Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the First Baptist Church of Corona on its 100th anniversary. First Baptist is the bedrock of Corona, Queens. It provides a food pantry, tax preparation, summer youth employment, and more. The church's service extends well beyond its congregation to all of Corona, one of the most diverse immigrant communities in the world. First Baptist is led by Pastor Patrick H. Young. Pastor Young's commitment to service is unfailing. When Corona became the epicenter of the pandemic in early 2020, he and First Baptist community members stepped up the church's food distribution, serving hundreds of families each week. He also hosted multiple mobile testing and vaccination sites. Now, the church seeks to start a medical clinic to help their community recover and thrive. Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in recognizing the First Baptist Church of Corona. In their century of service, they have modeled the true values of welcoming the stranger and loving thy neighbor. It is my privilege to represent them.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I believe we are here today and today is a very heavy day for so many of us across the country. Every single one of us woke up today with less rights than we had yesterday. Pregnant people, in particular, are in more danger in the United States today than we were yesterday as a result of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. I think what we are experiencing here--it is important to tell the truth of what is going on. With so many individuals out here, I think it is important for us to also tackle this myth that this is somehow about babies or children or life because the same individuals who purport and who claim to be protecting life, fight against universal healthcare. Do they believe in universal childcare? Do they believe in life after birth? From their policy positions, I assure you the evidence is lacking. A party and individuals who claim to protect the lives of children, just weeks after over a dozen children died in Texas, now claim to support their life--the lives of the young. Who are we protecting? Who does this protect? No one. Overturning Roe puts every single one of us in danger. What I think many of our colleagues perhaps haven't quite--or perhaps they have-- fully understood is that this also undermines the right to privacy in the United States of America. We are here to solve this issue. Our job is to develop a path forward. In that, we know that this House has passed and is willing to codify Roe. What we also need is answers from our colleagues in the United States Senate. To those Senators who voted for these Justices under the claim and the guise that this would not happen, this decision falls on them. What will they do--as they were lied to? What will they do as a consequence of this decision, whether that be Republican or Democrat? We cannot allow this to go unanswered. We are talking about a court, with the majority of Justices appointed by a party that has not won a popular Presidential election more than once in 30 years, ruling against the majority of Americans. We have a Senate that is controlled by minority rule. We have a House suffering from the impacts of gerrymandering that amplifies and undermines our democracy. We are in a very dangerous moment, not just for women, not just for LGBT communities, not just for all of us, but we are in a dangerous moment in the world because this is not just about the right to choose. This is about rule of law and democracy, and who is a full person in the eyes of the law. To all of those who are watching today's events unfold in fear, in anger, in rage, in depression, in anxiety, one thing remains steady: that we will not stop fighting until this is fixed. I say that to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We are not going away. We stay. We fight. We push. We will not be silenced.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, while in a meeting with constituents, I missed the rollcall No. 442 vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 442. Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress Allred (Davids (KS)) Amodei (Balderson) Armstrong (Johnson (SD)) Axne (Wild) Baird (Bucshon) Barragan (Beyer) Bass (Cicilline) Bera (Aguilar) Bilirakis (Fleischmann) Blumenauer (Beyer) Bonamici (Kuster) Bowman (Pocan) Boyle, Brendan F. (Evans) Brooks (Moore (AL)) Brownley (Kuster) Buchanan (Waltz) Butterfield (Kildee) Carl (Joyce (PA)) Calvert (Garcia (CA)) Cardenas (Gomez) Carter (TX) (Weber (TX)) Case (Correa) Cawthorn (McClain) Clark (MA) (Kuster) Cohen (Beyer) Crist (Soto) Cuellar (Green (TX)) Curtis (Stewart) DeFazio (Brown (MD)) DelBene (Larsen (WA)) DeGette (Blunt Rochester) DeSaulnier (Beyer) Diaz-Balart (Reschenthaler) Doggett (Raskin) Donalds (Mann) Doyle, Michael F. (Evans) Escobar (Garcia (TX)) Espaillat (Correa) Fletcher (Raskin) Frankel, Lois (Kuster) Garamendi (Sherman) Gohmert (Weber (TX)) Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa) Gosar (Boebert) Granger (Arrington) Green (TN) (Fleischmann) Grijalva (Stanton) Guthrie (Bucshon) Hagedorn (Moolenaar) Hartzler (DesJarlais) Hayes (Wild) Herrera Beutler (Rice (SC)) Horsford (Carter (LA)) Huffman (Levin (CA)) Jacobs (CA) (Correa) Jacobs (NY) (Garbarino) Jackson (Van Duyne) Jayapal (Raskin) Johnson (TX) (Beyer) Jones (Craig) Joyce (OH) (Garbarino) Kahele (Mrvan) Katko (Meijer) Keller (Joyce (PA)) Khanna (Connolly) Kilmer (Kildee) Kim (CA) (Gonzalez (OH)) Kinzinger (Meijer) Kirkpatrick (Pallone) Krishnamoorthi (Brown (MD)) Lamborn (Bacon) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Leger Fernandez (Gallego) Lesko (Joyce (PA)) Long (Banks) Loudermilk (Fleischmann) Lowenthal (Beyer) Luetkemeyer (McHenry) Maloney, Carolyn B. (Wasserman Schultz) Mast (Waltz) McEachin (Brown (MD)) Meng (Kuster) Meuser (Reschenthaler) Mfume (Brown (MD)) Miller (WV) (Van Duyne) Moore (UT) (Stewart) Nadler (Pallone) Napolitano (Correa) Neal (Beyer) Neguse (Perlmutter) Nehls (Fallon) Newman (Wild) Nunes (Garcia (CA)) O'Halleran (Stanton) Owens (Stewart) Palazzo (Fleischmann) Pascrell (Pallone) Peters (Kildee) Pingree (Kuster) Porter (Aguilar) Posey (Cammack) Price (NC) (Connolly) Reed (Rice (SC)) Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA)) Roybal-Allard (Connolly) Ruiz (Aguilar) Ruppersberger (Aguilar) Rush (Quigley) Ryan (Kildee) Salazar (Cammack) Sanchez (Costa) Schrader (Correa) Sessions (Babin) Sewell (Cicilline) Simpson (Stewart) Sires (Pallone) Speier (Scanlon) Stansbury (Kuster) Stefanik (Reschenthaler) Steube (Cammack) Strickland (Schrier) Suozzi (Kildee) Swalwell (Gomez) Titus (Connolly) Tonko (Pallone) Torres (NY) (Cicilline) Trahan (McGovern) Trone (Brown (MD)) Underwood (Casten) Van Drew (Reschenthaler) Vargas (Correa) Velazquez (Clarke (NY)) Wagner (McHenry) Walorski (Banks) Watson Coleman (Pallone) Welch (McGovern) Wilson (FL) (Brown (MD)) Zeldin (Timmons)

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, while in a meeting with constituents, I missed the rollcall No. 441 vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 441. Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress Allred (Davids (KS)) Amodei (Balderson) Armstrong (Johnson (SD)) Axne (Wild) Baird (Bucshon) Barragan (Beyer) Bass (Cicilline) Bera (Aguilar) Bilirakis (Fleischmann) Blumenauer (Beyer) Bonamici (Kuster) Bowman (Pocan) Boyle, Brendan F. (Evans) Brooks (Moore (AL)) Brownley (Kuster) Buchanan (Waltz) Butterfield (Kildee) Carl (Joyce (PA)) Calvert (Garcia (CA)) Cardenas (Gomez) Carter (TX) (Weber (TX)) Case (Correa) Cawthorn (McClain) Clark (MA) (Kuster) Cohen (Beyer) Crist (Soto) Cuellar (Green (TX)) Curtis (Stewart) DeFazio (Brown (MD)) DelBene (Larsen (WA)) DeGette (Blunt Rochester) DeSaulnier (Beyer) Diaz-Balart (Reschenthaler) Doggett (Raskin) Donalds (Mann) Doyle, Michael F. (Evans) Escobar (Garcia (TX)) Espaillat (Correa) Fletcher (Raskin) Frankel, Lois (Kuster) Garamendi (Sherman) Gohmert (Weber (TX)) Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa) Gosar (Boebert) Granger (Arrington) Green (TN) (Fleischmann) Grijalva (Stanton) Guthrie (Bucshon) Hagedorn (Moolenaar) Hartzler (DesJarlais) Hayes (Wild) Herrera Beutler (Rice (SC)) Horsford (Carter (LA)) Huffman (Levin (CA)) Jacobs (CA) (Correa) Jacobs (NY) (Garbarino) Jackson (Van Duyne) Jayapal (Raskin) Jones (Craig) Joyce (OH) (Garbarino) Kahele (Mrvan) Katko (Meijer) Keller (Joyce (PA)) Khanna (Connolly) Kilmer (Kildee) Kim (CA) (Gonzalez (OH)) Kinzinger (Meijer) Kirkpatrick (Pallone) Krishnamoorthi (Brown (MD)) Lamborn (Bacon) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Leger Fernandez (Gallego) Lesko (Joyce (PA)) Long (Banks) Loudermilk (Fleischmann) Lowenthal (Beyer) Luetkemeyer (McHenry) Maloney, Carolyn B. (Wasserman Schultz) Mast (Waltz) McEachin (Brown (MD)) Meng (Kuster) Meuser (Reschenthaler) Mfume (Brown (MD)) Miller (WV) (Van Duyne) Moore (UT) (Stewart) Nadler (Pallone) Napolitano (Correa) Neal (Beyer) Neguse (Perlmutter) Nehls (Fallon) Newman (Wild) Nunes (Garcia (CA)) O'Halleran (Stanton) Owens (Stewart) Palazzo (Fleischmann) Pascrell (Pallone) Peters (Kildee) Pingree (Kuster) Porter (Aguilar) Posey (Cammack) Price (NC) (Connolly) Reed (Rice (SC)) Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA)) Rogers (KY) (Reschenthaler) Roybal-Allard (Connolly) Ruiz (Aguilar) Ruppersberger (Aguilar) Rush (Quigley) Ryan (Kildee) Salazar (Cammack) Sanchez (Costa) Schrader (Correa) Sessions (Babin) Sewell (Cicilline) Simpson (Stewart) Sires (Pallone) Speier (Thompson (CA)) Stansbury (Kuster) Stefanik (Reschenthaler) Steube (Cammack) Strickland (Schrier) Suozzi (Kildee) Swalwell (Gomez) Titus (Connolly) Tonko (Pallone) Torres (NY) (Cicilline) Trahan (McGovern) Trone (Brown (MD)) Underwood (Casten) Van Drew (Reschenthaler) Vargas (Correa) Velazquez (Clarke (NY)) Wagner (McHenry) Walorski (Banks) Watson Coleman (Pallone) Welch (McGovern) Wilson (FL) (Brown (MD)) Zeldin (Timmons)

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, since its creation in 1921, the Government Accountability Office has had the purview to conduct oversight of all Federal agencies with the goal of reducing waste, fraud, and abuse and holding accountable bad actors. However, and unfortunately, most of our intelligence agencies today are not fully cooperative with the GAO, pointing to an outdated and vague 1988 Department of Justice opinion. My amendment would allow the GAO to act as a check on this behavior-- not creating new powers, but restoring the power Congress always intended the GAO to have. This amendment is welcomed by many in the intelligence community who want to protect their important work and resources from abuse, particularly after the last Presidency we just endured. This amendment was drafted in partnership with the community, and I am proud to have the support of Representative Adam Schiff, who serves as the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In fact, many of my colleagues have already taken a stand in support of this legislation because, in 2010, the House passed a virtually identical amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the chairwoman of the House Oversight Committee.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, overall, the Protecting Our Democracy Act will do much to address the weaknesses that were exposed in light of the last administration and exploited during President Trump's Presidency. I am proud to have four other amendments being included today that address nepotism, codify the Biden ethics pledge, and regulate defense funds as well as inaugural committees. I hope my colleagues will also see the value in protecting our Intelligence Committees from abuse and vote to include this amendment in the POD Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are here, Bronx boogie down caucus checking in, yerr caucus checking in, student loan cancellation caucus checking in because this is getting ridiculous. This is ridiculous. I am 32 years old. I am a first-generation college graduate on my mom's side, and growing up, I was told, since I was a child: Your destiny is to go to college. That is what is going to lift our family up and out. That is our future. That is what we are here to accomplish. I was 17 years old when college recruiters started coming to my high school saying: This is worth it. We still do that today because it is teenagers signing up for what is often hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, and we just do that, and our government allows that. We give 17-year-olds the ability to sign on and sign up for $100,000 worth of debt, and we think that is responsible policy. I am 32 years old now. I have over $17,000 in student loan debt. I didn't go to graduate school because I knew that getting another degree would drown me in debt that I would never be able to surpass. This is unacceptable. Not only that, but 65 percent of all jobs in this country require an education beyond high school; first-generation college students are two times as likely to report being behind on student loan payments; and 63 percent of borrowers who made payments with Navient during the COVID forbearance still owe more now than they originally borrowed. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who owe more on their student loans now than they did when they first took them out. We as a country are profiting off of insurmountable and crushing educational debt, and it is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. Four years after graduation, 48 percent of Black students owe an average of 12.5 percent more than they originally borrowed. But this isn't just an issue of a debt crisis. This is an educational crisis in the United States of America. If we want to remain competitive, if we want to remain innovative, and if we need the technological investments necessary to address things like climate change, we need an educated country. The United States has a policy of actively disincentivizing higher education. We disincentivize people from getting a college or secondary education beyond high school. That is backward. The least we can do--we have a moral obligation, an economic obligation, a political obligation to cancel student loan debt in the United States of America. We have seen the benefits that this has had during the forbearance alone. It has given people the breathing room to do what they need to do so we can stop writing these ridiculous articles that young people are killing diamond rings, that they are not buying houses, and that they are killing this industry or that, that we are not having children. It is because we are being crushed by immoral debt. No person should have to go into debt, crushing debt, in order to get an education. It is wrong. It is backward, and it doesn't help us as a country. So I am greatly looking forward to that. I am greatly looking forward to the Biden administration canceling student loan debt and no longer advancing the false narrative that student loan debt is for the privileged. What a ridiculous assertion. Do we really think that a billionaire's child is taking student loans? Come on. Come on. If you are taking on student loan debt, it is because you are likely a working or middle- class person. So let's get real. Let's cancel it. It is in the interest of the people. It is in the interest of this country. It is in the interest of our future. I thank the distinguished Representative from the Bronx and Westchester, Jamaal Bowman, for yielding.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. And health insurance is too high.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. So, Madam Speaker, the question I pose to this body in response is: Will we live up to the promises we make our children, that this is a place where we will defend one another, regardless of belief, that our core human dignity matters? If you believe that this behavior is acceptable, go ahead, vote ``no.'' But if you believe that this behavior should not be accepted, then vote ``yes.'' It is really that simple.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Madam Speaker, I have been serving in this body just under 3 years. In that 3 years, an enormous amount has happened. In response to the Republican leader's remarks, when he says that this action is unprecedented, what I believe is unprecedented is for a Member of House leadership, of either party, to be unable to condemn incitement of violence against a Member of this body. It is a sad day when a Member who leads a political party in the United States of America cannot bring himself to say that issuing a depiction of murdering a Member of Congress is wrong and instead decides to venture off into a tangent about gas prices and inflation. What is so hard? What is so hard about saying that this is wrong? This is not about me. This is not about Representative Gosar. But this is about what we are willing to accept. Not just the Republican leader, but I have seen other Members of this party advance the argument, including Representative Gosar himself, the illusion that this was just a joke, that what we say and what we do does not matter so long as we claim a lack of meaning. This nihilism runs deep, and it conveys and betrays a certain contempt for the meaning and importance of our work here; that what we do, so long as we claim that it is a joke, doesn't matter; that what we say here doesn't matter; that our actions, every day, as elected leaders in the United States of America don't matter; that this Chamber and what happens in it doesn't matter. I am here to rise to say that it does. Our work here matters. Our example matters. There is meaning in our service. As leaders in this country, when we incite violence with depictions against our colleagues, that trickles down into violence in this country. That is where we must draw the line, independent of party identity or belief. It is about a core recognition of human dignity and value and worth. When we talk about, as mentioned in the resolution, that these depictions are part of a larger trend of misogyny and racist misogyny, this has results in dampening the participation. This vote is not as complex as, perhaps, the Republican leader would like to make folks believe. It is pretty cut and dry: Does anyone in this Chamber find this behavior acceptable? Would you allow depictions of violence against women, against colleagues, in your home? Do you think this should happen on a school board, in a city council, in a church? If it is not acceptable there, why should it be accepted here? Lastly, when the Republican leader rose to talk about how there are all of these double standards and lists a litany of all of these different things, not once did he list an example of a Member of Congress threatening the life of another. This is not about a double standard. What is unprecedented and what is tragic is the descent of transgression in this body. I grew up as a little girl with awe about our Nation's Capitol, the reverence and the importance and the gravity of our work here.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer amendment 40, as the designee of Congressman Mark Pocan, to reduce the Pentagon budget by 10 percent.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer amendment 40, to reduce the Pentagon budget by 10 percent. During a time when our country is withdrawing from foreign wars, when COVID-19 and its fallout is one of the greatest threats that we face, when record levels of unemployment, housing, and healthcare crises are among us, the United States should be reducing its military spending by at least 10 percent and prioritize the very needs of our communities here at home. Today, we can cut the defense authorization by 10 percent, without any need to deny our servicemembers or their families any of the support that they need. And in doing so, we can free up to $77 billion to go towards fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and much more. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, there was a point brought up that this could potentially threaten our readiness, and I would counter that it is not the readiness that cutting our defense budget threatens, it is the profit margins of defense contractors. In fact, almost every major defense contractor here in the United States has had to pay fines or settlements for fraud or misconduct, all while getting about $1 trillion in public funding in defense contracts. I have seen this personally in my work on the Oversight and Reform Committee, where we have encountered contractor after contractor gouging the public and draining our resources. In fact, the $77 billion is not even that hard to find. The Pentagon could save almost $58 billion by eliminating obsolete weapons, weapons like Cold War era bombers and missiles designed and built in the last century that are completely unsuitable for this one. We could find another $18 billion by simply preventing the end-of- year spending sprees that lead to contract money being shoveled out the door every September. In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented these spending spikes, and you could set your watch to it. Each September, as offices at the Pentagon go on last minute spending sprees to justify next year's budget increases, we have increased our military spending year after year, senselessly and needlessly. And now, again, during a time when we have ended an almost two decade war, there is no reason for us to be increasing our military spending and our defense budget when we are not funding childcare, healthcare, housing priorities, and the climate crisis here at home. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon is the only Federal department that has never passed an audit, despite this requirement being on the books for over 30 years. You know there are folks who are supportive of the current levels, the increase and skyrocketing levels of defense spending, saying, we are already meeting all of our needs with this. I don't think a single American, I don't know a single member of my district that can say that our childcare needs are being met in this country, that our healthcare needs are being met, that our climate action that is necessary is being met. Our needs are not being met. And despite all of this rhetoric about the deficit and all this fear about government spending, for some reason, our defense budget seems to be exempt from this conversation, and that we ask Americans and people in this country year after year to engage in the magical thinking that defense spending comes at no real cost. It does. It comes at the cost of our security, because when we do not have and we are not able to go to school, to go to work and count on childcare for our children, it makes us less safe. When we are not able go to an emergency room and have our healthcare covered, we are less safe. The degradation and erosion of our social systems here domestically is a threat as well. And that is happening because of our explosion in defense spending. The explosion in defense spending is coming at the cost of our domestic development here at home. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I think what we just experienced and have seen in our last two-decade war is exemplary of the types of waste that goes on, where what we see is lack of oversight and what we see is runaway military contractor spending with little oversight in what is going on, and then folks are caught surprised in the end that all of this investment seems to not have panned out and it has not been invested in the way that the American public was led to believe all along. Now, not only are they tremendous costs that we had laid out earlier, but also this explosion in spending leaves our public health priorities underfunded, militarizes every problem in our society, and turns peaceful protesters into targets for weapons of war. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of amendment No. 41 which would cut $25.5 billion from the defense authorization bill. There were some accusations just now saying that this is about progressive politics. But this bill allocates $25 billion more than President Biden even requested. So what we should be doing is sticking to the plan and giving the President of the United States what he determines is necessary for defense spending and not a dime more.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce four amendments to protect the human rights of the Colombian and Saudi people. Earlier this year in Colombia in the middle of the pandemic, President Duque proposed crushing new sales taxes on basic food items. When the Colombian people demonstrated in protest, the government responded with brutality. Sixty-eight people were murdered, and over 1,100 protestors and bystanders were injured. This is part of a pattern of human rights violations by President Duque. He is also planning to resume aerial fumigation, which most countries stopped using when devastating health impacts were discovered. Our amendments would require the Department of State and Defense to issue a report on the State of human rights in Colombia. They would also limit the U.S. transfer of weapons to the police unit responsible for many of the demonstrators' murders. And finally, they would prohibit U.S. funds from being used to support aerial fumigation. Similarly, in 2018 we stood horrified by the Saudi government's assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi for speaking up against the regime's human rights abuses. Our amendment would prohibit funds from being used to provide weapons, military aid, or military training to the unit that carried out his assassination. The U.S. has long supported abusive regimes in South America and the Middle East to serve our own interests, yet we seem somehow shocked and confused when refugees from these regions show up at our borders seeking asylum from the inhumane conditions that we helped create in their homelands. It is now beyond time for us to rectify these wrongs, and I submit this amendment.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for the time. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment in order to increase and decrease funds in the State Department to highlight the need for stronger congressional oversight, robust human rights measures, and transparency in U.S. arms sales to countries. The fact of the matter is, despite leaky laws in place, the United States has quietly trained and armed actors who eventually engage in human rights abuses all over the world through a State Department program known as direct commercial sales. This program allows the State Department to sell up to $100 to $300 million in military training, weapons, and services without so much as notifying Congress. It was through this policy that the U.S. provided paramilitary training to Saudi operatives that later went on to kill Jamal Khashoggi, as well as for the sales of arms later used in the abduction and killing of more than 300 Colombians in the May 2021 protests over labor rights. The U.S. must stop arming and funding human rights violators. We must have stronger congressional oversight, robust human rights standards, and transparency in all U.S. arms sales.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, to that point, I believe that this problem does very much exist. Much of the research that is being conducted today must rely on private funding, and we cannot allow for that to be limited in its scope. If we only allow corporations or if we only allow well-moneyed interests and wealthy interests to have a monopoly on the ability to research these drugs, we are not acting and really fully using the resources of the public in order to determine the full benefits that could be possible. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I present this amendment at the desk today because for a very long period of time, the United States has and continues to uphold obsolete and old provisions from the war on drugs. This provision specifically has, for a very long period of time, prevented and acted as a barricade to Federal research on certain substances--such as psilocybin, MDMA, and marijuana--in allowing us to research the applications and potential therapeutic applications of these drugs in the treatment of diseases such as PTSD, addiction, and depression. We are long overdue and in a moment of reckoning to make sure that we not only rectify the harms from the past but allow us to research the potential medicinal applications of these substances. The first step in doing that is ending and taking down some of these old provisional barriers to research. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.