Which of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's sponsored bills have received bipartisan support in the 117th Congress?

1. Extracting the Core Claims — Which laws are being named and why they matter

The analysis materials assert that Representative Ocasio-Cortez is associated with multiple enacted or passed bills in the 117th Congress that attracted votes from both parties. The claims specifically name H.R. 7691 (Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022), H.R. 4346 (CHIPS and Science Act), and H.R. 8446 (Global Food Security Reauthorization Act of 2022) as measures that passed with significant bipartisan majorities, and they also point to other sponsored items like a Congressional Gold Medal bill (HB537) reaching procedural milestones ^{[1] [2]}. These named measures are politically salient: the CHIPS and Ukraine packages were major national-security and industrial-policy priorities that commanded cross-party support, which explains why they are highlighted as bipartisan wins in the supplied analyses ^[1].

2. Documented evidence — What the provided sources actually say about bipartisan support

The supplied source material documents vote counts and passage for some measures but does not uniformly identify Ocasio-Cortez’s role as primary sponsor in every case. One analysis states the CHIPS and Science Act and the Ukraine supplemental passed with “significant bipartisan majorities” and highlights H.R. 8446 passing the House 331–95, which is clear evidence of cross-party votes ^[1]. Another dataset lists a portfolio of sponsored bills and progress markers—HB537’s movement toward engrossment is noted as suggesting bipartisan backing—yet the entry does not include roll-call sponsorship details or full vote breakdowns tied explicitly to Ocasio-Cortez as the bill sponsor versus cosponsor ^[2]. GovTrack and Ballotpedia-style summaries referenced in the analyses include committee and legislative listings but omit specific bipartisan sponsorship claims for the 117th ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Where the record is clear — Bills with explicit bipartisan majorities in the analyses

The clearest concrete claim in the materials is that H.R. 8446 passed the House by a 331–95 margin, a result that unambiguously reflects bipartisan support for the final measure as the vote count crosses party lines ^[1]. The CHIPS and Science Act and the Ukraine supplemental are described as having “significant bipartisan majorities,” which aligns with the public legislative history for large omnibus-type bills in the 117th Congress, and the supplied analysis asserts Ocasio-Cortez’s sponsorship role in those contexts ^[1]. Where the documentation is explicit about vote totals or passage, the materials consistently associate such outcomes with bipartisan coalitions, although they stop short of providing primary-sponsor attribution for each roll call ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Gaps, ambiguities, and conflicting signals — What the analyses do not prove

The materials contain notable omissions: most entries lack publication dates, roll-call citations, and explicit sponsorship versus cosponsorship distinctions. Several analyses explicitly state that the referenced sources do not specify whether bills were sponsored by Ocasio-Cortez or simply listed among legislation tied to her committee work or policy areas ^{[3] [5]}. One analysis even points out that some referenced datasets relate to the 118th Congress or aggregate cosponsorship patterns rather than isolating sponsored bills in the 117th, creating potential conflation between being a lead sponsor and merely voting with a bipartisan majority ^{[6] [7]}. These gaps mean the claim “sponsored bills received bipartisan support” is supported for some measures but not uniformly proven across the whole list.

5. Competing perspectives and potential agendas in the materials

The supplied materials mix legislative summaries, advocacy-style listings, and neutral tracking data, which can lead to different emphases: advocacy sources emphasize bipartisan wins to highlight effectiveness, while tracking sources underscore cosponsorship patterns and party-line tendencies. One analysis notes that Ocasio-Cortez cosponsored relatively few bipartisan bills in a later Congress, which could be used to argue she is less bipartisan overall even if specific high-profile 117th measures did attract cross-party votes ^[6]. The presence of procedural milestones (engrossment) and high vote margins are factual, but readers should note that highlighting particular bipartisan votes can serve narratives of pragmatism or effectiveness depending on the source’s orientation ^{[1] [6]}.

6. Bottom line — What is firmly supported and what remains uncertain

The supplied analyses firmly support that several high-profile measures linked to Representative Ocasio-Cortez in the 117th Congress passed with bipartisan majorities—notably H.R. 4346, H.R. 7691, and H.R. 8446 as named in the materials—and that at least one sponsored bill reached engrossment stages suggesting cross-party backing ^{[1] [2]}. The materials do not consistently demonstrate whether Ocasio-Cortez was the principal sponsor or a cosponsor in each instance, nor do they uniformly provide roll-call sponsorship citations or dates for every claim, leaving sponsorship attribution and the broader pattern of bipartisanship partially unresolved in the supplied documentation ^{[3] [5]}.