>> The chairman of a key committee in the United States Senate, this week on "Firing Line."

>> We must not falter.

The cost of inaction is too great.

>> The crisis at the border, the rise of authoritarians around the world, supporting democracy movements in Cuba... >> The people of Cuba are crying out for freedom.

>> ...defending Taiwan, and curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez deals with it all.

And President Biden's economic agenda on the brink.

>> No one got everything they wanted, but that's what compromise is.

>> What does Senator Menendez say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Senator Robert Menendez, welcome back to "Firing Line."

>> Good to be with you, Margaret.

>> Senator, the Congress is now in its final days of negotiating the legislation for President Biden's Build Back Better agenda.

As part of the reconciliation package, you are proposing an expansion of the temporary legal status for roughly 8 million undocumented immigrants for up to 10 years.

And this has been called Plan C, because the Senate parliamentarian has denied two previous attempts to incorporate immigration policy into budget reconciliation.

Why is this time different?

Why do you think the Senate parliamentarian will play along this time?

>> Well, Margaret, first of all, I deeply disagree with the parliamentarian's previous decisions.

Reconciliation was used, including by our Republican colleagues, when they were in the majority for various immigration-related proposals.

So there is a precedent.

She tried to distinguish that precedent.

I don't agree with her, but it is what it is.

The reason we believe that Plan C, which is to give a pathway to some type of legal status for those 8 million that would allow them to travel domestically and internationally -- Some of them haven't seen their families in years.

That would give them a work permit that they could work under.

They, of course, would have to meet a series of requirements even to get that limited benefit.

There would be no pathway to citizenship, but at least there would be some peace of mind and an opportunity to begin to find a way forward for these individuals.

Many of these individuals were the essential workers during the pandemic that helped us the stay at home while they took the risk in our supermarkets, food places, and otherwise.

So, we think that because having read the parliamentarians's two decisions, this is distinguishing insofar as that we are not granting a permanent status, which is something that she talked about in her previous opinions.

We think that the budget impact is such that it would fall foursquare with it in reconciliation.

And so we think this particular avenue is distinguishing from her previous two decisions, in which we were trying to do something quite different.

>> What will you do if there's nothing satisfactory that makes it into reconciliation?

>> Well, I think there will be an enormous outcry across the country.

And, you know, it's not just about the undocumented.

It's about U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have family who are undocumented, who can't adjust their status under the present law.

It's about employers across the spectrum, who I constantly hear from, who need workers that they can't otherwise get from the American population.

But, most of all, this is a community that has been waiting nearly a quarter of a century for some progress.

I've been at this since my days in the House of Representatives.

And when we were part of the Gang of Eight with the late John McCain, we came real close passing in the Senate with 67 votes.

It languished in the House, never got a vote under Republican majorities, and I regret that, because history would be different today.

But there will be a rude awakening across the country if we have absolutely nothing, nothing in reconciliation as it relates to some pathway for creating some type of status for these undocumented individuals.

>> President Biden, as you know, is facing increased pressure to do something about the surge of migrants that are crossing the southern border.

Senator, in your view, what needs to happen at the border?

>> Well, even over the Trump, years, we had a consistent surge at the border, and Trump's policies didn't ultimately change that reality.

In my view, it exacerbated the challenge we have at the border.

Why do I say that?

Because he ended our efforts to deal with the Central American countries that were the focus, at the time, of the amounts of individuals coming forward.

Why were they coming forward?

Because of violence by gangs and drug traffickers, because of earthquakes and hurricanes, because of the fallout, economically, from COVID.

So the reality is that unless we work with the Central American governments to strengthen both their capacity and help civil society -- If my choice is to stay and die or see my daughter raped by a gang or my son forcibly included into a gang, I'm going to take the risk to go northwards.

We have to deal with the root causes.

It's also the challenge we have with Haiti.

Unless the international community comes together and creates stability and security in Haiti, we will see a surge of Haitian migrants coming to the border.

So dealing with root causes is an essential element of what we need to deal with.

Now, our border has to be protected.

Not everybody can cross it.

Not everybody can get in.

But at the end of the day, it is not irreconcilable to follow the law as it exists today and deal with individuals who are making a claim and find out whether their claim is legitimate or not and do it in a way that is both humane and just.

>> You know, your parents fled Cuba in 1953, and over the summer, we saw the San Isidro Movement lead some of the largest pro-democracy protests in decades.

You spoke eloquently to the movement on the Senate floor.

A new round of nationwide protests in Cuba is slated for November 15th.

Cuba calls the protests illegal.

It accuses the United States of financing them.

And the United States has reportedly threatened further sanctions should Cuban officials jail protesters.

How can the United States best support the freedom movement in Cuba?

>> I think it can best support the freedom movement in Cuba by, first of all, creating Internet connectivity.

What country shuts down the Internet on its citizens?

Only a country that is fearful of its citizens and their right to expression.

Creating Internet capacity, using Magnitsky sanctions, which is our global law in terms of human-rights violations, to sanction those who punish, violently, those who peacefully protest.

You know, one of the interesting things, Margaret, about that is, one of the supposed successes of the revolution was the elevation of Afro-Cubans.

Well, the San Isidro Movement is largely led by Afro-Cubans who are being punished simply because they want to artistically express themselves and also raise their voices against the regime.

So this is an opportunity to internationalize and see the brutality of the regime for what it is.

>> Senator, this is not your first appearance on "Firing Line."

In a 1998 debate, you were Representative Menendez, and you argued opposite William F. Buckley Jr. that the Cuban embargo should not be lifted.

Take a look at this.

>> The U.S. should not lift the Cuban trade embargo, because the Castro dictatorship has demonstrated, after 39 years of absolute control, that it does not institute economic or political change other than when it faces the economic need to do so.

Where is that young man?

[ Both laugh ] >> Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says, "The embargo is absurdly cruel because it targets the Cuban people."

So, Senator, explain why you so strongly disagree.

>> Well, I think the congresswoman is clearly either confused or ill-informed.

What creates the travesty for the Cuban people is the Cuban regime.

It is a command-and-control economy that rations people.

And the rationing is not only because of lack of access to basic foods and medicines.

It is a way of controlling people.

If you're waiting on line hours and hours or days to get your rationing of food, you have no time to be thinking about changing the regime.

You're just focused on feeding your family.

You know, the regime does not unlock the ability of the entrepreneurial spirit of the Cuban people, who will find a way to success given that opportunity.

But it will not.

It doesn't allow for labor rights.

You know, right now, if you were to visit, Margaret, Cuba, you would go to a hotel where the workers there are not hired by the private company that owns them, but sent over by a state employment agency, who gets paid by that entity, in dollars, for their services, and they get a fraction of their wages, which is really, in my mind, the equivalent of human trafficking.

So this is the reality of the regime, and that's why the only time the regime has created any changes has been as a result of the embargo.

It hasn't created the ultimate result that we want, which is freedom for the Cuban people, but the reason the Cuban people have suffering is because of the regime, not the embargo.

There are places all over the world the regime could buy from.

Just they don't have the resources to do so because of the way they control the country.

>> You called President Obama's 2016 visit to Cuba totally unacceptable, and President Biden previously signaled a desire to return to the Obama-era diplomacy with Cuba, but he really hasn't made many steps in that direction, which I suspect you applaud.

Why do you think the Biden administration has taken the approach it has?

And what more should it be doing for Cuba?

>> Well, I think President Biden has seen, number one, the repressiveness of the regime.

What happened earlier this year when average Cubans across Cuba, in an unprecedented moment, took to the streets to protest, and how did the regime respond?

Shut down the Internet, arrested people, brutally beat them.

And there are literally hundreds, hundreds of prisoners still in jail simply because they went out to peacefully protest.

I think President Biden saw that, and it was an eye-opener.

The other thing is that, you know, under President Obama, it was a one-way street.

The United States gave a series of concessions, recognized the Cuban regime, created an embassy, let travel flow, and all it did is provide dollars to the regime, but it didn't create one iota of change inside of Cuba.

There were still Cuban prisoners.

There were still no political dissent allowed.

There were no free speeches allowed.

So I think President Biden has looked at that and said, "Wait a minute.

We have to recalibrate here."

>> Let me ask you something, Senator.

As the senior Hispanic member of Congress, election data shows that President Trump made significant in-roads with Hispanic voters in the 2020 election, despite four years of vitriolic rhetoric directed at immigrants, and the data suggests that Trump's appeal seems to have worked with Hispanic-Americans who have fled socialism and with Hispanic-American voters on the border.

So, what does the Democratic Party need to do to win the confidence of Hispanic voters back?

>> Well, Margaret, first of all, it still received -- You know, President Biden, in this last election, received well over 75% of the vote.

So -- Or 70-some-odd percent of the vote, so he still got a very significant part, but it could be even higher.

What does it need to do?

It needs to, first of all, meet its commitment that it has been talking about for years about immigration reform.

It needs to be an opportunity-agenda party.

The Hispanic community is very entrepreneurial and it is socially, in many respects, more conservative.

So, if you understand those factors, there is clearly a pathway for Democrats not only to strengthen their position with the community, but to enhance it.

And if we were to do those things, I think that we would see an overwhelming vote in the Latino community moving forward.

>> I'd be so curious, though, Senator -- I mean, what do you think was the appeal of Donald Trump to Hispanic voters?

>> I think that, first of all, everybody likes to believe that they can be a millionaire someday, that they can reach that goal.

I think that President Trump suggested that he could open the doors, economically, for more people, although he seemed to open it for the wealthiest in the country.

But those who aspire to get into the middle class or beyond listen to the opportunity agenda, and I think we're attracted by it.

And then I think -- You know, socially, I think that, particularly along the border, those communities are also much more socially conservative.

And I think some of the social conservatism that he espoused was attractive to them, as well.

>> Do you think the Democratic Party was perceived to be too soft on socialism?

>> I think that, you know, that particularly was a selling point in Florida, where my Cuban-American brothers and sisters are very sensitive to that reality.

And it was helpful to them there, not just with Cuban-Americans, but, of course, if you look at what's happening in our hemisphere, Margaret, from Nicaragua to Venezuela to a whole host of places, there are people fleeing.

Many of them are in Florida now.

They're not just Cuban-Americans, but Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, and others who who understand the consequences of, you know, authoritarian governments and who may have been attracted to the president's tough line and speeches in that regard.

>> Senator, does it put your party in a bind when you have voices like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders heralding the virtues of Democratic Socialism?

And then you have a base of the Democratic Party that's fleeing socialism from all over the hemisphere, as you just pointed out.

Does that make it harder for you?

>> Well, look, nothing is monolithic, right?

And the Democratic Party has never been, is not now, and I doubt will ever be monolithic, which means that there will be voices that have a different point of view.

But I always say, look at where the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party, both in the House and the Senate, are at.

Look at the votes that they have cast.

And if we look at the votes that they have cast, it has been for a strong national defense.

It has been for engagement in the world, not for moving away from the world, as President Trump did.

So I say, look at the proof, and the proof, in that regard, regardless of the voices of some, is that the Democratic Party is a party of promoting democracy, human rights, and respect for the rule of law.

And that's what its history has been, that's what its present is, and I believe that's what its future will be.

>> China is becoming increasingly aggressive towards Taiwan and, just this month, sent a number -- a record number of planes towards Taiwanese airspace.

What does the United States need to do to support Taiwan?

>> Well, I think we have to be all in on Taiwan in order to uphold democracy and send a message to others in the Indo-Pacific and in the world that when you're with the West, when you're with the United States, that we stand with you.

Militarily, we could do more in terms of assisting Taiwan so that the consequences of any China military action would be a real consequence to them.

We can engage in helping Taiwan internationally.

We've announced getting Taiwan at the Inter-American Development Bank, at the World Health Organization, at other places where they have shown great abilities to be international partners.

We can help Taiwan as we deal with the semiconductor industry, which also is important to us here in the United States.

There are many dimensions in which we can help Taiwan under the laws as they exist, and we should.

And I think that this is a test for the West.

The choice, as I tell people, is not between the United States and China.

The choice is between, which way do we want to live our lives?

One is based on democracy, a respect for human rights, the rule of law, open, transparent markets, and the fulfillment of the individual potential.

The other one is authoritarian, where might makes right, where we have concentration camps in the 21st century with Uighurs, ethnic Muslims.

So that's the choice that the world has.

>> Now, you have always taken a very strong posture against Iranian nuclear-weapons development.

In fact, we're approaching the 10th anniversary of the Menendez-Kirk Amendment for stronger sanctions against Iran.

And that really changed the course of history with Iranian nuclear-weapon development.

You were a no vote on President Obama's Iran deal, and in 2017, you co-sponsored legislation to help impose sanctions on entities connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The Biden administration's special envoy to Iran, Rob Malley, has reportedly offered to lift sanctions on Iran, including perhaps terrorism sanctions, in exchange for return to the Iran deal or the JCPOA.

Does there need to be follow-up legislation in order to prevent a president from lifting sanctions tied to terrorism, including the sanctions on the central bank, unless Iran ceases its sponsorship of terrorism?

>> Well, first of all, there are a series of sanctions that cannot simply be unilaterally lifted by the administration.

They would need congressional action.

And I think that would be a tough hurdle to achieve unless there was incredibly meaningful concessions by Iran.

The administration has shown the world that it is willing to consider entering into a negotiation with Iran -- a stronger and longer agreement.

And I think that to get something, it must be stronger and longer.

The Iranians, I think, are playing rope-a-dope with us.

They are stalling for time.

They are advancing as they stall for time, and the consequences of that is that the window, from my perspective, is really narrowing.

>> Just this week, Iran has announced that it will return to talks in November after stalling for months.

Are you surprised at this timing?

>> First of all, they say they will return at the end of November.

We'll see whether that actually happens.

And then, when they return, they will have returned with advanced enrichment, advanced centrifuges, more material on hand.

We had the head of the International Atomic Energy Administration here.

From what I gathered of those conversations, they have still not been forthcoming of several sites where we have serious suspicions about their efforts to weaponize their program.

They will return with greater abilities that even if you come back to the JCPOA, those abilities have already been unlocked.

And so I am seriously concerned that these are just delay tactics towards an ultimate goal, which is Iran, I think, has made the conclusion to, at some point in time, weaponize its nuclear programs.

>> Senator, what are the top components of "stronger and longer" for you, as you say -- as you characterize what would be required in a new Iran deal?

>> It would have to deal with Iran's coming clean on the various sites that they have been unwilling to allow the IAEA to get access to and get information on.

Above all, it has to deal with the essence of its nuclear program so that it is not a pathway towards a nuclear bomb.

The world can ill-afford a nuclear-armed Iran.

Certainly, there will be a race in the region.

Other countries, under the theory of mutual self-destruction, will seek the same types of programs, and we can ill-afford, in that part of the world, a nuclear arms race.

And that's what Iran poses not only as an existential threat to allies, like Israel, and to our own interests in the region, but it creates the possibility of such a nuclear arms race.

>> It is the ninth anniversary of Superstorm Sandy, which caused catastrophic damage in New York and in your home state of New Jersey.

Extreme-weather events have continued to affect us, and the coastal population of the United States has more than doubled in the last 60 years.

For the first time in 50 years, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, changed how flood-insurance premiums are calculated, which is a policy that went into effect against your objections, because the majority of households will see their rates go up.

Senator, is the main objective to stop people from building in flood zones and to make sure that the National Flood Insurance Program is solvent?

>> What we seek to do is to have a National Flood Insurance Program legislation, which is bipartisan, that seeks to do several things.

Number one, make sure that we don't get rate shock.

Secondly, we want to spend more money on mitigation up front.

For every dollar, according to the government studies, that we spend up front in mitigation, we save $6 on the back end.

And then, lastly, we want to make sure that we have the types of flood maps that can give us a real sense of risk.

Having the right set of flood maps then makes it possible to understand who is in a repetitive loss area, and, therefore, maybe that's the type of property we should seek to buy out versus one that isn't.

>> Senator, how do you propose dealing with the National Flood Insurance Program's mounting debt?

>> Well, the debt that has existed, in large part, is created by the fact that we continue to pay ourselves interest on the debt.

If we just withheld the interest, don't wash away the debt, but withheld the interest, we would ultimately have a pathway forward to making the program sustainable.

And that's what, on a bipartisan basis, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and others are joining me in an effort to try to accomplish.

>> As you know, this is the -- what Democrats hope will be the final week of the Build Back Better negotiations, which we discussed earlier.

How would you handicap the odds, senator, of 50 senators voting to pass this bill?

>> I think we'll get there.

The process is tortuous, and it's torturous because whenever you have such a slim margin in the Senate and no Republican buy-in on any elements of the things that we've talked about, then you have to get an absolute consensus.

And, you know, the Senate, as the nation, is diverse.

People come from different walks of life, different experiences.

Their states provide different realities.

And amalgamating all of that into a consensus is always a unique challenge.

I've observed that for the better part of 30 years between the House and the Senate.

But I think we'll get there, because there is an imperative to do so.

And I think the consequences of not doing so for the American people are too great.

>> Senator Menendez, thank you for returning to "Firing Line."

>> Well, I hope I get to see a clip 20 years from now.

Thank you for having me.

>> We hope so, too.

Take care.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ >> You're watching PBS.

♪♪