Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I think the Republican side of the aisle made the case quite clearly today as to why we should not vote for censure. Right now, you can tell how weak their arguments are because they are grasping for straws, trying to do their best ``My Cousin Vinny'' impersonation as to breaking down what happened here with a fire alarm. Jamaal Bowman has more courage in his pinkie finger than the entire Republican Party put together and more integrity than the entire Republican Party put together. That is exactly why they are moving to censure him today. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what is actually going on. New York Republicans are so embarrassed that they propped up George Santos, got him elected to office, and then had to turn around and vote to expel him that they want to distract the entire world from their massive embarrassment. New York Republicans are so embarrassed that they have not accomplished a damn thing for New Yorkers this entire year that they have to find a distraction, so they have decided to target one of the first Black men to ever represent Westchester County in the United States Congress for censure. That is what today is about. Moreover, New York Republicans are so unfocused and so unable to make people's lives better that they have decided to bully their colleague. That is what today is about. They are wasting our time, and they are wasting the country's time over some petty--what rises to censure? I mean, truly, these arguments that are being made here, what is next? Jaywalking? Do you want to get us for jaywalking and for not crossing the street correctly? Is that what you are going to raise for censure next? This is truly ridiculous. It is beneath the character of the House, and it is beneath the stature and the status of what rises to consideration before this body.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, during rollcall Vote No. 616 on amendment 60 to H.R. 4820, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``aye'' when I should have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Norman

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I was unable to be present for rollcall No. 298 due to the limited voting window made available for members. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 298. Stated against:

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Madam Speaker, we are here on the last day of this session and Republicans have decided to skip town, but what this debt ceiling debate really is about is the fact that Republicans have run up a bill that they now do not want to pay. They have run up this bill with extremely excessive military spending. They have run up this bill with extraordinary tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country and now when it comes time to pay for this bill, they do not want to pay it. Not only that, but they are accusing Democrats of saying we spend too much. For anyone that wants to entertain that thought, I ask you to think about the last time a person has said in this country that the government does too much for them, that their Social Security check was too high, that teachers are paid too much. When was the last time anyone has heard or seen that?

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, as my distinguished colleague, Representative Connolly from the State of Virginia, says: well, well, well. Several years ago, we warned during the Trump tax cuts, that this dramatic decrease in revenue would explode the Nation's debt. We heard from the Republican side: No, let us write off our yachts; let us write off our private jets. We said that this decrease in revenue would explode our national debt. But instead of now realizing the error of our ways and reversing these tax cuts for the wealthy, we are now seeing the Republican side promote a bill that cuts student loan cancellation, veterans' healthcare, cancer research, opioid treatment, Meals on Wheels, and more. The debt limit is about meeting our obligations already voted for, that Republicans and Democrats have already voted for. If we want to cut and make changes to programming in the future, we may do that, but threatening to tank the economy is not how you do it.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Madam Chair, there was some discussion earlier and an allegation made that Democrats have yet to introduce any policy to reduce our energy costs, as if we have completely forgotten about the sweeping, multibillion-dollar investments in the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce people's costs across the board. I am rising today to stand in opposition to H.R. 1. While Republicans try to claim that this is a bill to lower people's energy costs, what we really see when we start digging into it, is that what this bill actually shows us by the Republican authors is that they actually have no plan to reduce our utility bills or even prevent climate disaster in the United States. The central argument and logic of this bill is that if you give Big Oil everything they want, then perhaps they will lower our gas prices. It is a form of trickle-down fantasy that just will not make life easier for everyday Americans. What H.R. 1 will do is give Big Oil more leases of public lands. This idea that an increased supply of fossil fuels will drive down prices is also mistaken. Let's look at what happened last year. We saw how Big Oil more than doubled its profits to $219 billion, all while price gouging customers at the pump, not because of supply issues but because they can. Republicans opposed solutions that we put forward, like a windfall tax on price gouging on Big Oil in order to prevent these kinds of behaviors. Fossil fuel companies, moreover, already have thousands of unused permits on public lands, yet they want even more. This is not a problem of supply. It is a problem of greed and abuse of market power. I, along with many of my colleagues, called for that windfall tax. What does this bill do instead? It is almost as if you gave a pen to an oil lobbyist and wrote down everything that they want. Much of that is in this bill. We are looking at reducing Big Oil's royalty rates to the public and slashing interest fees. For people following at home, if you are a member of the American public, if you are a taxpaying citizen, you are part of the ownership of our public lands. When an oil company decides to lease that land, they are supposed to pay a royalty to the public. What does H.R. 1 do? It slashes that royalty rate so that there is very little payback or investment into the American people and many of our programs. In this bill, Republicans are squarely on the side of fossil fuel companies. It makes it harder for communities to fight Big Oil when they don't want them drilling in their own backyards. It also threatens our public lands and allows anyone to stake a mining claim on our public lands for less than $10 an acre, even if they haven't discovered any minerals. Despite the fact that more than 40 percent of Americans live in counties hit by climate disasters, this bill prohibits agencies from even considering climate change when deciding whether or not to issue a permit to a drilling company. None of these things are going to lower our costs at the pump. None of these things are going to actually reduce our utility bills. In fact, in talking about this allegation of a lack of Democrat proposals, Democrats introduced 95 amendments, proposed 95 amendments to this bill, and the Republican majority rejected all but seven. I, myself, personally sponsored an amendment in the spirit of this bill, allegedly, to try to reduce prices, and my amendment would have made sure that the subsidies that the Federal Government provides to oil and gas companies actually make their way to the American people-- instead of lining the pockets of billionaire CEOs--and actually have the intended effect. Republicans rejected that amendment, too. They have made clear where they stand. I cannot emphasize enough how detrimental and damaging this bill would be, not only to the climate crisis, not only to the purpose of even trying to reduce our utility costs, but moreover, for the ability for the American people to actually receive an investment on the public lands that they lease out.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I think what we are seeing here today is the Republican Party's attempt to take some of the most heinous legislation that we are seeing passed on the State level to attack our trans and LGBT, as well as people from marginalized communities' right to exist in schools. This flowery language of ``parental rights and freedom'' hides the sinister fact of this legislative text. If you notice in these arguments, they are not really discussing what is actually in this legislation. It includes two provisions that require schools to out trans, nonbinary, and LGBT youth even if it would put said youth in harm's way. One of the highest rates of youth homelessness is in the LGBT community, from parents who want to kick their children out in households that may be unstable or abusive. For so many children of abuse, school is their only safe place to be. Before they claim that this is not about banning books and not about harming the LGBT community, let's just look at the impacts of similar Republican legislation that has already passed on the State level. Look at these books that have already been banned due to Republican measures: ``The Life of Rosa Parks''; this apparently is too woke by the Republican Party. ``Song of Solomon'' is unacceptable to Republican politics. Forty percent of banned books reported are significantly addressing and specifically addressing LGBT issues. To say and talk about government reach and freedom, this Republican bill is asking the government to force the outing of LGBT people before they are ready. Talking about the rights of parents, the National Parents Union is here in this gallery today saying: Don't do this. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter where the National Parents Union is asking the Republican Party to: ``Keep culture wars out of classrooms. Our children need urgent and aggressive educational solutions. . . .'' The National Parents Union Issues Statement Concerning the Introduction of the Parents Bill of Rights By Chair Foxx, Speaker McCarthy, and House GOP March 1, 2023--Boston, MA--The National Parents Union, released a statement following a press conference spearheaded by the Workforce Committee Chair Virginia Foxx, Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and members of the House Republican Conference: Today, Chairwoman Foxx, of the House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee, released a new bill that claims to be a Parents Bill of Rights. A true Parents Bill of Rights can only be developed following an extensive process that includes bringing together a broad spectrum of parents representing every intersectionality of the modern American family. Nowhere in this Parents Bill of Rights does it guarantee parents that their student will have access to a high quality education that prepares them for a life of opportunity. In fact, this faux Bill of Rights glosses over the issues identified as the most important issues facing our children: school safety, the mental health crisis impacting students, and aggressively focusing on addressing the academic challenges that have the potential to hinder our children from achieving economic mobility and competing for the jobs of the future. This bill has nothing to do with parent rights and everything to do with the radical culture wars that serve as a distraction from what our students' really need to recover from the pandemic. This bill would lead to more education bans, which takes books off classroom shelves and will therefore limit access to education for millions of kids across the country. From national polling we know that the top priorities identified by the vast majority of families are the safety of their children while at school and the urgent need for mental health supports. This bill fails to address either issue and therefore is clearly not intended for the millions of families who have been demanding leadership from federal, state and local lawmakers. There are ways to write a Parents Bill of Rights in a way that guarantees student progress and addresses the crises that our schools and families face across the country. This is not that.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter from the American Library Association coming out against this Republican proposal. American Library Association, March 16, 2023. Re H.R. 5, ``Parents Bill of Rights Act''--OPPOSE. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker McCarthy and Leader Jeffries: The American Library Association (``ALA'') writes to express our opposition to certain provisions of H.R. 5 (``Parents Bill of Rights Act'') and to urge a NO vote on H.R. 5. Unquestionably, parents should have a voice in their child's education. However, we must oppose H.R. S's school library provisions, which ironically would lead to more government interference in family decisions regarding voluntary reading. These provisions: Are unnecessary and unwarranted; Would create a catalyst for more book banning and censorship; and Would create unfunded federal mandates and regulation where none are needed, at the cost of educating students. This letter explains each of these concerns below and provides background information about school libraries and an analysis of the bill's school library provisions. School Libraries are Essential to Educational Achievement According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 88 percent of all public schools had a school library in 2020-21. School libraries and librarians play essential roles in promoting educational achievement, including by fostering a love of reading which encourages students' development of key literacy skills. School libraries offer a variety of age- appropriate materials for voluntary reading, which is central to helping students discover the joy of reading. School library collections are typically overseen by school librarians who hold a Master's in Library Science or comparable degree from an ALA-accredited graduate program, and who in many states are required to hold a state certification. Library collections are developed in accordance with professional standards, the school's collection development and reconsideration policies, and the requirements of applicable law, including the U.S. Constitution. Analysis of H.R. 5's School Library Provisions The following provisions, as contained in Rules Committee Print 118-2, would impose new federal requirements on local school libraries. Section 104 would require local educational agencies that receive funding under federal Education Department programs to notify parents that they have the right to a ``list of the books and other reading materials contained in the library of their child's school'' and to ``inspect such books or other reading materials,'' and to provide parents with such list and opportunity to inspect such materials at the beginning of each school year. Section 202 would require local educational agencies that receive funding under federal Education Department programs to make available for inspection by parents ``any books or other reading materials made available to students in such school or through the school library of such school,'' and to adopt a policy providing for such inspection upon the request of the parent. Section 202 also contains reporting provisions, which would require: Local educational agencies that receive funding under federal Education Department programs to annually ``report to the State educational agency any enforcement actions or investigations carried out for the preceding school year to ensure compliance with this section'' and to ``publish such information on its website;'' State educational agencies, in turn, to annually report information received from local educational agencies to the federal Education Department, as well as ``a description of the enforcement actions the State educational agency took to ensure parents' rights were protected;'' and The federal Secretary of Education to annually report information received from states to Congress, along with ``a description of the enforcement actions taken by the Secretary [. . .] to ensure full compliance.'' Finally, Section 202 directs the Secretary to ``take such action as the Secretary determines appropriate to enforce this section;'' including the authority to terminate federal funding ``if the Secretary determines that there has been a failure to comply with such section, and compliance with such section cannot be secured by voluntary means.'' The bill would not provide funding to implement these requirements. The Bill's School Library Provisions Are Unnecessary and Unwarranted The bill's school library provisions appear to be a solution in search of a problem. We are not aware of any situations where parents were not allowed access to the school library's catalog or materials. It is standard practice in today's school libraries to maintain online catalogs of their library materials and make such catalogs available to parents and students. School librarians welcome the opportunity to engage with parents in support of the student's education and fostering a love of reading. That is precisely why school libraries exist, and why school librarians have chosen their profession. Furthermore, these provisions are unwarranted. As described above, school libraries provide access to a variety of age- appropriate materials. Notably, these are not mandatory instructional materials, but voluntary choices for student- directed reading. If a student isn't interested in a particular book, they can simply choose another book. The Bill's School Library Provisions Would Create a Catalyst for More Book Banning and Censorship We are very concerned about the potential negative unintended consequences of book banning and censorship of viewpoints if these federal requirements are imposed on local schools. The federal government should not dictate which materials local school libraries can or cannot offer. Indeed, current federal law prohibits the Education Department from exercising ``any direction, supervision, or control [. . .] over the selection or content of library resources'' by local schools (20 U.S.C. 3403(b)). However, the school library provisions of H.R. 5 would expand federal involvement in that quintessentially local decision and invite more attempts to censor information and ban books. Imposing new federal regulation--including a federal mandate for local schools to adopt new policies--would be weaponized by a small minority who seek to censor what other parents' children can read. The sad reality is that an increasing number of state and local politicians in recent years have acquiesced to extreme demands to censor reading choices, and we fear that censorship may become even more prevalent if these provisions are enacted. We have already seen how destructive censorship can be with the banning of books in many communities. Book bans now include many shocking examples, including the banning of children's books regarding the contributions to society by individuals like Condoleezza Rice, Rosa Parks, and Malala Yousafzai. We cannot support provisions that will, even if unintentionally, lead to greater censorship and the banning of children's books that contain subjects such as the contributions of these historic figures. The Bill's School Library Provisions Would Create Unfunded Federal Mandates and Regulation Where None Are Needed, At the Cost of Educating Students As described above, the bill's requirements for school libraries are essentially duplicative of standard local practice. Nonetheless, by imposing new federal regulation on local schools, the bill would create new paperwork requirements, compliance burdens, and administrative costs, including for rural and small schools that can least afford them. These unfunded mandates would be another distraction from schools' fundamental work to educate students. These same provisions would hand the federal Education Department new, broad authority to defund schools deemed to have inadequately complied with these new federal regulations. If enacted, these provisions would take dollars that should be used to pay for books, librarians, and teachers, and require that they instead be spent on administrators, bureaucrats, and paperwork--to the detriment of the students our schools should be focused on serving. Conclusion We believe that parents should be partners in their children's education. However, H.R. 5's school library provisions do nothing to advance that goal. Instead, they would create unnecessary and unfunded federal mandates on local school libraries that likely would result in more government censorship of reading choices. Congress should support freedom for parents and students to choose what they want to read. Inspired by the wisdom of our country's Founders, the First Amendment must be our guide star. If anyone is to tell a child that they can't read a book, it should be the child's parent, not a politician. Congress should support students by strengthening school libraries and protecting the freedom to read--not imposing more bureaucratic burdens and invitations to censorship. We are confident that parents want more books, not fewer, in their children's school libraries. Thank you for your consideration. If we can provide more information, please contact Gavin Baker. Sincerely, Alan S. Inouye, Ph.D., Senior Director, Public Policy & Government Relations and Interim Associate Executive Director American Library Association.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, when we talk about progressive values, I can say what my progressive value is, and that is freedom over fascism.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Madam Chair, I thank the great Representative from St. Louis, Ms. Bush, for yielding time. Madam Chair, I rise today to speak against H.R. 347, the REIN IN Act, and I will start my remarks today by saying how ironic it is that Republicans spent the entire first week of this session entangled in a fight in order for them to get the votes to secure a Speaker of the House, and the whole crux of that entanglement was rules to maintain regular order in the House. Just as we go back to Schoolhouse Rock, Republicans introduce a bill and it is supposed to go to committee, get a markup in that committee, a hearing in that committee, and a vote in that committee. If that bill can survive a committee vote, it comes right here to the floor of this House. We spent a whole week tied up in the beginning of this term trying to reassert that order. And then, today, one of the first acts that we have from this Committee on Oversight and Reform is to subvert that because perhaps they knew that this would not survive their own committee. So it goes straight to the floor for a vote, subverting all of those arguments that Republicans were making about restoring order to this House. But let's get into the substance of this bill. Ironically, if they had gone through regular order, they may have caught that this bill does nothing to rein in inflation, in part, because in their haste to put it together, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle committed an incredibly basic drafting error that makes this bill completely unenforceable. Even if we agreed on their ends, the haste and the rush to put this together and skip committee has created a drafting error that doesn't even make this bill enforceable. But even putting that error aside, my colleagues and I seem to have wildly different definitions of what actually is considered inflationary. While Republicans have labeled virtually any Federal spending during the pandemic as inflationary--while railing against the child tax credit that helped babies continue to be fed and diapers on their bottoms, that helped families stitch things together, while they railed against the eviction moratoriums and the Paycheck Protection Act-- Moody's Analytics found that the American Rescue Plan prevented this country from slipping into a double-digit recession. Because of the American Rescue Plan and the actual Inflation Reduction Act that Democrats passed last year, our country's inflation rate is now lower than in the U.K., Canada, and 20 other European Union member states. Yet Republicans have introduced legislation to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which would immediately raise the price of insulin along with other critical prescription drugs. Tell me how that is fighting inflation when they are proposing to raise the cost of prescriptions. Not only did Republicans vote to raise prices on prescription drugs, but they also voted against measures to drive down the price of gasoline last year. Last year, Democrats presented a bill to penalize companies who were price gouging during the middle of Putin's war on Ukraine. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against that, too. So which one is it? Republicans have controlled this body for almost 2 months and have not passed a single bill that would actually address inflation or cut costs for working families. But you know what Democrats did? In January, we capped the price of insulin at $35 so that everyday working families can actually get a little bit more ahead. And we have a lot more to go. But we don't even see a carefulness and a thoughtfulness from the other side of the aisle to even draft the language in this bill properly. It is not even ready for a vote, so why should we. Madam Chair, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this so-called REIN IN Act.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and my colleague from Maryland for yielding. It is so rich to hear the other side discuss the sacred right of voting, discuss what our veterans and our servicemembers fought for, and the sacred right of voting while defending and continuing to defend the disenfranchisement of American citizens in D.C. for their right to vote. They don't believe in statehood. They don't believe in the actual enfranchisement and voting rights for D.C. residents who are U.S. citizens. Yet, they have the audacity and the gall to not just continue in that position and claim they believe in the sacred right to vote while denying that right to vote to an overwhelmingly Black city, but then expanding their position--expanding their position--so that, in direct contradiction of their ``conservative'' values of small government and defending freedom, they have decided to expand the jurisdiction of this body to meddle into the business of D.C. residents. The D.C. Council has the right to determine its policies for D.C. residents. If any Member of this body does not like that, they can feel free to change their registration, resign their post, and run for D.C. Council. For those who are residents here of Washington, D.C., they could have gone, as the ranking member stated, to any one of the many hearings on this issue. I understand that there may be disagreement. I understand that Republicans may not be happy with what the D.C. Council is doing, but when cities in Vermont pass the same provisions, when San Francisco, when nine Maryland cities brought up this provision, did the Republican Party corral all of Congress and bring this issue down to the floor for a vote? No, they did not. They are singling out the residents of the District of Columbia and expanding in the history of disenfranchisement that goes all the way back to the legacy of slavery, and they are bringing it right here to this floor. Because why? They don't have any real bills to debate. We are not here to talk about healthcare; we are not here to talk about abortion; we are not here to talk about voting rights. We are here to talk about the expansion and the continued subjugation and disenfranchisement of the people of the District of Columbia. Let them govern themselves.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Madam Speaker, as a fellow New Yorker, I think one of the things that we should talk about here is also one of the disgusting legacies after 9/11, which has been the targeting and racism against Muslim-Americans throughout the United States of America. This is an extension of that legacy. Consistency? There is nothing consistent with the Republican Party's continued attack, except for the racism and incitement of violence against women of color in this body. I had a Member of the Republican Caucus threaten my life, and the Republican Caucus rewarded him with one of the most prestigious committee assignments in this Congress. Don't tell me this is about consistency. Don't tell me that this is about a condemnation of anti-Semitic remarks when you have a Member of the Republican Caucus who has talked about Jewish space lasers and an entire amount of tropes, and also elevated her to some of the highest committee assignments in this body. This is about targeting women of color in the United States of America. Don't tell me--because I didn't get a single apology when my life was threatened.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 74.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits fossil fuel companies that have engaged in stock buybacks over the last decade from leasing land for oil production, particularly with respect to the strategic reserve. I sat here for much of today and listened to many of my colleagues, particularly those on the opposite side of the aisle, introduce amendments and legislation that conveniently benefit the fossil fuel industry while fearmongering about things like the Green New Deal and positive climate action, to which I say: Boo. Last year, four of the major oil companies, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ExxonMobil posted record profits totaling $75 billion. Speaking of $75 billion, yesterday it was announced that Chevron will spend $75 billion on buying back their own stock after reaping record quarterly profits in 2022, driving up their own stock prices and padding CEO compensation. This reckless Wall Street profiteering at the public's expense and the planet's expense should have consequences. In this bill, the Republican majority seeks to give away even more sensitive land for oil and gas development without even the pretense of a guarantee that it would even lower gas prices. This amendment is simple. Companies who engaged in stock buybacks in the last 10 years should be prohibited from leasing new land for oil and gas production. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 72.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, let's get to our second point of business here and break down this myth that oil companies need even more permits. This is simply not true. In fact, the oil industry already possesses more than 9,000 unused drilling permits on Federal lands. Nearly 5,000 of those permits were approved in 2021 alone. The oil industry already has at least 10 years' worth of unused leases at its disposal. They are only producing oil or gas on roughly half the area that is already leased. There are nearly 14 million acres onshore and more than 9 million offshore that are currently under lease but not being used for oil production. Why lease even more? My amendment prohibits oil and gas leasing on Federal lands in a way that would increase even further our net carbon emissions. That is to say, we shall not include any Federal lands where oil and gas leasing would increase net carbon emissions. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I understand in this body it is not the first time that it seems as though the opposing side can't seem to be able to debate the issue, and so they must come after my character. While I cannot control the fact that the other side seems to have made the assumption that I am uneducated or what they may say about my world view, one of the things that I can say is I may not work for Wall Street; that is true. I may not be here with the mission to increase profits for corporations; that is true. My mission here is for the well-being and dignity of our family and our planet's future, and for our children's ability to live on this planet. That is what this amendment is about. Moreover, when we talk about education, we should all take it upon ourselves in this body to educate ourselves on the science of the challenge of climate change that is before us. In 2050, we are looking at the Western States to be projected to further increase--that wildfires will increase two to six times. And that is just scratching the surface.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, lastly, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 73.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, lastly, this final amendment requires and states that we shall not include tracts where oil and gas leasing would be inconsistent with our goals and the goals of the Paris accords. We know that leasing more lands to fossil fuel companies does not guarantee that gas prices will drop. As we have seen this past year, even when these companies have record profits, they do not pass along those savings to their customers. What leasing more land does do, however, is guarantee that we will accelerate the devastating impacts of climate change and see more deadly and destructive weather events. In 2015, the nations behind the Paris Agreement set a target for keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The latest IPCC report spells out just how difficult it will be for the world to stay under that limit unless we drastically slash emissions in the very near future. If we do not course correct now, the impacts on the daily lives of our children and grandchildren will be devastating. No one will be immune, and the most vulnerable communities right now will continue to be hit the hardest moving forward. Even in rainy regions like the Southeast, wildfires are also projected to increase by about 30 percent. The Southeast United States is also expected to see a rise in new mosquito-borne diseases as temperatures warm. Farmers in all parts of the country will suffer enormous losses, and grocery prices will continue to rise. We don't even need to look toward the future to understand the cost of climate change. In 2021, the Federal Government estimates that 20 different natural disasters that year alone cost the Nation an estimated $145 billion and killed nearly 700 people. The only way to guarantee consumers reliable, affordable energy is for the United States to invest in renewable energy. It is also the only way to protect our country from increasingly devastating weather events and rising temperatures. Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate the nurses of Mount Sinai and Monetfiore Medical Center who, after 3 days on strike, reached a tentative agreement for safe staffing ratios this morning. Our hospitals are facing extreme nursing shortages, and it is affecting patient care. Montefiore Medical Center, which is in my district, has had 760 vacancies. But thanks to the tentative agreement and the courage and efforts of our nurses on the picket line, hospital management is now committing to an aggressive hiring plan and to immediately implement staffing ratios, including an increase of over 170 nursing positions and a 19.1 percent wage increase and additional benefits to help with retention. I thank so much the New York State Nurses Association, NYSNA, for their work. It is our privilege to stand in solidarity with them.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Madam Speaker, before I begin today, I would like to express and begin my remarks by expressing solidarity with other U.S. colonies, colonized people, indigenous communities, and descendants of the enslaved. Today represents a historic moment. While Puerto Rico is not the United States' only colony, it is its oldest. Today, for the first time in our Nation's history, the United States will acknowledge its role as a colonizing force and Puerto Rico's status as an extended colony. The Puerto Rico Status Act begins a process for Boricuas to decide their own future. In this bill, we have made historic and unprecedented gains. Never before have terms for independence and free association been so clearly defined, including ramifications for citizenship. This bill excludes the current unsustainable colonial status. It clarifies that U.S. birthright citizenship and transmission of citizenship remain the same in any event of status selection. It provides 10 years of compensatory finance in the event of free association, and it also includes an agreement to international election observers over the course of a plebiscite. This bill has also achieved historic and unprecedented multiparty agreement on the island, including representatives from the Independence, Statehood, and Movimiento Victoria Parties. These gains are critically important to codify in precedent here in this House. I also want to acknowledge, rightfully, some of the criticisms of what is not in this bill. It is not perfect. But we have fought tirelessly to expand the transparency where previously there was less, and there is still more to go. It does not address reparations. It does not address the issues of Act 20, PROMESA, and LUMA, but I am confident that in solidarity with movements on the island, we will solve these issues and achieve those victories, as well. I also want to note that decolonization is more than a vote. It doesn't happen just with a vote. It is a social, political, cultural, economic, and psychological process that extends far beyond the floor of this House. That being said, the gains that are made here are a watershed moment. I thank, first and foremost, my incredible mentor, Representative Nydia Velazquez, who has fought for the people of Puerto Rico for her entire career and her entire life. I thank our other colleagues: Chairman Grijalva for elevating this issue, Leader Hoyer for making this a priority, as well as Resident Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon. I also thank grassroots advocacy organizations as well as our partners in the Independence, Free Association, and Statehood Parties. These gains are incredibly important, and they are a waypoint and a stepping stone for the future of our island. I think it sends a very strong message to all. For there to be any vote, prior to any vote, we hope that the energy of people both in the diaspora and on the island are here. Lastly, but certainly not least, as we ring out a refrain that is said among people across the world and Puerto Ricans across the world: ``Yo si soy boricua, pa'que tu lo sepas,'' ``I am Puerto Rican, so you know.''