NBC "Meet the Press" - Transcript: Interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Of course, thank you for having me.
CHUCK TODD:
So, it's basically the flip question here that I asked Senator Cassidy. President Biden's, I don't know what do we call it, the statement, a walk back or not, his clarification of his -- was it a veto threat was it not. What he said on Thursday seemed to cheer progressives. Do you think his, are you a little upset by the walk back that he made yesterday, or do you consider it a walk back at all?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
You know, I think regardless of the president's statements, there are three key chess pieces that we need to align to pass any legislation, as we know. There's the Senate, there's the House and there's the White House, there's the presidency. So, I believe that, you know, the president is more than able to take his own approach, but I believe that we also have to talk about this missing piece which is the, the House. And I believe that in the House and House Democrats are very committed to making sure that, you know, in Senator Cassidy's words, that infrastructure is very centered on women and in addition to a bridge, you need a babysitter. And it's very important that we pass a reconciliation bill and a families plan that expands childcare, that lowers the cost of Medicare, that supports families in the economy.
CHUCK TODD:
Would you like it to be -- would you like the president to be issuing a veto threat on the bipartisan deal, if the reconciliation package doesn't come to fruition?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Well, I think, I think what's really important is that -- I think it's very important for the president to know that House progressives, and I believe, you know, the Democratic Caucus is here to ensure that he doesn't fail. And we're here to make sure that he is successful in making sure that we do have a larger infrastructure plan. And the fact of the matter is is that while we can welcome this work and welcome collaboration with Republicans and in those areas where there is agreement, Republicans are more than welcome to join, so that we can get this work on infrastructure done. But that doesn't mean that the president should be limited by Republicans, particularly when we have a House majority, we have 50 Democratic senators and we have the White House, and I believe that we can make sure that he's successful in executing a strong agenda for working families.
CHUCK TODD:
Look, the Democratic majorities are precarious, right. They're very narrow in the House. Extraordinarily narrow in the Senate. And when I think about the makeup of the Democratic coalition, you know, we could make a case here that maybe 50% or a slight majority is progressive, but that doesn't give you the majority votes here. How big do you think this reconciliation package can be? I mean, I've seen upwards of $3, $4 trillion. But I've also heard from some more conservative Democrats in the House, who think 3 trillion is too much. So, is there a baseline number that you can tolerate before you come out against the deal?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Well, to me, it's not just about a price tag, right. You can have an enormous price tag that is chock full of fossil fuels giveaways and doesn't spend that money in a way that is going to, that is going to solve our problems. So, and likewise, you can also have an infrastructure plan that is too small, and it's so small that it doesn't invest in any meaningful way that people can really feel a positive impact in their everyday lives. And so for me, it's not as much about a price tag, although I do think that there is a level where we do go too small, but I think it's really about what impact are we making. And I believe that you all -- it's really important that we talk about, you know, that this 3 trillion, 6 trillion, these figures that are tossed around, they're spread out over 10 years, we aren't -- or in eight years in some of these packages. And so when you break that down into a per year cost, it is much, much smaller and frankly, we really need to understand that this is our one big shot, not just in terms of family, childcare, Medicare, but on climate change. The IPCC report just came out this week that showed devastating consequences if we under invest. And so while I appreciate, for example, Senator Kennedy's emphasis on resilience. Resilience does not draw down carbon and building car infrastructure does not draw down carbon, while I appreciate the EV investment, we need to have real deal rail investment, high speed rail investment, that will help actually electrify and transition a lot of folks, so that they have the option to take rail almost wherever they need to take it.
CHUCK TODD:
Obviously, a lot of this depends on the Senate Democrats holding together. I know where you stand on the filibuster, so I'm curious what you thought of Senator Sinema's op-ed, where she made this defense of keeping the filibuster. And she wrote, "Would it be good for our country if we did," did this, basically using the fili -- getting rid of the filibuster, "only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now, and replaced by a nationwide voter ID law, restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections over the objections of the minority?" I, look, the argument she's making is, let's say you get rid of the filibuster, you get all of this progressive change that you would like to see, and then all of a sudden, the roles are reversed, and everything gets rolled back. Is that a good enough defense to you for the filibuster?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
No. I mean, it is a, it's essentially an argument of saying, "Well why do anything at all, in case something in the future may change it." Political systems all across the country, I mean all across the world, pass legislation with majorities and they're fine, and frankly, here's the thing, is that Democratic legislation, once enacted, is popular. Republicans have tried to gut Social Security. They've tried to reverse the ACA. They've tried to claw back on legislation that has passed by simple majorities in the Senate, and they haven't been able to because Democratic policies are popular, and once they are enacted, they are very politically difficult to undo. And so you know, I do not believe in the defeatism of saying, "We will lose in the future, and that, this will automatically mean that anything we do now is going to be reversed, so we might as well not do anything now." Our job is to legislate. Our job is to help people. Our job is to do as much as we can. And even if that's the case, even if that is the case, wouldn't it be better to get people health care and voting rights for three years instead of zero years, even if, even if you concede the point that I don't even think is true in the first place. And so, beyond that, then the argument is, "Okay, why 60 votes. Why not stop at 70 votes? Why not need 80 votes to pass any legislation? Why defend a 60 vote filibuster, when the Senate already amplifies minority power, so that the 50 Democratic senators already represent millions and millions and millions more Americans than 50 Republican senators." And so, I would argue that 50 Republican senators is already a built in, kind of filibuster-esque firewall.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, really appreciate you coming on, sharing your perspective with us. I wanted to get in a little bit of New York City politics. But you know what, we've still got a lot of counting to do. So, maybe we ought to wait for the analysis --
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
We do. We do.
CHUCK TODD:
-- until we have the votes counted. Anyway, thanks for coming on. Appreciate it.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Thank you very much.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source