TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Sen. Menendez' official site
• Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which met today to deal with rising gas prices. Prior to the Senate, he was the third highest-ranking Democrat in the House, and the highest-ranking Hispanic ever in Congressional history. He joins us tonight from Washington. Senator Menendez, nice to have you on the program for the first time, sir.

Sen. Robert Menendez: Good to be with you, Tavis.

Tavis: Let me start with what President Bush had to say yesterday about energy, about oil, and then we'll come to what you have had to say about it today, and where we're going to go to try to figure out where we land between the president and Senator Menendez. First of all, President Bush says yesterday, he said to me three things that I wanna get to right quick.

He wants to suspend purchases to refill the strategic petroleum reserve, thus allowing more oil for consumers. He wants to relax some of the environmental rules for governing the development of other gasoline resources. He's called for an investigation into possible price fixing. Those are three things that the president said yesterday, among others.

What he did not say yesterday was what a lot of people wanted him to say, which was to call for windfall profit taxes on oil companies. So he did not hit the oil companies in the way that some hoped or expected or certainly wanted him to do. Let me ask you first what you thought of what the president had to say yesterday, before we get to your proposal of today.

Menendez: Well, I think the president is both short and late in his response. The reality is that saying that we're not going to continue to fill the SPR, the reality is, we were not filling it to full capacity anyhow. So he's really not doing anything major there. The president always seems to find a way to try to affect the environment has his solutions to questions.

And it just simply doesn't achieve the goal of both immediate and long-term energy relief. And so, we have a much different vision than the president does on how we give both immediate relief to consumers at the pump, and how we have a longer, more intelligent energy plan that creates energy independence and security.

Tavis: Before we cover that, which I promise we will in just a moment here, talk to me more specifically about what you make of the president's suggestion that we look into perhaps investigate possible price fixing. How did that strike you?

Menendez: Well, that sounds good. The problem is Democrats have been calling for that for quite some time on both market manipulation and price gouging. Attorney General of New York has already had three cases that he's pursued. We have been calling for this for some time, and we keep hearing that it's not necessary.

We're glad that the president got religion yesterday, but he has the power through both the Attorney General, the Energy Department, and other parts of the executive branch to actually move ahead. And so, we would urge him to do so.

Tavis: The president did, I might add, also suggest that perhaps we should consider tax breaks to those Americans who buy hybrid cars in this year. Perhaps that's where we're headed in the future, but what's the real impact of that particular proposal, were it to be taken seriously in this calendar year?

Menendez: Well, Tavis, I think there's a big gulf between what the president says and then what he does. Now he's talked about, for example, one of the things he said as well is maybe we should consider rolling back some of the tax benefits big oil gets. The time to have done that was last year, when an energy bill was passed that the president promoted and signed that gave billions of dollars to the oil and gas industry that were already making record profits.

Last year, the oil and gas industry made $140 billion in profits. Five of the major oil companies made over 100 billion themselves. Exxon-Mobil made 36 billion individually. And its CEO walked away with $400 million in one year. Now, to say that that industry needs to be more incentivized, given more of the collective money we have as taxpayers in tax benefits, is simply foolish. And that was the time to have done something about it. Now, my proposal actually seeks to do something about it now.

Tavis: I wanna go to the Menendez plan in just a second. One quick question, though, since you mentioned these oil profits, specifically Exxon-Mobil and other companies. Let me ask you, and I don't ask this question out of naiveté, but since every poll, survey, study I've read suggests that the American people are fed up with the oil companies, again, not out of naiveté, but why wouldn't the president then put something on the table that does put the feet of the oil companies on the fire? Why not do that?

Menendez: Well, it's interesting when the Republican Congress and the administration get the heat from consumers across this country, then they start talking about bringing the oil companies in. The time to have brought them in was when you had the stick in your hand, and when you were thinking about giving them any benefits.

That was the time to elicit concessions from them. Not after you gave them all of the nearly eight billion dollars in benefits in the last bill alone. And so why not? I don't know. Maybe it's because we've got two oil men in the White House, Tavis. And I've never seen an oil man who wants to see the price go down.

Tavis: Fair enough. That said, talk to me about the Menendez plan. What do you suggest we do here?

Menendez: Well, I think there's two different focuses here. Immediate relief. I want a federal gas tax holiday. I wanna make sure that we will put $100 million each day in the hands of consumers for 60 days. That's six billion dollars. And how do we pay for it? We pay for it by rolling back several of the tax benefits and royalties that the oil and gas industry got.

Six billion out of 140 billion, I think they can well afford it when families are working hard just to be able to get to work, to get their kids at school, to go shopping. So, my proposal, which I tried to offer yesterday on the Senate floor, and they used a procedural move to block me from having a vote on that amendment, we're gonna find other opportunities to bring the amendment.

We're gonna see who stands up for the little guy, who wants to stand up with the big oil companies. We wanna keep America rolling, and the way to do that is to give a federal gas tax holiday for consumers at the pump. And then in the longer term, we need to incentivize renewable energy sources. We can't dig and drill our way into energy independence and energy security.

So if we don't wanna send our sons and daughters halfway around the world because of oil, it seems to me that what we have to do is create the renewable energy sources, biomass, thermal, wind, solar, and all of these other elements that can be brought to market at the quantity and availability that will give us that energy independence.

Now, if you give the money to the oil and gas industry, that doesn't do it. If you create the incentives through the tax code for these renewable energy sources to be developed to create the technology that's necessary to bring them on scale to market, then we've got energy independence, and that's what we need to do in the longer term.

Tavis: Here again, Senator, another question, not out of any political naiveté, but I'm fascinated to know from your perspective why somebody, some members went far enough to use a procedural rule to stop your amendment from even being heard on the floor, even having a chance to be voted on on the floor. Why that kind of opposition?

Menendez: Well, I guess they wanna stand up for big oil instead of standing up for average Americans. Look, the Supplemental Appropriations Bill, which was the vehicle that I was trying to use, is actually supposed to be an emergent vehicle. It's supposed to be when, in fact, you are not expecting, within the regular budgetary process, to have an expenditure and now you're hit with that expenditure.

Now, the administration has been using it for the Iraq and Afghanistan military effort, as if that's surprising. We've been there over several years. We should know what the costs are. But they use the supplemental to avoid putting it in the budget so they can just add it to the debt. The impact we've had on gas prices and energy costs has been sudden. And it seems to me that if we can create the Supplemental Appropriations Bill to fund a war that we know has been going on several years, we can certainly seek it to fund a way in which we give consumers at the pump relief.

Especially when it's not gonna cost the Treasury anything, because we're gonna roll it back from the oil and gas industry, who already have these record profits. So it's why would you stand in the way of giving consumers in the country that opportunity of putting $100 million a day for 60 days in the pockets of consumers? Of helping our families meet their challenges. I just think that it's those who wanna stand up with big oil. But I wanna stand up for average Americans.

Tavis: Let me shift gears dramatically here, one last exit question, if I might. I'd be remiss, I think, to not ask you this, given this other debate that's happening in our country. As I mentioned in the introduction, you were the highest ranking Hispanic ever in the history of Congress. You are now one of three Hispanic-Americans in the Senate, representing you, New Jersey, Florida, and Colorado.

So three Hispanics in the Senate, one African American, Obama out of Illinois. But three Hispanics in the Senate. While this debate continues to rage in this country about immigration, tell me how you see this debate, right quick.

Menendez: Well, it seems to me that we have to be both tough and smart. Tough in making sure that we control our borders. Every country not only has a right but the obligation to do that. And I certainly wanna see that happen. Smart insofar as that we really need to deal with the 11 or 12 million people who are here in undocumented fashion.

We have to have a pathway to earned legalization. That's not amnesty. Earned legalization puts you on the back of the line. After everybody who's been waiting for the legal process. It penalizes you. And then it says if you're working, paying taxes, have no criminal record, learning English, you've got an opportunity to become a permanent resident of the United States.

That would be both a humane and intelligent way to deal with the realities of a workforce that is putting the foods on the table of families across America, that are cleaning the hotels of the travelers of this country, that are steadying the ill and infirmed and helping them with their daily needs, among so many other things.

And so, that's, in my mind, how we try to proceed. Tough, but smart. Something along the lines of McCain-Kennedy, or even the options that were offered by Senator Martinez and Hagel. Those are all good.

Tavis: Long-time member of the House. The highest-ranking Hispanic ever to be in leadership in the House. On the Democratic side now, of course, one of the newer members of the United States Senate, he is Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey. Senator, nice to have you on the program for the first time. Look forward to doing it any number of times in the coming months and years.

Menendez: Absolutely. And we appreciate the knowledge and information you give for our communities in your work.

Tavis: Nice to have you on. Thank you very much for coming on.

Menendez: Thank you.

Tavis: Up next on this program, Oscar-winning actress, the Commander in Chief, Geena Davis. Stay with us.