drug Control Policies High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program by $15 million. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of this amendment. Mr. Cartwright moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4664 to the Committee on Approriations with the following ammendment: Page 41, 1ine 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Communications Equity and Diversity Council at the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, is instrumental in promoting inclusivity within the organization. By championing diversity, it ensures that the workforce represents a broader spectrum of perspectives, fostering a more inclusive and equitable workplace. The council's existence improves decisionmaking at the FCC by incorporating diverse viewpoints. Diverse teams are more likely to generate innovative ideas, leading to better policies and regulations that benefit a wider range of people in the ever-evolving communications and technology sector. The Communications Equity and Diversity Council also plays a crucial role in ensuring that the FCC complies with American law as well as ethical guidelines related to diversity and equity in employment. For these reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The SEC's 2022 proxy adviser rule promotes transparency and accountability by requiring proxy advisory firms to provide more disclosure about their methodologies, their potential conflicts of interest, and their engagement with issuers. This rule aims to improve the accuracy and reliability of proxy advisory recommendations, which play a crucial role in corporate governance. The SEC's 2022 proxy adviser rule strikes a balance among the interests of issuers, investors, and proxy advisory firms. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The SEC guidance that this rule would block provides clearer guidance for companies for disclosure of non-generally accepted accounting principles, non-GAAP. This clarity helps investors better understand a company's financial performance, making investment decisions more informed. It is as simple as that. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, this amendment is opposed, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Climate-related financial risks can have significant adverse economic impacts on businesses, communities, and the financial sector. Come on. Addressing these risks is essential to safeguard economic stability and resilience, and these things are crucial in the face of a changing climate. Financial institutions and Federal agencies ought to consider climate risks in their decisionmaking processes, particularly in investment and lending practices. By doing so, it promotes responsible and sustainable investment choices that support projects and businesses with low environmental impacts. These executive orders underscore the importance of the United States taking a leadership role in global efforts to combat climate change. By setting ambitious domestic goals and engaging with international partners, the United States can encourage other countries to follow suit, resulting in a more effective global response to climate change. The United States should be leading this effort. These executive orders are essential for combating climate change because they address climate-related financial risks, encourage responsible investment, promote global leadership, strengthen resilience, and accelerate the transition to clean energy. They collectively contribute to a more comprehensive and effective approach to mitigating the impacts of climate change and advancing environmental sustainability. For these reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I do urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this senseless amendment. The White House gun violence task force is committed to treating gun violence as the public health crisis it is. By approaching this issue from a public health perspective, the task force aims to reduce the staggering number of deaths and injuries caused by firearms in the United States. The task force emphasizes the importance of data-driven and evidence- based policy decisions that will create solutions that balance the rights of law-abiding gun owners with the need for public safety. Mr. Chair, as a gun owner myself, I tell you that task force seeks to enact commonsense gun safety measures that the majority of Americans support. These include: background checks for all gun sales, closing the gun show and online sale loopholes, and implementing red flag laws temporarily to disarm individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others. I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, this amendment is opposed, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. For more than 50 years, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission has worked to fulfill its statutory mission to protect the public against unreasonable risk of injuries and deaths associated with consumer products. By cutting the CPSC's budget by half, this amendment would gut the agency's staff and undermine its mission. It is an extreme measure that would place children, families, and communities around the country at greater risk of injury and death from product hazards. This amendment would leave consumers vulnerable to products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or that can injure children. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would block the construction of Federal buildings in Washington, D.C., and with all due respect to the gentleman from Montana, it is based on a fundamental misconception. It is not like these projects go up at the whim of the administration. Buildings have to have appropriated funding, and there is a prospectus process on the authorizing side. This is a misguided amendment. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.