Marco Rubio SILENCES Arrogant Democrat Congressman With BRILLIANT Response During FIERY Hearing!

[0:00] How much time do you spend at the State Department? [0:04] How much what? [0:06] How much time? [0:07] How focused at the State Department? [0:09] Almost every day if I'm in the country. [0:11] I travel a lot. [0:12] So how much time do you spend the other jobs if you spend every day at the State Department? [0:18] Well, now you know I can't offer you eight hours today to answer every question on this committee, [0:22] which you were complaining about earlier. [0:24] Did you anticipate or did you want, when you were sworn in to be the Secretary of State, [0:29] do you want to have the jobs of a U.S.A. administrator? [0:34] No, I did not apply for those jobs. [0:36] I was asked to serve in those roles and I'm happy to do it. [0:38] The archives are doing great. [0:40] Based upon your testimony earlier and some of these other departments, they were duplicative. [0:44] So if it's duplicative, then get rid of them. [0:46] Well, you would have to pass a law to do that if you want to combine those four offices in your reorder. [0:50] Oh, this exchange was intense. [0:52] Representative Gregory Meeks entered the hearings seemingly prepared to deliver a lecture, [0:57] but the conversation quickly took a different turn. [1:00] What began as a seemingly routine discussion soon became a sharp verbal back and forth. [1:05] The Republican Senator came prepared with pointed responses, [1:10] leaving Meeks facing one challenging question after another. [1:13] Stay tuned, because the exchange that followed drew plenty of reactions, [1:18] including laughter from the audience. [1:20] And before we get into the details, hit that subscribe button if you enjoy watching heated political debates unfold in real time. [1:28] How much time do you spend at the State Department? [1:32] How much what? [1:34] How much time do I spend at the State Department? [1:37] Almost every day if I'm in the country. [1:39] I travel a lot. [1:40] It's part of the job. [1:41] I agree. [1:42] I understand. [1:43] But now you have four jobs, don't you? [1:46] Now you're not only the Secretary of State, you are also the acting USAID administrator. [1:52] You're also the acting archivist. [1:56] You're also the interim national security advisor. [2:01] You cannot spend every day at the State Department and then neglect your other jobs that you have the responsibility to do. [2:12] So how much time do you spend at the other jobs if you spend every day at the State Department? [2:19] Well, now you know why I can't offer you eight hours today to answer every question on this committee, [2:23] which you were complaining about earlier. [2:25] Look, here's the thing. [2:26] All those jobs are being done. [2:28] USAID largely has been folded into the department. [2:30] But the jobs... [2:31] Do you want my answer? [2:32] No, I just want to know this. [2:33] Did you anticipate or did you want, when you were sworn in to be the Secretary of State, [2:38] do you want to have the jobs of the USAID administrator? [2:43] No, I did not apply for those jobs. [2:45] Did not apply for them? [2:46] I was asked to serve in those roles and I'm happy to do it. [2:48] The archives are doing great. [2:49] The USAID has been folded under state. [2:52] So it's a sort of a duplicative role. [2:54] And the National Security Advisor, which is on an interim basis, [2:56] has tremendous overlap with what we're doing at the State Department. [2:59] Well, then why not get rid of all of them and just put everything under you? [3:02] Get rid of all those departments. [3:04] If it's not crucial to have someone every day as a National Security Advisor, [3:09] you folded in USAID, you're saying the archives is fine, get rid of them. [3:16] Wouldn't that be then waste? [3:18] Based upon how you have determined there's waste, based upon your testimony earlier, [3:22] and some of these other departments, they will do duplicative. [3:25] So if it's duplicative, then get rid of them. [3:27] Well, you would have to pass a law to do that if you want to combine those four offices in your reorg. [3:31] Look, that hasn't stopped you in the past because the law requires you to consult with Congress [3:36] on any proposed reorganization of USAID or the State Department. [3:41] That hasn't happened. [3:43] I agree. [3:44] It should be the Congress's responsibility. [3:46] Your staff claimed, quote, that extensively, you've extensively consulted Congress on your plan [3:54] to fold USAID interstate. [3:56] But that did not happen. [3:59] All we members have gotten was one hour, one hour of a meeting with Pete Morocco, [4:05] who you later fired and who couldn't answer our most basic questions about the aid freeze. [4:12] And you've ignored thus far. [4:15] That's why I want to know, Dr. [4:16] You've ignored nearly 20 letters from this committee seeking information about who, [4:23] you know, since you took office, as well as, you know, not, we spoke one time, [4:33] but not consulting this committee at all. [4:38] I don't call that extensive consultation. [4:42] So you're right. [4:44] Things that you've done should be in collaboration with the United States Congress. [4:49] But surely the USAID and all of these other things was not, Congress was not consulted one time. [4:56] Senator Rubio would have demanded it. [5:00] Well, we've complied with every part of the law. [5:02] Every single part of the law has been complied with, including, you, for example, have written us 16 letters. [5:07] You've been briefed on seven of them. [5:08] Some of them we couldn't answer and we told you why we couldn't answer because they were subject to litigation. [5:12] Four, you've gotten answers in writing. [5:14] And five, we've gotten just in the last few days. [5:15] I have not. [5:16] Well, you know, 16 letters. [5:17] I've been there 17 weeks. [5:18] I have not. [5:19] And so what that means is we have to have a State Department that can deliver on a foreign policy [5:23] that is rooted in the national interest of the United States. [5:26] To defend the national interest of the United States requires us, number one, to make sure that every dollar we spend [5:31] and every action we take has to have measurable outcomes that deliver for the American people. [5:36] They have to either make our country safer or they have to make our country stronger [5:40] or they have to help make our country more prosperous. [5:43] It has to do at least one of those three things. [5:45] And ideally, whether it's a program or a measure that we take, it should do all three of them. [5:49] Now, what that means is that there are some great causes in the world. [5:53] There really are. [5:54] There are some great causes. [5:55] There are some horrifying things that are happening on the planet. [5:58] America cannot solve every single one of them. [6:00] What we need to focus on is prioritizing our foreign policy to those areas that are in our national interest. [6:07] Now, we will still remain the largest contributor of foreign aid and humanitarian assistance on this planet by far. [6:13] The United States, even under the budget that's before you today, and the changes we have made, [6:18] will still contribute more in foreign aid than the next ten countries combined. [6:22] Then the entire OECD, the next closest country, is not China. [6:26] It's Germany, and it's way behind us, even now. [6:29] But that foreign aid has to be geared towards our foreign, to our national interest. [6:34] We need to design a State Department that delivers on that. [6:37] Yes, we canceled a bunch of contracts in USAID. [6:40] Some were stupid and outrageous. [6:42] Others didn't serve the national interest. [6:44] And others we kept. [6:45] And we are folding it under the Department of State. [6:47] And you know why? [6:48] Because we want it to be part of the toolbox of foreign policy. [6:52] Not a standalone. [6:54] It is not charity. [6:55] Foreign aid is not charity. [6:56] It is designed to further the national interest of the United States. [6:59] So we will do humanitarian assistance. [7:01] We will do food assistance. [7:03] We will do developmental assistance. [7:04] And we will do security assistance. [7:06] But we will do it driven by our embassies and our regional bureaus. [7:10] Because what those issues mean look very different in Guatemala than they may in Chad. [7:16] Or in Kenya. [7:17] Or in some other part of the world, in the Indo-Pacific. [7:20] And so one of the things that we have tried to do in our reorganization. [7:24] It drive power and influence on policy making. [7:27] And decision making. [7:28] To the regional bureaus. [7:30] And ultimately to our embassies. [7:31] Our embassies. [7:32] Our ambassadors. [7:33] Are the front line of American foreign policy. [7:35] The most important thing I do every single day. [7:37] Is not read memos. [7:39] It's read cables. [7:40] Every night I get 10, 15 select cables from stations around the world. [7:44] Different embassies. [7:45] The best ideas in that building. [7:47] Come from the ground up from our embassies. [7:49] Now I want to tell you something else. [7:50] Look I did serve in the Senate for a long time. [7:52] So this is a new job to me. [7:53] When I got there I'd get a memo. [7:55] I still get these memos. [7:56] I should have brought one today. [7:57] In order for an idea to reach me. [7:59] A decision to reach the Secretary of State. [8:01] Some of these things have to be checked off by 40 people. [8:04] 40 boxes. [8:06] And if any one of these people has a question. [8:09] They can hold it up. [8:10] Before the idea even ever gets to me. [8:12] Now that sounds like a crazy thing to begin with. [8:14] We can't afford it in the 21st century. [8:16] We have to be able to move very quickly. [8:18] And a case in point is what happened last week. [8:20] Syria under a new authority. [8:24] Granted people with some checkered background. [8:26] Is on the verge of collapse potentially. [8:28] And if it collapses it will devolve into civil war. [8:32] And civil war will mean that it will become a playground. [8:35] For ISIS and other jihadists. [8:37] Not to mention Iranian influence coming back in. [8:39] So there's no guarantee that by outreach. [8:41] And working with the transitional authority in Syria. [8:43] Things are going to work out. [8:44] It may work out. [8:45] It may not work out. [8:46] But if we don't reach out and try. [8:50] It's guaranteed to not work out. [8:52] And so we had to move very quickly to action that. [8:54] If we had not done sanctions relief last week. [8:56] And now the EU has followed suit. [8:58] Then our partners in the region. [9:01] Could not have provided donor dollars. [9:03] So that that transitional authority. [9:05] Could try to stabilize its governance of the country. [9:07] That place could have collapsed within weeks. [9:09] And become an ISIS playground once again. [9:11] There is no way that a traditional system. [9:13] Could have delivered on that. [9:14] It would have gone to the inner agency. [9:16] It would have gone to six to nine months of debate. [9:18] Any individual could have held it up. [9:20] With an information hold. [9:22] And we never would have acted. [9:23] We can't afford it. [9:24] The world moves too quickly. [9:26] And so we need to drive policy from the ground up. [9:28] From our embassies and our regional bureaus. [9:30] And that's what we're doing. [9:31] Then the senator takes the confrontation to another level. [9:34] You're sitting here discussing diplomacy. [9:37] Yet you haven't even read the spending report your own committee released last month. [9:42] Meeks tries to dodge the criticism. [9:44] Resorting to the familiar response about ongoing reviews. [9:48] But the senator immediately fires back. [9:50] Sir. [9:51] The only thing ongoing here is your list of excuses. [9:54] At that point. [9:55] Even some staffers are struggling to keep straight faces. [9:59] Then comes the moment that changes the entire exchange. [10:02] The senator pulls out a chart displaying bright red figures. [10:06] Highlighting the deficit and alleged waste in foreign aid. [10:09] He looks at Meeks and asks. [10:12] Tell me congressman. [10:13] Which of these projects actually made America safer? [10:16] Because the last time I checked, not one did. [10:19] Meeks struggles to respond. [10:21] Stumbling over his words before attempting to change the subject. [10:25] That's when the senator smirks and delivers another pointed remark. [10:29] I'll wait. [10:30] I got time. [10:31] You seem to have plenty of it when it comes to wasting money. [10:34] That comment lands hard. [10:37] Even the chairman appears uncomfortable as Meeks continues trying to redirect the discussion [10:41] toward unity, only for the senator to push back again. [10:45] Unity, sir? [10:46] Unity doesn't mean allowing you to spend billions with nothing to show for it. [10:50] That's not unity. [10:52] That's lunacy. [10:53] The room erupts in reaction. [10:55] Meeks leans back, shuffles through his papers, and appears eager for a break. [11:00] By the end of the hearing, the exchange has taken an unexpected turn. [11:05] Meeks arrived seemingly prepared to challenge others, but instead found himself answering [11:10] pointed questions. [11:11] The senator's sharp remarks focused attention on alleged double standards, repeated excuses, [11:17] and concerns over government spending. [11:20] And if you enjoyed this heated congressional breakdown, hit that subscribe button, leave [11:24] a like, and share your thoughts in the comments. [11:27] Do you think public officials ever learn from confrontations like these? [11:31] See you in the next political showdown.