Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Rubio: The Capture of Maduro was not an act of War; Rubio: U.S. Control of Venezuelan Oil will be Short-Term; Rubio: No Sector of Cuba's Economy Works, Unlike Venezuela; Rubio: The Process is Moving Toward Positive Things; Marco Rubio Testifies at U.S. Senate Hearing on Venezuela. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired January 28, 2026 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: But in other sectors of their economy. I mean, it's unlimited, whether it's retail, whether it's banking,
a country that's prosperous and generating economic activity holds the promise of all sorts of economic activity.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- quick one more question, if you could.
RUBIO: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just in my remaining seconds. Just very briefly, we've heard such differing accounts, and the president spoken strongly, you have
as well, on the deaths in Iran and the horrible atrocities are being committed. Can you give us some sense of we see reports of thousands, tens
of thousands. What's the State Department's best estimate of what's happened on the ground?
RUBIO: Well, I don't know. In the thousands for certain. And look, I think regimes, including that one in Iran, have learned that when you start
shooting people in the head with snipers, it's effective. I mean, it works, and they've done it, and it's horrifying. And that's what we've seen.
That regime is probably weaker than it has ever been. And the core problem they face, unlike the protests you saw in the past, on some other topics,
is that they don't have a way to address the core complaints of the protesters, which is that their economy is in collapse.
And the reason why there's economies in collapse is because they spend all their money and all their resources building weapons and sponsoring
terrorist groups around the world, instead of reinvesting it back into their society. And as a result of taking on massive global sanctions, which
has isolated their economy and their country.
And so that's what the Iranian people are demanding, is that they stop doing that and start caring about them and get these sanctions of them. And
this regime is unwilling to do it. So, the core challenges the protests may have ebbed, but they will spark up again in the future, because this
regime, unless they are willing to change and or leave, have no way of addressing the legitimate and consistent complaints of the people of Iran
who deserve better.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very good. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Senator Murphy.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Listen, I think the scope of the project that you are undertaking in Venezuela is
without precedent. You are taking their oil at gunpoint. You are holding and selling that oil, putting for now the receipts in an offshore Middle
Eastern account.
You're deciding how and for what purposes that money is going to be used in a country of 30 million people. I think a lot of us believe that that is
destined for failure, and I know that you're telling us today just to be patient, but a month later, we have no information on a timetable for a
democratic transition.
Maduro's people are still in charge. Most of the political prisoners are in jail. And by the way, those that have been let out have a gag order on
them, from the -- from the government. The opposition leader is still in exile. This looks already like it is a failure.
You say you're in serious talks, but as you note, the Venezuelans are great at being in serious talks. They almost never deliver. So, I'm just going to
give you my three questions and hope that you'll answer them, because I do think we want to try to understand how to judge the efficacy of this as
time goes on because I worry you won't be back before this committee anytime soon.
And to understand whether this is just facilitating corruption, both in Venezuela and here at home. So here are my three questions. First reports
are that you've given no bid licenses to two companies to sell Venezuela's oil. One of them is a massive donor to the president, to many Americans
that weeks. And so, my question is, can you commit that partners for future sales are going to be chosen through a fair, open selection process?
Second, if Delcy Rodriguez, who is an unelected leader, the head of Maduro's torture operation, is still in power six months from now, does
that mean that your policy is a success or failure? How do we judge when we've had enough of Rodriguez?
And third in your testimony, you reserve the right to use force again in the future if the Venezuelan government isn't complying with your requests.
So, if, for instance, they refuse to give you access to the oil in the future, if they said we're just going to keep it for ourselves, would this
cause you to consider military action?
And do you concede that if you're using military action simply to try to compel cooperation from the government, you absolutely need congressional
authorization for that. So, if you can answer those three.
RUBIO: So, the first question was about the trading companies. The second is about Delcy still in power six months --
MURPHY: Six months from now.
RUBIO: And the third is on the use of force.
MURPHY: Yes.
RUBIO: OK. On the first one the two traders. So, here's the problem we faced. The problem we face in the short term is they had no place to put
oil. They were running out of storage capacity for their oil. We had to move that oil to market very quickly.
The only way to move it to market very quickly is to plug into these two primary trade companies that could sell it in the open market. That is not
the permanent outcome here. That is a short-term fix to a short-term problem, which is, they were literally storing oil. They brought in
tankers, and we had tankers sitting offshore just to hold their oil.
At some point, their capacity to produce was going to be shut down and their ability to generate revenue. So, we had to move that oil very
quickly. The long-term plan is not those two trading companies. The long- term plan is for them to have a normal energy program that sells directly into the market, directly to refineries and to companies that are
exploiting and exploring it.
[11:05:00]
For example, Chevron has operations there that never stopped. They seek to expand those operations. They don't use -- they don't need those trading
companies. So those trading companies were a short-term fix for a very acute problem, because we wanted to prevent societal collapse, because they
had no money for revenue.
On the second point about her being still in power. Look, let me say this a couple things. This is not unprecedented. I can point to a number of
places, Spain, Paraguay, two examples of places in which there was a transition, you know, from an autocratic regime to a democratic regime, and
it took time.
I can't give you a timeline of how long it takes. It can't take forever. It can't -- it's only it's not even been four weeks --
MURPHY: -- year two.
RUBIO: Well, I think we need to be put to this way. We need to be much further along six months from now, even three months from now. That may not
be satisfactory to but I'm saying we have to be much further along three four or five months. Three or four or five months from now cannot look like
what today looks like.
And I think there's acknowledgement on both sides of that. I can probably give you a better answer. And this is not deflecting when we finally have
people on the ground like the ambassador and the team around her on a daily basis that are interacting.
Because one thing is for me to pick up the phone and talk to Delcy Rodriguez three times a week. Another thing is to have someone on the
ground on a daily basis that's following these events, is talking to civil society, but also engaging with interim authorities. But the fact of the
matter is that, yes, we want to see quick progress. As you said, it's unprecedented OK.
All I'm saying to you is before this, this was stagnant. Before this, we had spent 14 years you were involved in some of those efforts, 14 years,
trying to change the dynamic in Venezuela. 13, 12, 11, 10, I was a big part of my career and the Senate was spent on this. This is the first time in
over a decade that we see even the glimmer of an opportunity to change conditions.
A lot of that will depend on us, but a lot of that will depend on them, and it also will depend on the rest of Venezuelan society. How quickly can we
get all these Venezuelans that want to go back to Venezuela and participate in civic and economic life, back to Venezuela? That's going to be critical
here.
We recognize that. So yes, we have to be much further along. In six months, we expect to be further along. And if we -- and if we're not, I'll tell
you, we'll tell you. On the third point of use of force, look, the president never rules out his options as Commander-in-Chief to protect the
national interest of the United States.
I can tell you right now with full certainty, we are not postured to, nor do we intend or expect to have to take any military action in Venezuela at
any time. The only military presence you will see in Venezuela is our marine guards at an embassy. OK, that is our goal. That is our expectation,
and that is what everything that outlines towards.
MURPHY: But if --
RUBIO: That said, if an Iranian drone factory pops up and threatens our forces in the region, the president retains the option to eliminate that
threat.
MURPHY: I'm asking a more specific question, because in your testimony, you suggest that you would use force to compel cooperation, for instance, with
oil sales. Do you agree that you have to come to Congress to get authorization if you were simply using force to try to compel cooperation?
RUBIO: Well, there's two things. There's the constant -- look, there's a -- there's --
MURPHY: It seems like --
RUBIO: -- under the War Powers Act, no under the War Powers Act, if we're going to be involved in something that's going to put us in there, involved
in a sustained way. We have to notify you within 48 hours after the fact. And then if it's going to last longer than 60 days, we have to come to
Congress with it.
We don't anticipate either of these things having to happen. Everything is moving in a very different trajectory right now. On the other hand, if we
tell them we don't want to see drones from Iran as an example pointed at the United States or threatening our forces or our presence in the region,
or our ally's presence in the region, and they refuse to comply with that.
The president does reserve the option in self-defense to eliminate that threat. We don't see that. We don't anticipate it, but it could happen, but
we hope not. We don't want it to happen. On the contrary, if we had to take military action, it would set us back on all these other things that we're
talking about.
I can tell you, military action is not good for, you know, recovery and transition. That's not what we hope to see. It's certainly not our goal
here. A lot of that will depend on them. But I think it would require the emergence of an imminent threat of the kind that we do not anticipate at
this time. But that's not in -- we -- they get a vote on that too.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Barrasso.
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, great to see you. Congratulations. What you and President Trump have
demonstrated in the past year is clearly peace through strength, and I appreciate the leadership from both of you.
We talk a lot about Venezuelan oil. You know, I focus a lot on energy going to China, and three quarters of all the oil that went from Venezuela out of
the country there. Last year, 75 percent of it went to China. They got it at deep discounts, lots of money back to Venezuela through oil for loan
deals.
Since the start of this blockade, basically Venezuela crude shipments to China have fallen dramatically. Can you assess or talk a little bit about
the impact this has on China's broader energy strategy.
RUBIO: Just to be clear, it's a quarantine, not a blockade. A blockade is an act of war. It's a quarantine, and it's been very effective in the sense
that it's given us this leverage. In fact, can I just add something, and this might be to Senator Murphy's question as well.
The Venezuelan authorities are now identifying ships that they want us to grab. In fact, about a week and a half ago, we grabbed one of these ships.
[11:10:00]
That was -- because here's what happened in the aftermath of the Maduro about five ships took off without authorization from the Venezuelans,
because they were controlled by some network in the country. With the cooperation of the interim authorities, we seized one of those ships.
We brought it back into Venezuela and waters, handed the ship off to the Venezuelans, who, in turn fed it into this mechanism, the short-term
mechanism that I described to you was created. So, we're seeing cooperation on that front. Now, I think your question more specifically was about
China?
BARRASSO: Yeah.
RUBIO: So, look, China can buy Venezuelan oil, but they're going to have to buy it, like everybody else in the world --
BARRASSO: Not with these discounts.
RUBIO: Yeah, at the -- at the normal price. And that money is going to flow back to the benefit of the Venezuelan people in a structured way. And I
know that in the short term that will involve this mechanism we've described. In the long term, our intention is that it would be governed by
a democratically elected government.
You know, I mean that like a normal country would handle it. And it -- but it's not just about oil. There's other economic activity the full spectrum.
I mean, Venezuela was and still -- we're not talking about some third world country here. We're talking about a country that doesn't just have wealth.
It has memory, it has history of economic activity, of people who own chains of pharmacies.
I know some of these people, people who own chains of retail stores, including American retailers, who had a presence there. We just want it to
be a normal, prosperous country again, not a playground for Iran, Russia and China and our own hemisphere. And we're going to try to help them get
there, because we think it serves our national interest.
That will require actions on our part, not money, but ultimately that will require them. This is ultimately going to be on the Venezuelan people and
Venezuelan society and Venezuelan leaders to make this happen. We're going to be there to help and assist and create the parameters for it.
And we feel like we're making really good progress. If we make as much progress over the next four weeks as we've made in the last three and a
half weeks, I'll feel very good about that. If it slows down or gets complicated, I'll certainly let you know. But our anticipation is that
we're going to be able to continue to work cooperatively with them, because it's in their interest and ours.
But I will point out to this, after this operation happened, look at the people who criticized it. There were others, China, Russia, Iran, Hamas.
These were the people that were upset about this strike and this raid and what we did. And I can tell you that in many countries in the Western
Hemisphere, there was great pleasure in the fact that Maduro was removed and that it didn't involve an all-out war and innovation.
BARRASSO: Since you mentioned Iran, and Senator McCormick mentioned Iran as well, a lot of oil is still going from Iran to China, a million barrels a
day last year. Lots of that money goes back to Iran, to the dictators, the people that are actually killing others on the street. Can you talk a
little bit about what we can do to prevent that from continuing to go and what we're doing to support the Iranians?
RUBIO: Some of that is sanctioned oil. It just requires the willingness to enforce those sanctions, and obviously that comes with a cost benefit
analysis. The Iranians are also capable of seizing ships and doing that in retribution, but that's certainly something that will be under
consideration.
And others have done that in the past, and we have seized, for example, weapons shipments in the past that involve Iranian abscise. And in fact,
some of the ships, remember, all of these ships that we're seizing with the oil are with court orders. They're either one or two things that we either
have a court order from a federal judge that allows us to seize it because it's in violation of a sanction, or it's a flagless vessel in the shadow
fleet.
And we were -- many of these ships here involve Iran and some of that oil was going to be ultimately transferred to the excess refining capacity that
China currently has.
BARRASSO: You mentioned the word shadow failures. Senator Shaheen and I have legislation on sub-sea cables. I've asked you about that the last time
we're here, the sabotage being done directly being targeted. I know that Sweden and Finland have both detained Russian ships along those lines.
We're going to have a mark-up on that bill tomorrow. Is that something you continue to support our efforts to go after?
RUBIO: It is, and it'll feature -- it's featured prominently in the agenda, both at the G7 this year, as it did somewhat last year, but again, this
year, in the G7 will be one of the top items we'll be discussing. And we've also been pushing it as a priority for NATO to consider.
The two new things we want NATO to make a priority this year, and our conversations are the undersea cable infrastructure and Arctic security,
and the third is critical minerals and supply chains, because ultimately, you can spend all the money in the world on weapons if you can't make them
because you're missing some chip that requires some mineral that China controls, you're in a lot of trouble.
BARRASSO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Senator Kaine.
SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): Thank you. We started this operation on September 2nd with the attack on Venezuelans and boats in open waters, and now we are
nearly five months in. Next week is five months. Finally, a public hearing. Wow, how novel?
Finally, a public hearing in the Senate or House. This is the first public hearing we've had. 200 folks who are on secret designated combatant lists
have been killed. U.S. troops have been injured. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on Armada, a mask, the announcement of a new Monroe
Doctrine, which does not land well in the Americas.
Democrats have been asking over and over again, can we have a public hearing? Can we share what we know with the American public?
[11:15:00]
Finally, a public hearing, but even that hearing is constrained. I'd like to talk about the complete weakness of the legal rationale about the
strikes on boats in international waters, but I can't, because the administration has only shared it with members in a classified setting.
I can't tell you why the domestic rationale is hollow and the international rationale is hollow. I can't tell you why the rationale for attacking
Venezuela is hollow because, again, the rationale has been shared with us in a closed setting.
I can't share with you the grim details of the murder of shipwrecked survivors in open waters that we all know because we've seen the videos and
we've questioned the U.S. military officials involved about legality, because the administration will not release that publicly.
They released the boat strike videos publicly, but they hid the second strike that killed struggling shipwreck survivors even from Congress for
nearly three months. But I can't really talk to you about it. I can't talk to you about the weakness of the targeting criteria being used to attack
boats in the Caribbean and Pacific.
I would encourage any colleague, if you have not, go to the classified setting and ask for a briefing on each strike and ask this question, what
was the evidence that there were narcotics on that craft? You will be very surprised if you ask that question about every strike.
And so even in this first public hearing, five months in, there's a lot we can't talk about. If it was such a righteous operation, why is the
administration and the majority in this Senate so jealously protecting the details about it from being revealed to the American public?
I have Virginians deployed in this operation. I can't answer their families' questions. Thank God we're having a public hearing five months
and this is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Mr. Secretary, who won the July 2024 Venezuelan presidential election?
RUBIO: I think the whole world would acknowledge it was Edmundo Gonzalez.
KAINE: Who lost that election?
RUBIO: Maduro.
KAINE: And his Vice President, Delcy Rodriguez. Now you have made the decision. The administration has made the decision in the aftermath of the
attack that Delcy Rodriguez should be leading the country. Let me read something that President Trump said about her on January 14th, about Delcy
Rodriguez, who lost the election with Maduro.
We just had a great conversation today, and she's a terrific person. I mean, she's somebody that we have worked with very well. Let me tell you
what Delcy Rodriguez said the day after Venezuela was attacked. Governments around the world are simply shocked that the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela is the victim and target of an attack of this nature, which undoubtedly has Zionist undertones.
What the hell did Delcy Rodriguez mean when she said this attack had Zionist undertones? I'm assuming you have no idea.
RUBIO: Oh, I have an idea what she meant. What's the question?
KAINE: What did -- what does she mean when she says this attack had Zionist undertones?
RUBIO: Look, I have to answer, but let me understand in a broader context. No one here is telling you this is what we want to see in the long term.
KAINE: OK.
RUBIO: We're not -- this is not a campaign to leave in place. The system is currently in place.
KAINE: Let me switch.
RUBIO: We either have -- no, no, but I mean the criticism, go ahead.
KAINE: I'm ready to switch now to talk about somebody that --
RUBIO: You raise an important point. If I can get back to that.
KAINE: That you know well and you respect Maria Corina Machado. Here's what President Trump said about her. Won the Nobel Prize in the aftermath of the
attack on Venezuela. I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn't have the support within or the respect within the
country.
She's a very nice woman, but she doesn't have the respect. What did President Trump mean by that?
RUBIO: Yeah. First of all, I've known Maria Corina for probably 12 years, 13 years. I have dealt with her probably more than anybody on anybody, as
much as anybody on this committee has, for certain. And I'll be meeting with her today, in fact, and we met with her a couple weeks ago.
So, here's the reality, though, and I think what the president was pointing to. And I think Maria Corina would acknowledge this. She only --
KAINE: -- I talked to her last week.
RUBIO: Well --
KAINE: -- very disappointed in those comments, and so are Venezuelans in my state.
RUBIO: OK. I wish you didn't share that with me or with us, but I would sell to this to you. For the president is acknowledging is that today, as
it stands, whether we like it or not, the elements of control in that country, the people with the guns, the people that control the guns and the
institutions of government there are in the hands of this regime.
So, we either -- you know on the one hand, we're getting criticized and some people are saying we don't want regime change. On the other hand,
we're being criticized for not undertaking regime change.
KAINE: Mr. Secretary --
RUBIO: What we're trying to trigger here is a process of stabilization, recovery and transition to something where Maria Corina and others can be a
part of that's what we are working for.
KAINE: You have respect for her, don't you?
RUBIO: Sure.
KAINE: OK, great. Let my last question is this.
[11:20:00]
RUBIO: And so does the president, by the way, he met with her. They had a great meeting. And he actually spoke to her life.
KAINE: Here's what he's -- here's what he said after that meeting. We're talking to her, and maybe we can get her involved in some way. I'd love to
be able to do that. Maybe we can do that. We'll set the terms for this Nobel Prize winner having a leadership role.
Last question is this, you talked about the speech in Davos. Here's what something the president said in Davos. I'm helping NATO until the last few
days, when I told them about Iceland, they loved me. They're not here for us on Iceland that I can tell you, our stock market took the first dip
yesterday because of Iceland.
So, Iceland has already cost us a lot of money. President repeatedly mistook Iceland for Greenland, right? We're not mad at Iceland. They
haven't cost us any money. The president just mistook the two countries for each other, correct?
RUBIO: Yeah, he meant to say Greenland. But I think we're all familiar with presidents that have verbal stumbles. We've had presidents like that
before. Some made a lot more than this one.
KAINE: Nice try.
RUBIO: Thanks.
KAINE: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought he did. Well, let's see. We got Senator Paul.
REP. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Our founders debated extensively over which branch of government should have the power to declare or initiate war. Virtually
unanimously they decided, and what was entered into the Constitution was that the declaration or initiation of war would be the power of Congress.
Now we have many advocates, many of whom are here today, who have been advocates for an expansive notion of presidential power. They often argue
that wars are not really wars, that they're kinetic actions or drug busts. I think, though, if you reverse the circumstances, it becomes very
difficult for these arguments to hold up.
So, I would ask you if a foreign country bombed our air defense missiles captured and removed our president and blockaded our country would that be
considered an act of war?
RUBIO: Well, I think your question is about the -- I will acknowledge you been very consistent on all these points the entire career. So let me --
let me -- no matter who the -- who's in charge. So, I will point to two things.
The first is, it's hard for us to conceive that an operation that lasted about four and a half hours and was a law enforcement operation to capture
someone we don't recognize as a head of state, indicted in the United States, wanted with a $50 million --
PAUL: My question would be if it only took four hours to take our president, very short, nobody dies on the other side? Nobody dies on our
side. It's perfect. Would it be an act of war?
RUBIO: We just don't believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of --
PAUL: Would it be an act of war if someone did it to us? Nobody dies, few casualties. They're in and out. Boom, it's a perfect military operation.
Would that be an act of war? Of course it would be an act of war. I'm probably the most anti-war person in the Senate, and I would vote to
declare war if someone invaded our country and took our president.
So, I think we need to at least acknowledge this is a one-way argument. One-way arguments that don't rebound, that you can't apply to yourselves,
that cannot be universally applicable, are bad arguments. So, my next question would be, let's say it's not a war. We're just going to define it
away and say it's not a war. That's one of the arguments.
So, it's a drug bust. What if a foreign country indicts our president for violating a foreign law? Should we extradite our president, or should we be
OK if they come in and get him by force?
RUBIO: Look, I think ultimately, we're always going to act in our national interest. And so, if somebody comes after our national interest, like the
case you've described, which obviously does not exist at this time. But the case you've described, the U.S. always has the right to act in its national
interest and to protect itself.
So, I don't -- I don't know about this equivalency. Why does this justify them doing it? We're always going to do what's best for the United States
and America. We're always going to protect our system.
PAUL: But the point isn't and you're exactly right. We will act in our national interest, and we should. So, I'm not disagreeing with you at all.
What I'm saying is, though, that our arguments are empty then the drug bust isn't really an argument. It's a ruse. The war argument not a war is a war
is a ruse.
It's not a real argument. And we do what we do because we are we have the force. We have the right; we do it because it's in our interest. So, we
wouldn't let anybody come in, bomb us, blockade us, and take our president. You know, we've had arguments about legitimate, illegitimate presidents,
bad elections, rigged elections.
So, there's all kinds of same arguments that we've had in our country, that they've had in Venezuela. But we wouldn't argue for an indictment. And
these things aren't idle speculation. I mean, Netanyahu has been indicted by the ICC.
And one of the reasons I object to being part of the ICC, and I would say you and the administration probably agree, is we're not going to let any
international council indict our president and arrest him somewhere in foreign soil.
We're not going to do that. We actually, most of us, probably object to indicting Netanyahu in that way as well. So, I think the arguments are
invalid. So, we did get the legal opinion that Senator Kaine referred to the OLC opinion Office of Legal Counsel.
[11:25:00]
And I think a lot of it's been released, plus they came to our caucus and talked most of the open about everything they had classified. So, I will
talk about at least one of the arguments. They say this war wasn't a constitutional war, therefore it doesn't rise to the constitutional notion
of us declaring or having to initiate the war.
It's -- it just doesn't rise. And one of their main arguments was, not enough people died. And so there is some number that they aren't specific,
but there is some number I would assume, although I'm not positive, but the 50, 60,000 soldiers who died in Vietnam might be enough for them to call
that a war.
But here's the problem, it isn't the number, it's that it happens in retrospect. See, our founders gave us the power to initiate or declare war.
They didn't give us other powers to execute the war. Those are left to the president. But if we have to wait to see how many people are killed, we
have to wait, as they describe it as the scope, nature and extent.
If we have to wait to see the scope, nature and extent, the war has been going on for some time, it's hard to vote to initiate a war that's been
going on. And we can say this war is over, but we're still blocking it, and we may go back in and but there are no clear answers.
You know, we put 2000 we looped 2000 troops in. Are we going to call that war and initiate it? So, the definition of war is very important. And I
think we have to acknowledge the problems with our argument. Calling things kinetic action is a disservice to our soldiers.
You weren't really wounded in war. You don't have a Medal of Honor for war. You have a Medal of Honor for a kinetic action. So, I think let's call it
what it is, and let's vote on these things. But I think we're in violation of both the spirit and the law of the Constitution by bombing a capital,
blockading a country and removing elected officials. And we certainly wouldn't tolerate it, nor would I if someone did it to us.
RUBIO: We didn't remove an elected official. We removed someone who was not elected, and it was actually an indicted drug trafficker in the United
States and their system --
PAUL: Our laws -- indicted under our laws. Look Bolsonaro says that De Silva is not really the President of Brazil. Our president said Biden
wasn't really the president. Hillary Clinton said in 2016 Trump wasn't the president. So, you have these arguments, and I agree with you, it probably
was, and most likely was, most assuredly was a bad election. He wasn't really elected.
But at the same time, if that's our predicate, and you have to come to us because it's a drug bust, we're just removing somebody, you can see where
it leads to and it leads to chaos. And that's why we have rules like the Constitution, so we don't get so far out there that presidents can do
whatever they want.
It is this check and balance, and I would argue, for 70 years, we've been going the wrong way. It isn't just this president, but it's a debate that I
think is worth having.
SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-OR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to associate myself with the comments of Tim Kaine. The fact that we're five months into
this, and this is the first oversight hearing, is really a complete failure the responsibility of Congress, failure of this committee to demand
oversight, but also a reflection of the reluctance of the administration to engage in the proper consultation with Congress.
So, I hope we can do a lot better going forward, and that we'll see you at least every six weeks or so, not every, every five months. I also feel like
the strategy of keeping basically these very weak arguments secret so that they can't be discussed openly for the legal justifications.
I've gone down and read them, and there's a reason you know, obviously you'd be incredibly embarrassed if those were public. So, make them public.
Let's have a natural transparency here in the United States of America, and let's be clear about what has gone on.
We had a dictator we didn't like. We've replaced it with a dictator we think we can manipulate. And if that doesn't work, we'll do something else
in order to pry open that economy for oil. And I must say that you said, say something I liked. So let me emphasize that.
RUBIO: I'm making progress.
MERKLEY: Yeah. You said, no U.S. taxpayer dollars will be used, no spending on our part, on part of -- to kind of prop up Venezuela. Can you -- can you
restate your commitment to that?
RUBIO: Yeah. They're not going to need, for example, we're not spending money in Venezuela right now. I mean, obviously, look, I think you're
putting aside embassy operations and all of that. And by the way, there may be some program through foreign aid that some of you might be interested in
in the future.
We don't think that Venezuela is the kind of country that of country that needs that. This is a very wealthy country.
MERKLEY: Thank you. I'm glad you restated that, because I think that we will not -- we will see some moment when the administration says. Let's
subsidize our American oil companies to rebuild the infrastructure in Venezuela. And I must say, that's a very unpopular idea. My constituents I
think America needs a lot of investments in infrastructure here, and I think you have a way too rosy sense of the oil economy.
[11:30:00]
Many experts have said, look without 10-year prospect horizon of stability, without Canada deciding to ship a lot more of its heavy oil from instead of
to the Gulf, doing it to Asia, so that we prop up the kind of demand in the Gulf, without keeping Iran off the international stage, so that the cost of
oil, the value is higher.
All of those factors would have to be there for our oil companies to want to invest their own money. So, I think they'll be coming to the
administration. I think you'll all be trying to find some way to subsidize them, but I'm glad what you said today that you're not going to do it, and
I want to hold the administration accountable to that.
Second on terms of the $500 million fund. $300 million my understanding, has gone back to the Central Bank of Venezuela, and they have essentially
exchanged it for boulevards to key industry players. I don't think we have any transparency on what corporations or entities got that hard currency,
and yet, you did say there's going to be a lot of transparency.
You also said, If I understood right, that those funds are eventually going to be brought back into the structure of U.S. control as part of our well
formal structure of funds. And in that sense, the Constitution says no money should be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of
appropriations made in law.
So are you going to make sure that if that money comes back into kind of full U.S. control, not an offshore account, the way it is now that we're
going to abide by the Constitution.
Third point here is that one of the things that transpired is cutting off the oil to Cuba, and I know you have a strong interest in making life
difficult for the leadership in Cuba. Can you lay out for us what other things you might be planning in that regard, and how those fit into an
overall plan?
RUBIO: Yeah. Well, I'll try to do that in a minute. Let me just say, on the rosy projections of oil, it's not rosy projection. I mean, it's either
going to happen or it's not, in essence, oil there's no world in which the United States is subsidizing investment in Venezuela oil. It's very simple.
Oil Company will go in and say, OK, this is the oil you have. This is how much we're going to -- it's going to cost us investing on the front end to
one end, make money, pay back our investment, plus a profit at the back end, and then, depending on the terms of that investment, don't make a
decision about whether it makes sense for that or not.
Right now, what you have in Venezuela is a corrupt and broken oil company run by the government that basically takes this money, doesn't reinvest in
it at all, and basically sprinkles it to its people to keep the glue that keeps the regime together.
We want it to become a normal oil economy. That's what the ultimate goal is here. And in a normal oil economy, companies are going to go in. They're
going to look at Venezuela law, they're going to look at Venezuela authorities, and they're going to make a determination about whether or not
it's worth their investment.
And that will be -- that's the normalization process that we're talking about. That's going to be up to them if they want to have a normal oil
economy, as opposed to one that is basically used as a way to feed graft in a very inefficient way. But they didn't care about that.
If they do it the right way, we think it has great promise and potential over the long term, especially because these investments take a long time.
But the U.S. doesn't have to put any money to encourage companies to go in and invest, nor is there any interest in any interest in doing so. But a
lot of it --
MERKLEY: That's a point I really do appreciate.
RUBIO: No --
MERKLEY: I don't want to say --
RUBIO: -- I don't even think -- I don't think that's even been discussed or considered by anybody. Your second point was, well, I wrote it here, but
now --
MERKLEY: It's the $300 million redistributed to corporations and in Venezuela.
RUBIO: And the second one was what I'm sorry?
MERKLEY: -- lack of accountability over that, the $300 million --
RUBIO: Oh, yeah, already been distributed on the account. So that's a -- that's not the permanent structure we want to see. In the long-term we just
want them to have a normal industry where the companies are involved in there. They're selling it directly to the market, and we're out of that
game.
What we're talking about now is the sanctioned oil. The oil that's under our sanction. So, we have to monitor how that money moves. So yes, the
first 300 million move for the following for the following reason, we would all agree. We didn't want to see systemic collapse like one of the things a
lot of you told me you were worried about on the short term is this is going to trigger internal chaos in Venezuela.
A million people are going to storm the border with Colombia. Colombia even stood up troops to their border to prevent it. Brazil was worried about it
as well. It's going to lead to fighting in the streets between rival factions and shooting, none of that has happened.
And key to that, stabilization is ensuring that the government had enough money to meet payroll and meet their basic needs as part of the
stabilization. We should not confuse stabilization with transition. This is not what the permanent structure is going to look like.
I can't -- look the treasury is handling the structuring of that account. So, I would refer you to them, and I can get you an answer for them as to
what the legal framework of that treasury could be.
MERKLEY: It will be very helpful, because what you just mentioned, money to meet payroll is very different than what we've heard about, the money being
used to give hard currency to key corporations inside of Venezuela, which would not be meeting payroll.
RUBIO: Well, which --
MERKLEY: This is where complete oversight is. So required, like to see of transparency over how that's.
[11:35:00]
RUBIO: Yeah, remember, the first 300 million we're going to have to -- on that one because of the urgency and moving funds to keep the place stable
is going to require us to undertake a retroactive audit of how that money was spent the first 300 million.
But there's probably another 2.5 to 3 billion down the pike at some point, which will have front end through this process I described, I'm not sure if
you were here or I described it, and we're still finalizing it, but basically the way it would look is we would send them a letter saying, on
the sanctioned oil proceeds, this is what it could be spent on, and you have to agree to contribute.
You have to agree to pay for an auditing system to make sure that that's how it's being spent. That's the process we're trying to create. Again, on
Friday, we'll mark the four-week mark of this all began. I understand you know, we live in a world where the items move very quickly. This was front
page news of three weeks ago when we scheduled this hearing, and today, other items have captured the attention, but we remain focused on it.
So, it's only been three or four weeks, but that's the process we're setting up with treasury, and obviously, as we finalize it, we'll provide
that to you. But this is not permanent. This is not the system we want to see in place in the long term. We want to see a normal country. What was
your third question?
MERKLEY: Cuba.
RUBIO: Cuba? OK. I'll tell you about Cuba.
SEN. RICK SCOTT (R-FL): OK. Secretary Rubio, as you know, in our home state, this was very popular. The Cubans Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, you
know, basically everybody in Latin America has been fighting. They're in a lot of them are in Miami, as you know, because they had to leave these
countries because of socialism and lack of opportunity.
So, what the president did, the willingness of president, with your support and with Pete Hegseth's military, was very, very, very well thought of. So,
the first thing I think I want to say is, on behalf of Floridians, thank you for what you guys did.
Now the next is, everybody has these ridiculously high expectations, which we all do. We would love -- we would love to have a free and fair election
tomorrow where you know there was, you knew that there was no oppression. Everybody wanted to run, they could run.
So, give us tell how should -- how should Venezuelans and Cubans and Nicaraguans look at this? And what-- how patient should they be? And what
would be that sort of the milestones you would give them to look at, to say where we are making progress?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, I would remind everybody, let's just go back six months, eight months a year ago at this time. The Venezuelan challenge for
us was frozen. Was a frozen situation. We had a regime that was entrenched. Its opposition was either in hiding or had been forced overseas.
Edmundo Gonzales lives in Spain. Maria Corina is no longer. She's very brave. She stood there as long as she could, but she had to leave. The
others are in jail. They were increasing their relationships and outreach with Iran, and accordingly, have existing ones with Russia, Cuba and China.
And other than more sanctions and more speeches and more threats and whatever it was, a frozen situation. Now, for the first time in literally a
decade, there is the opportunity that something could change. There's not the guarantee that something will change, but there is the opportunity that
something will change.
We have changed that dynamic, which goes back to the question that Senator Merkley had about Cuba. What we are looking for is the opportunity for a
change in dynamic that's a country that's been backwards. It has no functional economy. The people -- you can call them Marxist. We can call
them communists.
But not even Lenin would recognize this version of Communism and Marxism that they've instilled in Cuba. It doesn't -- it's an economic model. It
hasn't worked anywhere on the planet. The suffering in the rural areas of Cuba are acute and they're deep. And it's not because of the embargo, it's
because they don't know how to run an economy.
How is it the fault of the U.S. embargo that Cuba, one of the world's largest sugar producers, now imports sugar because no sector of their
society works. It's frozen and it's broken. But in the case of Venezuela, we have a glimmer of hope now the opportunity to change the dynamic.
Now, what that will require is smart decisions on our part, but ultimately it will require decisions made by Venezuelans, both those are currently in
charge of the interim authorities and those who may be in charge in the future as well, to step forward.
It is our sincere belief that the only way you're going to have a free, prosperous Venezuela that's allied with the United States is one in which
every sector of their society is represented in their politics, and that includes many people who currently live abroad and even the opposition.
People like to say the opposition; the opposition is very diverse. There are members of the opposition that were once part of Chavismo and turned
against it. There are members of the opposition that have never been Chavistas, like Maria Corina Machado and have been very forceful against
it.
So that broad sector has to be represented as well. So, you have to have a process of internal reconciliation that allows these voices to begin to
participate in the political life of that country, and that ultimately bring us to a point in which you can have a country where all of these
elements of their society are represented in their politics.
And look, there's a percentage of the Venezuelan population, I don't know what the number is, whether it's 15 or 20, that may not have liked Maduro,
but are still committed to Chavista ideology, and they'll be represented in that platform as well.
[11:40:00]
They may not win elections, but they'll, you know, they'll be involved in this. That'll be up to the Venezuelan people. But our desire here is to
have, what's the end state? We want a Venezuela that has legitimate democratic elections. Sometimes elects leaders that are friendly to the
United States, sometimes elects leaders that maybe are not, you know, the person we would have wanted to win.
But that's not unique for us. That happens all over the world. We're not disputing that Pedro is the legitimately elected President of Colombia, and
yet he doesn't always say nice things about us. So, and we but we also want a Venezuela that's prosperous and a Venezuela that's aligned with the
United States.
And a year ago, at this time, this is frozen. Now we have a real opportunity, not just to create change systemically within that country
through our help, but their efforts. But also, one that is no longer a base of operation, the central base of operation for every geopolitical
adversary we have. And that's what Venezuela was under Maduro, and that's what we hope and intend to change.
SCOTT: So would you -- if you're a Venezuelan that lives in Miami. So, what you would say is that you're working -- you're working hard. There's a lot
of variables outside your control. But you'd say right now, political prisoners are being released, never fast enough. The oppression is being
reduced, not fast enough.
Opposition leaders are speaking up more and more. So, we're making progress, and you're going to continue to control the oil to make sure that
we continue down this path?
RUBIO: I would say, is that we share the same goal and the same outcome we want for Venezuela. And the question is, we have to do it through a
realistic process and get it has the highest chance of success.
OK. The way to view it, if you use the medical analogy, is this is a critically ill patient that has suffered some very serious things. They've
broken their leg, but they also have a ruptured, you know, spleen or something. You've got to deal with the life threatening first before you
deal with a broken leg.
And even when you deal with a broken leg, there's going to be a period of rehabilitation. You don't just go from having your leg repaired in a
surgery to running on a treadmill the next day. There's going to have to be a process here, but the process has an arrow, moving towards
accomplishments, achievements and positive things.
What I would say to the people who I know quite well as you do, is, for the first time in over a decade and a half, there is the real possibility of
transformation. And a lot of it will depend on them, because there are many people living in Florida and across the country who would like to go back
and be a part of Venezuela and economic life.
Many of them are eager to do so and work -- they're going to need them. Venezuela is going to need them to come back and rebuild the businesses
that were taken or lost and engage themselves in both civic and economic life.
But again, I remind everybody, on Friday, we'll mark the four weeks since this happened. I get it. We all want like something immediately, but this
is not a frozen dinner you put in a microwave and in two and a half minutes, it comes out ready to eat.
And these are complex things, and we've seen this play out. I've used the example of Paraguay and Spain. There are others where there is a transition
from autocracy to democracy. It's not linear. It's in some cases, are ups and downs along the way, but it's trending in the right direction so far,
with the recognition that you know more work needs to be done.
SCOTT: Thanks for your hard work.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Booker.
SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): I just want to start by saying what's playing I, frankly, be playing to Senator Rubio and playing to members here is that it
should not have taken this long to have this hearing.
Fundamentally, we have a crisis, I believe in our democracy right now, which is the failure of Congress to do its job, to provide checks and
balances oversight, to provide the kind of constitutionally mandated work that we should be doing to keep a balanced government.
We have operations right now that are literally costing the American taxpayer tens of millions of dollars a day. The build-up in the Caribbean
alone is hundreds of millions of dollars a month. But we're not providing that kind of oversight that's necessary.
So, from our power to the purse to our important work of providing a check and balance to an administration, what we're seeing right now is
unacceptable and speaks to what I think is a growing constitutional crisis in our country, which is a Congress that is just lying down for the
administration to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants.
I want to pick up on my colleagues' questioning, because I actually know from years of conversations with you your heart about human rights in
countries like Venezuela, Mr. Secretary.
And you issued a travel warning, a level four travel advisory from your department's website that says, right now in Venezuela, there's a high risk
of wrongful detention, torture, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of laws, crime and more. And when we hear from the president
that he is in charge, that you all are running this government.
To that extent, I have a lot of concerns when it comes to the rampant human rights violations that are persisting. Cabello (ph) is Maduro's key hard-
liner enforcer has continued to intimidate and suppress Venezuelan voices. He remains in control of Venezuela's security forces, security services,
the Colectivos.
[11:45:00]
We're seeing extraordinary examples that the constant oppression of the people is continuing, as these folks are remaining in control of the
country. So, I just want to know what is the plan to address in a much more aggressive manner, these severe human rights violations and to try to stop
these armed militias?
Because if we are doing things to stabilize their government, if we're turning over resources and money to the very groups that are creating these
horrors that seems to me against America's values, and it seems to me something that is should be unacceptable to Congress on both sides.
RUBIO: Yeah, well, absolutely. The Venezuela I described that we want to see emerge from this is one in which none of that is happening. If you
think about travel advisories, travel advisories are us imaging worst case scenarios. We have a duty to warn American citizens when they travel to a
place that does place that does have a history of Americans being arrested, of Americans being taken.
And they may be taken by a deliberate action of a government or entity related the regime. They may be taken by criminal gangs that control parts
of that society. For example, you know, they have these Colectivos, as they're called, which basically are these armed motorcycle gangs that are
allowed to act with impunity in return for their support for their support for the Maduro regime in the past.
You have the ELN and the FARC and other drug trafficking organizations, including Tren de Aragua, that are involved.
BOOKER: Again --
RUBIO: So, these are real risks that we have a duty to warn Americans because, well, here's what we didn't want to see. And I mean, don't mean to
interrupt you. We have this announcement that Maduro has been taken. All of a sudden, people conclude, oh, he's gone. Let's flood over there. Let's all
go over there. And we could expose this danger.
BOOKER: But this -- this is the hypocrisy that I see. At the same time that you're issuing these human rights cautions about what's going on there for
Americans, you have a president that's lifting temporary protected status for Venezuelans, many of them are individuals that have lived in our
country for years, if not decades.
When I hear from the Venezuelan community, I hear an outrage that at the very same time that you are affirming here, that these armed militias are
running around suppressing voices, we have an administration that has said very clearly that they're not only going to be lifting temporary protective
status for Venezuelans living in the U.S.
But instead of protecting longtime American residents, they are, quote, excuse me, the administration is putting people back on deportation flights
and sending them into that madness. Does that make sense to you?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, the travel advisories for American citizens traveling there and the threats posed to Americans, well, you're --
BOOKER: Why lift temporary protective status?
RUBIO: Well, the problem with temporary protective status was it was granted to so many people in such a vast number, so quickly, without proper
vetting by the previous administration. That there's a real concern that there were, there were gang members that had received TPS simply because of
the nation they came from in the time in which they came.
It became so big and so massive. The overwhelming majority of Venezuelans are not members of Tren de Aragua, but there were Tren de Aragua and other
criminal elements embedded in the TPS system. And the numbers were so large that the administration felt it had to cancel the program in order to
appropriately vet it through -- on the individual cases.
BOOKER: Mr. Secretary, this might not surprise you. I don't trust this administration and the way they use terms like terrorist. I've seen them
calling American citizens, domestic terrorists, who are people trying to peacefully protest.
The problem we have right now is administration continues to make policies that seem to contradict their words, and yet we don't have a process in
place for Congress to do its job, because people are not calling in for calling folks in for these hearings and not providing the kind of oversight
that we need.
It is very frustrating to me that we still have a repressive regime in power in Venezuela, suppressing human rights, yet we are cooperating with
them. We are funding them, and we're not calling out the ridiculousness of the violence that's going on there.
At the same time, we're taking people who have lived in our country for years and years and years and sending them back into that hell where they
can be targeted, where they can be abducted, where they can be held for hostage because they know they have American family members that are still
here.
This is a situation ripe for where we are being complicit in continuing human rights violations, and that needs to stop.
RUBIO: And just on two points, we're not cooperating with them to continue doing what they're doing now. We're cooperating with them to transition
away from what's happening now. And as I said, we're not even four weeks into this thing, and if it continues to look like this in six months, nine
months a year from now, if progress isn't being made, we'll have very different feelings about it.
But what we're cooperating on is not the continuation of what's happening. It's a movement away from all this and transitioning, ultimately, to
something that looks nothing like this. That's the goal. But it's been less than four weeks.
I mean, we think we've made substantial progress in a very short period of time, but I acknowledge we want to make a lot more progress. This is not
the end state that we want.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Cornyn.
[11:50:00]
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Mr. Secretary, I want to expand a little bit on the question that Senator Barrasso raised about Venezuelan oil.
But primarily what I want to do is focus on something that's come to be known as the shadow fleet, or ghost fleet, of Russian and Iranian oil
that's been used subject to sanctions, which has, with the complicity of Venezuela, been used to evade sanctions, to help fund the Russian war
against Ukraine and help Iran remain the number one state sponsor of international terrorism and fund its proxies, which have been responsible
for so much death and misery in the Middle East.
So, it strikes me that Venezuela, even though it has a lot of oil, has been more involved in trying to assist its allies, namely Iran and Russia, in
circumventing these sanctions to help them fund their nefarious activities, both in the Middle East and in Ukraine, but obviously they're also a source
of additional energy, which is needed by China.
Can you help us understand that better? And is the law enforcement operation to arrest Nicolas Maduro and the current status of our engagement
with Venezuela, helping us deal with that ghost fleet or the evasion of sanctions?
RUBIO: Yeah, on the first point, on the second point, absolutely, it's helping us deal with it, because it's a complex situation to describe. The
oil in Venezuela we all think is under the control of one entity, and some of it is. But you literally have a place in which certain individuals the
glue that held the regime together was corruption and graft.
Like people said, I want to be I'm supportive of this regime. And they didn't, not because they like Nicolas Maduro, but because Nicolas Maduro
set up a system that guaranteed them a profit. Some people were making that profit from drugs. Some of them were making it from stealing money from
their food program called CLAP.
Some of them were making their money from an oil field that was literally given to them in exchange for buying them their loyalty. Some were making
their profits from all three so and other activities. So, there's no doubt that his removal has created the conditions to begin to move away from
that.
That's why we sanction their oil. The ghost fleet exists for the following reason, when something is sanctioned, when we say it is illegal for them to
move this oil, none of the traditional, legitimate tankers will carry that oil. They won't touch it because they don't want to be sanctioned by the
United States.
So, you have to turn to these pirates. You have to basically turn to these ships that are either falsely flagged, meaning they're flying the flag of
Liberia, but they don't really have a Liberian flag, or are stateless in their capacity. And they have to turn to them, and they turn to these
vessels, and these vessels are made up with crews from all over the world.
We seized one where the majority of the crew members were Ukrainian. We've seized others, the majority of them are Russians and a mix and what have
you. And so, what's happened is a lot of this oil is going -- a lot of the shadow fleet oil is going even outside the -- system.
And those are the ones that we have now been seizing, as well as the ones that are involved outside the -- system. Our goal is to rope all of this
illegal oil into a channel that goes into this account, that ultimately goes to the benefit of the Venezuelan people. This is an interim step. This
is not the way we want the oil industry to look like in perpetuity.
This is simply a way to provide revenue so that there isn't systemic collapse while we work through this recovery and transition phases. So,
there's no doubt that while Maduro was there, we had no cooperation on any of this, zero cooperation.
But I will tell you this, since the time Maduro was removed, not a single not a single illegal ship has headed towards Venezuela. And the ones that
you hear us seizing are all the legacy ones that took off or have been seized in the past.
So, we have got a really good handle on this as a result of it. And what's really changed is the dynamic that the Venezuelan interim authorities are
now actually helping us identify shadow fleet ships that they want us to seize and feed into this new interim mechanism.
CORNYN: So, let me turn to Iran, obviously the president authorized a strike against Iranian nuclear -- their Iranian nuclear program on what I
consider to be a magnificent demonstration of American military power.
And even though the arrest of Nicolas Maduro was not primarily a military operation, but they provided the support to law enforcement authorities as
they executed an arrest warrant against Nicolas Maduro. Likewise, I think most Americans were very proud of what -- how the U.S. government and
particularly the U.S. military, have performed.
But I know the president is very concerned about the what's happening to the demonstrators in Iran and of course, there's some estimates that as
many as 30,000 Iranian demonstrators have been executed by the regime.
[11:55:00]
But I know the president is being presented with a range of options. We notice a lot of movement into the region by our Navy and other authorities.
But what happens if the Supreme Leader is removed in Iran? What happens next?
RUBIO: Well, that's an open question. I mean, no one knows who would take over. Obviously, their system is divided between the Supreme Leader and the
IRGC that responds directly to him, and then you've got these quasi-elected individuals, the ones that wear the suits on television, who are part of
their political branches, but ultimately have to run everything they do by the Supreme Leader.
So, I don't think anyone can give you a simple answer as to what happens next Iran if the Supreme Leader and the regime were to fall, other than the
hope that there would be some ability to have somebody within their systems, that you could work towards a similar transition.
I would imagine it would be even far more complex than the one we're describing now, because you're talking about a regime that's in regime
that's in place for a very long time. So that's going to require a lot of careful thinking if that eventuality ever presents itself.
On the issue of our presence in the region. Here's the baseline I want to set for everybody. The baseline is this, we have 30 to 40,000 American
troops stationed across eight or nine facilities in that region. All are within the reach, theoretically, not theoretically in reality, all are
within the reach of an array of thousands of Iranian, one way -- one way, UAVs and Iranian short term ballistic missiles, short range of ballistic
missiles that threaten our troop presence.
We have to have enough force and power in the region just on a baseline to defend against that possibility. That at some point, as a result of
something, the Iranian regime decides to strike at our troop presence in the region. The president always reserves the preemptive defensive option.
In essence, if we have indications that, in fact, they're going to attack our troops in the region, to defend our personnel in the region. We also
have security agreements, the defense of Israel plan, and others, that requires to have a force posture in the region to defend against that.
And so, I think it's wise and prudent to have a force posture within the region that could respond and potentially, not necessarily what's going to
happen, but, if necessary, preemptively, prevent the attack against thousands of American servicemen and other facilities in the region and our
allies.
I hope it doesn't come to that, but that's, I think what you're seeing now is the ability to posture assets in the region to defend against what could
be an Iranian threat against our personnel. They certainly have the capability to do it, because they've amassed thousands and thousands of
ballistic missiles that they've built despite the fact that their economy is collapsing. They keep spending money on that.
CORNYN: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gentlemen, do I understand that you're yielding to Senator Duckworth? Is that correct?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Well, both of you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Van Hollen, are you going to yield to Senator Duckworth?
HOLLEN: I yield to Senator Duckworth.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, Senator Duckworth.
SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D-IL): I thank my colleagues. My daughter has dental surgery, so they're being very kind, so I can get her through that. Thank
you. Mr. Secretary, last March, the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a notorious wartime law last used for Japanese internment.
He said that he was responding to the Maduro regime's supposed invasion or other acts of war against the United States. But in recent weeks, you the
Department of Justice and our friends across the aisle have repeatedly said that we are not at war with Venezuela.
Secretary Rubio, if that is true, and we are not at war with Venezuela, will you advise the president to rescind his invocation of the wartime
Alien Enemies Act?
RUBIO: Well, that was a mechanism to remove people from our country that prevents grave danger. So, for example, we know for a fact that Tren de
Aragua is a very dangerous gang. In fact, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, I may have been the first member of Congress --
DUCKWORTH: This is a Wartime Act, Mr. Secretary.
RUBIO: Well --
DUCKWORTH: Are we at are we currently at war with Venezuela?
RUBIO: No, we're not in a state of war in Venezuela.
DUCKWORTH: OK. The Supreme Court has described the Alien Enemies Act as a wartime power our Supreme Court. And before now, the Alien Enemies Act was
only invoked during the War of 1812, World War I, World War II, when it was used to intern thousands of innocent civilians. Are you really arguing that
the president should be able to wield an internment law?
RUBIO: No, no, we're talking about two separate things here. So, you're talking about the state of Venezuela, or are describing the regime.
DUCKWORTH: I'm talking about --
RUBIO: No, no, but what the president --
DUCKWORTH: -- president invoked the Alien Enemies Act.
RUBIO: I know Senator. Let me bear with you. No but what president -- the president, was talking about are these gangs that have and these narco
trafficking groups that are waging war on the United States. There's no doubt these groups have waged the war on the United States.
They have, which, for example, Tren de Aragua was not just a criminal gang presence in our street. It is a criminal gang responsible directly
responsible for narco trafficking.
DUCKWORTH: Mr. Secretary the Trump Administration has acknowledged that the vast majority of the men it rounded up and deported to torture under this
law had no criminal records whatsoever.
RUBIO: I --
DUCKWORTH: Independent -- over 75 percent.
RUBIO: Who did we torture? We haven't tortured anybody. We've arrested people that are members of gangs, and we've deported them. We don't want
gang members --
DUCKWORTH: Independent -- have found that many of the men were here legally, if the administration is willing to lie about who it's targeting
under this law, what protections do totally innocent people have against abuse?
END
