Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Rubio Faces Questions in U.S. Senate; Rubio Scheduled to Meet with Venezuelan Opposition Leader Today. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired January 28, 2026 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Live from CNN Abu Dhabi, this is CONNECT THE WORLD.
ELENI GIOKOS, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Welcome to the second hour of the show. I'm Eleni Giokos in Abu Dhabi.
This hour, the Trump administration's actions in Venezuela are in sharp focus on Capitol Hill, with the U.S. top diplomat in the hot seat.
Secretary of state Marco Rubio will testify to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a hearing to, quote, "examine U.S. policy toward Venezuela."
The White House's refusal to consult Congress on its military raid in Caracas earlier this month is a major point of contention. The Senate
narrowly blocked legislation requiring congressional approval for any further military action in Venezuela, with some Republicans voting in favor
of limiting president Trump's powers.
We've got this covered from multiple angles as this hearing gets underway. We've got Stefano Pozzebon in Bogota, Colombia, for us with a view from
Latin America, as well as senior reporter Annie Grayer, joining us from Capitol Hill.
Welcome to both of you.
Annie, I want to start with you.
What details are we expecting today?
ANNIE GRAYER, CNN CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we know secretary Rubio has arrived on Capitol Hill. This hearing is expected to get underway
any moment. And we have his prepared remarks. We have a sense of how the secretary is going to approach this hearing today.
And one thing that we know he's expected to say is that if the -- if Venezuela does not cooperate with the U.S. presence there, that they are
prepared to use military force.
I'm going to read for you a part of secretary Rubio's opening statement, where he says, quote, "We will closely monitor the performance of the
interim authorities as they cooperate with our stage-based plan to restore stability to Venezuela.
"Make no mistake, as the president has stated, we are prepared to use force to ensure maximum cooperation if other methods fail."
Now we also know that Rubio is going to defend this operation and outline that this was not a military operation but rather aiding a law enforcement
effort. And that is the argument that the administration has made for why it did not need to consult or get approval from Congress before this
Venezuela operation.
Now as we know, this was a huge point of tension. Initially, five Republican senators voted to force the War Powers Act as the opposition of
president Trump and his administration.
But through a very public and private pressure campaign, the administration was able to peel back some of those Republican senators. Now secretary
Rubio played a key role in convincing some of those five Republicans that they did not need to vote for the war powers.
And part of that was ensuring that no boots were going to be on the ground in Venezuela. That was a huge sticking point, particularly for Republican
senator Josh Hawley.
And because secretary Rubio was a former senator, he has personal relationships with these Republican lawmakers and was able to convince them
that the war powers resolution was not needed here.
But we are expecting this hearing to go for a long time today. It could get contentious at times and we will be standing by for developments throughout
the day.
GIOKOS: All right.
Stefano, Rubio is also scheduled to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado today. This after his appearance in Capitol Hill.
What are we expecting from this meeting?
STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we expect here is that Maria Corina Machado will press ahead with her campaign and try to convince
secretary Rubio you can't have a stable and open market Venezuela without a full transition to economy (ph).
Let's put it this way. There are two paths that are moving forward in this story right now. The number one is reopening Venezuela to the foreign
investment, to the foreign economy after 25 years of authoritarian rule from Nicolas Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez.
And on the other one is the democracy aspect. So getting back Venezuela into a fully functioning democracy.
So far, the Trump administration has privileged the first one. And indeed, in his remarks, Marco Rubio, will, we understand, speak about the current
interim leader of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, who is -- who used to be the deputy president of the vice president behind Nicolas Maduro.
She is still taking power in Venezuela since that dramatic raid on January the 3rd. And she has so far moved toward opening up the country's economy,
not the civil rights. If you want, it feels like a moment similar to when China joined the WTO, which was when -- well, we're going to become a
capitalist economy.
But we're not going to let the political power slip from our hands.
[10:05:00]
And instead Maria Corina Machado in Washington, since she met with Donald Trump, she has also held other meetings with other members of Congress and
the other diplomats, the Organization of American States.
She will be the one saying to Rubio that you can't have both things at the same time. In order to have a free market and a stable market in Venezuela,
you need to press ahead and finish the job, as she would put it, and push the country toward a full democracy.
So far, the Trump administration has resisted those calls but, at the same time, it's a very fluid situation and we can understand that this story
could move very, very rapidly in a very limited amount of time.
GIOKOS: Absolutely. You're so right on that.
And Annie, we're watching live pictures now from Capitol Hill. We're seeing U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio preparing for his opening statement,
which, of course, we have -- we've read it and we know that he's choosing his words very carefully, specifically saying this wasn't a declaration of
war.
This was specific action to oust Maduro. Take me through this important messaging. And you know, the -- ensuring that he's choosing those words
very carefully because they did not consult -- he did not consult Congress on the plans they had to oust Maduro.
GRAYER: It has been a hard process for the administration to get all Republicans on board with this effort. As I mentioned, with the war powers
vote, with five Republicans voting against this administration, it was a rare rebuke of the president and his administration on this effort here.
So secretary Rubio knows, going into this hearing, that he has to navigate the careful alliance that the administration has built with Republicans
here very delicately.
That there are some skeptical Republicans, even on this Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that want to hear directly from the secretary's mouth
more assurance about no boots on the ground, that there is a plan for how to execute here in Venezuela.
And I think another thing that's going to come up here is the plans for selling oil.
There's a lot of questions in Congress of, is there going to be able to have any congressional oversight here?
Who is going to be benefiting?
How are these deals going to be made?
Because there's still a lot of questions surrounding that. And, of course, that is a big part of the mission for the U.S. in Venezuela
GIOKOS: All right.
Stefano, we also have reporting that Venezuelans are speaking in code out of fear of phone checks.
What is happening in the country following the capture of Maduro?
I mean, a big question whether the regime is pretty much still in place here.
(AUDIO GAP)
GIOKOS: All right, Stefano. All right, we don't have your audio, Stefano. So unfortunately, we're going to have to say goodbye.
Stefano Pozzebon for us, as well as Annie Grayer.
All right. I want to bring in further analysis on this. We've got Christopher Sabatini, who's a senior fellow for Latin America at Chatham
House, joining us now from London.
Christopher, great to have you with us. An important day. We're watching live visuals of Marco Rubio standing by on Capitol Hill. Here's the thing.
And I think this is quite important about the language that Marco Rubio is going to be using in his opening statement.
He didn't, you know, they didn't pass this through Congress. There's a lot of stuff happening with the current interim president. He's meeting with
Machado today.
What do you want to hear today in terms of details about what transpired?
CHRISTOPHER SABATINI, SENIOR FELLOW FOR LATIN AMERICA, CHATHAM HOUSE: I think, first, there needs to be some plan here. And Marco Rubio actually
laid out a plan. He said a three-stage process, which was the clearest articulation we've heard of what is expected to happen.
But there have been no details that followed on that. He talked about stabilization. He talked about then economic recovery and then a transition
to democracy. I think we're seeing to some extent the stabilization.
But that's also coming with the interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, if you will, railing against the United States, claiming she's not going to do the
U.S.' bidding. I assume she has to do that.
But it's not at all the way I think Donald Trump and others anticipated that she would be cooperating. But then in terms of the economic investment
that's going to be necessary to get the Venezuelan economy going, we're beginning to see that trickle in.
But then the third stage, which we have seen no indication of whatsoever, what Marco Rubio is going to be talking about is how then do we get to a
Democratic transition.
And what is the timeline for that and benchmarks for that?
And that's going to be key, because, let's remember, this is a government that was Nicolas Maduro's until he was extracted from Venezuela. It was his
former vice president, now interim president.
They're clearly going to be trying to remain in power and dig in. They are really blood enemies of the opposition leader, Nobel Peace Prize winner,
Maria Corina Machado.
GIOKOS: Yes. I mean and interestingly, Delcy Rodriguez saying on Sunday that she's had enough of Washington's orders.
[10:10:02]
I mean, does this mean that the U.S. miscalculated its ability to secure a more friendly regime?
And, I mean, it's not lost on us that today Rubio is also meeting with Maria Corina Machado, the opposition leader.
SABATINI: I think basically Donald Trump bet on a safer option, which I understand, the intelligence analysis at the time a couple months ago,
even.
But before the extraction of Nicolas Maduro, was that imposing the effective president-elect, given the stolen election in 2024 with Edmundo
Gonzalez Urrutia as well as Maria Corina Machado on the government of Nicolas Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez.
For the last 20 years, have cultivated and used as their own instrument of repression and their own instrument for illicit and illegal activities was
a prescription for chaos.
That was, I think, the correct decision. The question now is how they're going to actually manage Delcy Rodriguez.
The statements that you mentioned, by the way, yes, those are clearly an effort also to appease her base, to not irritate or even have turn against
her some of the elements that remain basically loyal to Maduro that resent the extraction process. So she's got to dance that fine line.
But at the same time, she has to put her money where her mouth is in terms of her discussion with Donald Trump. And that is releasing all the
political prisoners, establishing a credible timeframe for democratic transition and beginning to reform those institutions so that free and fair
elections can take place.
And if you've noticed, that hasn't been on the agenda at all. And that is really what has to be articulated. I imagine that's, what we're referring
to, Machado is going to be talking to Marco Rubio about after his testimony.
GIOKOS: So I mean, one thing that Marco Rubio has been saying, there are no boots on the ground. I think the other question that has come up is
whether the U.S. is going to have a permanent CIA presence in Venezuela.
How is the U.S. going to manage having, you know, hegemony over the Western Hemisphere as a whole, if they don't secure Venezuela?
And I guess that's the underlying plan, one would assume.
SABATINI: That's exactly right. So clearly the U.S. wants to exert its influence over Venezuela, not just for Venezuelans and Venezuela, who have
lived through a horrible tragedy of economic collapse and repression, but also for the rest of the region.
Venezuela is -- has become a huge transnational network for all sorts of illicit activities, from gold mining to money laundering and also networks
of gangs. So there is a real interest in seeing Venezuela secured.
I'm not sure you can do that without boots on the ground. And the threat that Marco Rubio has already made, of trying to do to Delcy effectively
what they did to Nicolas Maduro, isn't really a guarantee. It's also, again, it runs a huge risk of there being chaos that could be generated
because of this.
You know, this is basically trying to run a protectorate from a long -- over distance, long distance protectorate. That's not going to work.
And another type of operation that we saw on January 3rd that removes the president, Rodriguez, I can't imagine that would work. It seems like an
empty threat, quite frankly, because we just simply haven't seen the level of assets and planning in the United States right now that we saw prior to
January 3rd.
So we'll have to see how he's going to make good on that threat. But again, that could also provoke another conflict or chaos that could lead to the
need for U.S. boots on the ground.
GIOKOS: All right. Christopher Sabatini, you're joining us a little later so we can unpack some of the messaging from secretary Marco Rubio.
We have live pictures for you from Capitol Hill. We'll take that as it happens.
In the meantime, ahead on CONNECT THE WORLD, new, exclusive reporting on the shooting of Alex Pretti by ICE agents in Minneapolis. What the
Department of Homeland Security report is saying about the guns used in that fatal encounter.
Plus, what Ecuador is saying after an ICE agent tried to forcibly enter its consulate in Minneapolis. That's all coming up.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:15:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
GIOKOS: There is exclusive CNN reporting today that sheds new light on the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis.
CNN has obtained the Department of Homeland Security's initial report to Congress, which states two agents fired their guns at Pretti during the
encounter, a fact that was unclear even in all the videos from the scene. We'll have more on that story shortly.
Meantime, bipartisan backlash is growing over the response by key White House officials to Pretti's killing. Top White House aide Stephen Miller,
after initially calling Pretti a would-be assassin, now says agents may not have been following proper protocol before the shooting.
One Republican senator is blasting Miller and Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem while offering to -- a pointed message to president Trump. Take
a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Stephen Miller never fails to live up to my expectations of incompetence.
QUESTION: Why do you think he should be fired?
TILLIS: I, you know, I'm going to leave that up to the president. I can tell you, if I were president, neither one of them would be in Washington
right now. If I were in her position, I can't think of any point in pride over the last year.
She's got to make her own decisions. The president does. But she is taking this administration into the ground on an issue that we should own. We
should own the issue of border security and immigration.
But they have destroyed that for Republicans, something that got the president elected. They have destroyed it through their incompetence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GIOKOS: All right. I want to take you live now to Capitol Hill in Washington where the U.S. secretary of state, Marco Rubio, is testifying in
the U.S. Senate on Venezuela. Let's take a listen.
MARCO RUBIO (R-FL), U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: So we can talk about those, including the ones that Senator Shaheen just outlined. But let me just talk
about Venezuela in particular.
SEN. JIM RISCH (R-ID): Please.
RUBIO: I think we can talk, if you want, I'm sure your questions will be about what happened before and led up to in the operation. I want to focus
my comments this morning on what happens now moving forward, because you're going to ask about that going back.
And let me just say this. What is our goal going in?
We had in our hemisphere a regime operated by an indicted narcotrafficker that became a base of operation for virtually every competitor, adversary
and enemy in the world. It was for Iran, the primary spot of operation in the Western Hemisphere was Venezuela.
For Russia, their primary base of operation in the Western Hemisphere along Cuba and Nicaragua was Venezuela. In the case of China, China was receiving
oil at a huge buck (ph), $20 a barrel discount. And it was -- they weren't even paying money for it. It was being used to pay down debt that they were
owed.
This is the oil of the people of Venezuela and it was being given to the Chinese as barter at a 20 percent -- at a $20 discount per barrel in some
cases.
And so you had basically three of our primary opponents in the world operating from our hemisphere from that spot.
It was also a place where you had a narcotrafficking regime that openly cooperated with the FARC and the ELN and other drug trafficking
organizations using their national territory. It was an enormous strategic risk for the United States, not halfway around the world, not in another
continent but in the hemisphere in which we all live.
And it was having dramatic impacts on us but also on Colombia and on the Caribbean basin and all sorts of other places. It was an untenable
situation and it had to be addressed and it was addressed.
And now the question becomes what happens moving forward. As I've described to you in previous settings and an individual conversations, we had three
objectives here.
The final, I'll work it backwards because the end state here is we want a - - we want to reach a phase of transition where we are left with a friendly, stable, prosperous Venezuela and democratic, in which all elements of
society are represented, and free and fair elections.
By the way, you can have elections. You can have elections all day. But if the opposition has no access to the media, if opposition candidates are
routinely dismissed and unable to be on the -- unable to be on the ballot because of the government, those aren't free and fair elections.
That's the end state that we want a free, fair, prosperous and friendly Venezuela.
[10:20:00]
We're not going to get there in three weeks. It's going to take some time. And so objective number one was stability.
In the aftermath of the removal of Maduro, the concern was what happens in Venezuela?
Is there civil war?
Do the different factions start going at each other?
Are a million people crossing the border into Colombia?
All of that has been avoided. And one of the primary ways that it has been avoided is the ability to establish direct, honest, respectful but very
direct and honest conversations with the people, who today control the elements of that nation, meaning the law enforcement, the government
apparatus, et cetera.
And one of the tools that's available to us is the fact that we have sanctions on oil.
There is oil that is sanctioned that cannot move from Venezuela because of our quarantine.
And so what we did is we entered into an arrangement with them and the arrangement is this. On the oil that is sanctioned in quarantine, we will
allow you to move it to market -- we will allow you to move it to market at market prices, not at the discount China was getting.
In return, the funds from that will be deposited into an account that we will have oversight over. And you will spend that money for the benefit of
the Venezuelan people.
Why was that important?
Venezuela was running out of storage capacity, OK?
They were producing oil, they were drilling or they had nowhere to put it. They had nowhere to move it. And they were facing a fiscal crunch. They
needed money in the immediacy to fund the police officer, the sanitation workers, the daily operations of government.
And so we've been able to create a short-term mechanism. This is not going to be the permanent mechanism but this is a short-term mechanism in which
the needs and the Venezuelan people can be met through a process that we've created, where they will submit every month a budget of this is what we
need funded.
We will provide for them at the front end what that money cannot be used for. And they've been very cooperative in this regard.
In fact, they have pledged to use a substantial amount of those funds to purchase medicine and equipment directly from the United States. In fact,
one of the things they need is dilutant or dilutant, depending how you want to pronounce it.
And that basically is the light crude that you need to mix with their heavy crude in order for the oil to be able to be mixed and moved. They're
getting -- they used to get 100 percent of that from Russia. They are now getting 100 percent of that from the United States.
So we're using that short-term mechanism, both to stabilize the country but also to make sure that the oil proceeds that are currently being generated
through the licenses will now begin to issue on the sanctioned oil goes to the benefit of the Venezuelan people, not to fund the system that existed
in the past.
The second is a period of recovery. And that is the phase in which you want to see a normalized oil industry. Again, this is -- look, we've got plenty
of oil. There's plenty of oil all over the world.
Canada produces heavy crude, so it's not like Venezuela's oil is unique in that regard, despite the fact they have the largest known reserves in the
world. It's not irreplaceable but we understand that that is the lifeline. Their natural resources are going to allow Venezuela to be stable and
prosperous moving forward.
And so we have created the -- what we hope to do is transition to a mechanism that allows that to be sold in a normal way a normal oil
industry, not one dominated by cronies, not one dominated by graft and corruption.
To that end, the authorities there deserve some credit. They have passed a new hydrocarbon law that basically eradicates many of the Chavez-era
restrictions on private investment in the oil industry.
It probably doesn't go far enough to attract sufficient investment but it's a big step from where they were three weeks ago. So that's a major change.
We can address some of the other components but I'll run out of time. But one of parts of the transition phase or the recovery phase is beginning to
create space for different voices inside of Venezuelan politics to have an ability to speak out.
Part of that is the release of political prisoners, by some estimates, up to 2,000. They're releasing them. They're releasing them probably slower
than I would like them to but they are releasing them.
And, in fact, you're starting to see some of the people being released beginning to speak out and participate in political life in the country. We
have a long ways to go.
Look, we can talk in more detail about all of these things. Suffice it to say, I'm not here to claim to you this is going to be easy or simple. I am
saying that in 3.5, almost four weeks, we are much further along on this project than we thought we would be, given the complexities of it going
into it.
And I recognize that it won't be easy. I mean, look, at the end day, we are dealing with people over there that have spent most of their lives living
in a gangster paradise.
So it's not going to be like from one day to the next, we're going to have this thing turn around overnight. But I think we're making good and decent
progress. It is the best plan and we are certainly better off today in Venezuela than we were four weeks ago.
And I think and hope and expect that we'll be better off in three months, in six months and nine months than we would've been had Maduro still been
there. So thank you.
RISCH: Well, thank you, secretary Rubio. We'll now do a round of questions five minutes each. I'd like to start and I'd ask you to go -- I understand
we're not in a classified setting.
But I think a lot of people had no understanding of the of the groundwork that was done before the actual action took place. I was incredibly
impressed with what you told me about how you, the president negotiated with parties there on the ground.
[10:25:02]
Particularly the parties who were going to be in charge after Maduro was removed. And I wonder if you could talk about that for a minute,
understanding that we aren't in a classified setting. And I'd like to, if you could say a few things about that.
RUBIO: Well, one of the things I've come to maybe more fully appreciate that I didn't when I was here in the Senate, was the number of
contingencies that the department of war plans for all over the world. The overwhelming vast majority of them will never come to fruition.
But there's all kinds of contingencies that are planned for and one contingency that had to be planned for is the fact that sitting in
Venezuela, with a $50 million reward on his head, was an indicted narcotrafficker. In fact, I believe it's the largest reward we've ever
issued for anybody.
I would remind everybody the Biden administration had a $25 million reward on an unindicted narcotrafficker -- this same person. And so multiple
administrations from both parties have wanted this man arrested.
And one of the options the president had before him was the opportunity, if things didn't work out, to go in and remove this individual because he was
wanted in a law enforcement operation.
Now obviously, a law enforcement operation against the de facto head of, you know, of a regime is not as simple as going after some fugitive hiding
in a closet somewhere. It required planning and it required eliminating anything that was a threat to the forces that were going in to extract him.
I want to be clear and I'll share with you what I've shared publicly. We made multiple attempts to get Maduro to leave voluntarily. And to avoid all
of this, because we understood that he was an impediment to progress. You couldn't make a deal with this guy, OK?
This guy has made multiple deals. He's broken every one of them. As a point of example, he made a deal with the Biden administration and here was the
deal that he made. It was a bad deal. We knew he wouldn't keep it.
He made the following deal. Pardon my nephews, his nephews, who were convicted narcotraffickers, convicted already and serving time in jail,
pardon them. Pardon and release Alex Saab, who was his moneyman, his bag man, primarily in charge of the portfolio with Iran. Release these people.
He in turn agreed to release some political prisoners, which he did. Many of them were subsequently exiled or rearrested. And that he would hold free
and fair elections, which he did not. In fact, he basically disqualified Maria Corina Machado and any other candidate.
And Edmundo Gonzalez ends up being the nominee for the opposition party simply because they forgot to ban him and they forgot to put him on the
banned list. And despite that, he loses an election that everyone around the world recognizes an illegitimate election.
So he's made previous deals. In fact, he's broken so many deals not even the Vatican has been willing to interact with Maduro in the past, because
he's broken so many of these deals. He's just simply not a guy you can make a deal with. He had no intent of keeping it.
What he wanted to do was tap us along and buy three years of time, until he could deal with the new administration that he thought may be more
favorable, et cetera. He was an impediment to progress.
None of the things we're talking about now, not the release of political prisoners, not the transition of the oil industry to a legitimate oil
industry, not the erosion of Iranian, Russian or Chinese influence, none of these things would have been possible as long as Maduro was there.
And so this was one option that was available to the president after exhausting every other option to remove this individual from the scene.
Again, I'm not here to tell you these are all going to be roses along the way and it's all going to go perfectly. But for the first time in 20 years,
we are having serious counternarcotic talks with Venezuelan authorities about going after counter -- narcotics, about going after narcotics
organizations.
For the first time in 20 years, we are having serious conversations about eroding and eliminating the Iranian presence, the Chinese influence, the
Russian presence as well. In fact, I would tell you that there are many elements there in Venezuela that welcome a return to establishing relations
to the United States on multiple fronts.
We are at the end talking about a Western country that has a long history of cooperation and work with the United States. At one time, Venezuela,
Hugo Chavez was a very strong U.S. ally and we hope to get back to that point. We're not there. This thing still is in its infancy but I certainly
think a lot of progress has been made in that regard.
RISCH: I was impressed with your description of the fact how careful you were in the operation not to dismantle either institutions or
infrastructure, because you wanted to see the Venezuelan people take the -- take that over and get back on their feet again.
I think that was really a wise decision to make and have it as surgical as it was. The last thing I'd ask about, if you could touch on for just a
minute, because I know you spent a considerable period of time negotiating with the people that we're going to do day-to-day operations, the
Venezuelans who were going to fill the vacuum.
How is that going?
And how do you feel about where we are there?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, let me understand something. I spent 14 years in the U.S. Senate going after these people pretty hard, along with many of
you. So I mean, I understand who they are and I understand this portfolio from a personal level quite well. So we are very realistic about what we're
dealing with here.
[10:30:00]
We also understand that, in geopolitics sometimes, that's required. And in this particular case, there are an alignment of interests. And we certainly
think that the approach we're taking is preferable to some of the other alternatives that people speculate about or fear.
And I would say, at this point, I do have to characterize, again, being realistic, clear-eyed and understanding that there will be impediments and
unexpected events along the way, what we have found so far is cooperation, respect, dialogue.
And it's not just me, as has been reported in the media. Director Ratcliffe traveled to Caracas and met with leaders there and discussed important
items of potential cooperation.
I've also discussed and I think I've alerted some of you that we have Laura Dogu, who was our ambassador to Nicaragua in the past and to Honduras, will
be taking over the Venezuela (ph) affairs unit, first in Bogota but ultimately in Caracas.
We've had a team on the ground already there. We already had 70 local employees that maintained that facility. But we have a team on the ground
there, assessing it.
And we think very quickly we'll be able to open a U.S. diplomatic presence on the ground, which will allow us to have real-time information and
interact, by the way, not just with officials in the regime and the -- with the interim authorities but also interact with members of civil society,
the opposition.
We think we're going to be much further along when we get them along the way. They've been very cooperative on that front. Obviously there's some
hard asks along the way. We'll see what the response is to those.
But whether it's General Cain with his counterpart or Director Ratcliffe or myself with the -- with Delcy Rodriguez, we've established what I think so
far has been a very respectful and productive line of communication as we go through this stabilization phase and toward the recovery phase.
But there's a lot of work to be done here. And, you know, we ultimately are going to judge actions, not words. And that's what we're hoping to work
toward.
RISCH: Well done.
Senator Shaheen.
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH): Thank you.
I'm pleased that we are looking at a diplomatic presence in Venezuela in the near future. I think that's very important. But the DEA has reportedly
identified Delcy Rodriguez as a significant actor in the drug trade.
Do you agree with that?
And if you do, how are we to assure the American people that the money that's going to Venezuela is not going to any of the cartels or drug
running?
RUBIO: Yes. And that, well, first of all, on the first point, I would say she's not indicted the way Maduro and his wife were. So I'm not going to
speculate about newspaper articles and what law enforcement is working on.
If, in fact, there were such an investigation, I mean, that's something that we would speculate on. Suffice it to say that this was not a normal
system. We all should stipulate to that, OK.
That regime, as everyone understood, was held together by corruption. The glue that kept people together was not loyalty to Maduro. It was the fact
that these five guys had five separate oil fields that were assigned to them. These people --
(CROSSTALK)
SHAHEEN: No, I understand that.
RUBIO: So that's going to be --
SHAHEEN: -- I'm not defending the regime. In fact, I'm concerned that we haven't really changed the regime enough and that America's dollars are
going -- still going to drug runners and to significant organizations, who we don't want to have benefit from the funding that we're selling now of
oil and providing to the Venezuelan --
RUBIO: Look, and I acknowledge that we are dealing with, I told you, with individuals that have been involved in things that in our system would not
be acceptable, would not be acceptable to us in the long term.
By no means is our policy to leave in place something permanent that's as corrupt as you've described. We are in the -- in the transition to
stabilization phase. We are just acknowledging reality. And that is you have to work with the people that are in charge of the elements of
government.
SHAHEEN: OK. But --
RUBIO: Now one of the --
SHAHEEN: -- reassure people that --
RUBIO: Yes. So the way that --
SHAHEEN: -- is not going --
RUBIO: Yes. And so --
SHAHEEN: -- continuing to go to the drug cartels?
RUBIO: Right. So that's the -- that's the process that I outlined to you. So on the sanctioned oil, the oil that requires U.S. permission to move,
that oil, the proceeds of that oil, which, by the way, is being sold at market price, not at the discount Venezuela was being forced to sell.
Is being deposited into an account that ultimately will become a U.S. Treasury-blocked account here in the United States. We will -- they will
submit -- we will, at the front end, say this is what this money can be spent on, on these things.
We will submit to them -- they will submit to us a budget request. We want to use this money for these things. And as part -- and part of the proceeds
will go to fund a audit process, to make sure that that's how the money is being spent. So that's how we intend to handle those funds in the short
term.
SHAHEEN: There's an actual audit process that's been set up?
Who it --
RUBIO: -- will be set up and we have a couple of options. You know, one option is the ex-im bank. They have expertise as bankers and being able to
do some of that option. There may be some others in place. We haven't finalized what that audit process would be. We've only made one payment.
And that payment we did and retrospectively will be audited. But it was important we made that payment because they had to meet payroll. They had
to keep sanitation workers, police officers, government workers on staff. It was a $300 million --
SHAHEEN: Right. So it's been reported that the oil sold for $500 million, that $300 million went to Venezuelan government.
What happened to the other $200 million?
[10:35:00]
RUBIO: It's still sitting in the account, is my understanding at this time.
SHAHEEN: The account in Qatar?
RUBIO: Well, the account, yes. But that will ultimately be -- that's a short-term account. Ultimately, it will be a U.S. Treasury-blocked account
in the United States.
SHAHEEN: And will it also be audited?
RUBIO: Correct.
Well, the audit will be on the expenditures. At the front end, we'll tell them this is what the money can be spent on. Again, I'm not talking about
all the other revenues the Venezuelan government may have.
We're talking about the revenues from the sanctioned oil. At the front end we will say this is what the allowable expenses are. And then they will
agree to fund, as part of the overall cost they will pay for, and fund an audit system acceptable to us, to ensure that that's how the money was
spent.
SHAHEEN: And can you report to this committee once that audit system is set up?
RUBIO: Oh, absolutely. Yes.
SHAHEEN: I'd like to change the topic in my short time that I have left, because when you were a member of this committee, you authored legislation
to prevent president Trump from unilaterally leaving NATO, you and Senator Kaine.
Do you still believe that the U.S. benefits from NATO?
RUBIO: We do. I mean, the problem -- but NATO needs to be reimagined as well in terms of the obligations. And this is not new to this president.
Multiple presidents have complained about it. I think this president just complains about it louder than other presidents.
SHAHEEN: Well, I'm just trying to be clear, get a clear answer on where this administration stands relative to NATO, because it's been a very fuzzy
message over the last year.
And do you agree that we're stronger in confronting China when we do so with like-minded partners and that China is still the number one threat
that we face in the United States?
RUBIO: Yes. But our like minded partners have to have capability. And that's been part of the problem is the erosion in European defense
capabilities, because they've taken vast amount of the monies that these are rich countries.
And because of the NATO umbrella, it gave them the flexibility to spend a tremendous amount of their revenues on social programs and not on defense.
Now maybe that trend line will begin to change.
SHAHEEN: Well, it's already begun to change, frankly. And thanks. And I think the president deserves credit for that, for the fact that there is
now a commitment for 5 percent of GDP to be spent on defense.
But part of that strength also comes not just from having the mechanism, the military might, but it also comes from the unity with our allies.
And to the extent to which that unity is undermined, like the talk about Greenland and antagonizing Denmark, then it undermines NATO's ability. And
the only people who are excited about that are Vladimir Putin and president Xi.
RUBIO: Yes. Well, I would say that I think our alliances in NATO ultimately are something that's going to work out. Our partners understand
the importance of the U.S. presence in NATO. Without the U.S. there is no NATO.
And we understand that, in order for NATO to be stronger, our partners need to be stronger. And one of the things we've explained to our -- to our
allies in NATO is the United States is not simply focused on Europe. We also have defense needs in the Western Hemisphere.
We have defense needs in the Indo-Pacific and it will require us -- we may be the richest country in the world but we don't have unlimited resources.
And as we reassign --
SHAHEEN: Exactly why we want to have allies and partners to help us, as we're looking at conflicts around the world. And when we antagonize our
allies and partners and when we send Canada to do a trade deal with China instead of coming to New Hampshire or the United States, it weakens our
ability to confront our adversaries.
RUBIO: Yes. But our allies have to be two things. They have to be willing to step up but they also have to be capable of stepping up. And frankly,
many of them have not. I mean, Spain is still not doing the 5 percent. I mean, there are countries that are still not doing.
And in fact, Mark Rutte yesterday pointed out that, without the United States, the countries of Europe would have to spend 10 percent of their GDP
for the next 20 years to be able to make up the hole.
So I do think there needs to be a rebalancing and hopefully we'll have cooperation. I think we will. Rutte is a has done a great job of managing
that.
SHAHEEN: And I'm not arguing that point with you. As I said, I agree with what the president has asked of our European allies. What I'm arguing with
you about is that his rhetoric is undermining NATO and our partnerships with our allies and that's a problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
RISCH: Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Ricketts.
SEN. PETE RICKETTS (R-NB): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. -- Secretary Rubio, for being here. So some of the comments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are difficult to square
with the record. The goalpost didn't move, nor did Maduro change.
The only thing that changed was president Trump acted on what members of both parties said needed to be happened, needed to happen and did so, by
the way, with an operation that will go down in history as one of the most impressive and tactically proficient to be ever carried out.
So secretary Rubio, I'd like to get your response to a few yes-or-no questions. I know that's typically not your nature but please bear with me
here a moment.
RUBIO: OK. All right. Let's hear them first.
(LAUGHTER)
RUBIO: I hate game shows.
Go ahead.
RICKETTS: For years, the United States had a standing bounty on Nicolas Maduro. Correct?
RUBIO: Have what?
I'm sorry.
RICKETTS: A standing bounty on Nicolas Maduro.
RUBIO: Oh, yes.
RICKETTS: And this bounty was increased by both the Biden and Trump administrations. Correct?
RUBIO: Correct.
RICKETTS: And despite that bounty, did Maduro remain in power?
[10:40:00]
RUBIO: Yes.
RICKETTS: Did he continue to support drug traffickers?
RUBIO: Oh, yes.
RICKETTS: Was the operation -- was Operation Absolute Resolve a law enforcement operation supported by the military?
RUBIO: It was.
RICKETTS: Did that operation successfully remove Maduro and his wife and they were taken into custody?
RUBIO: Yes. Great questions.
RICKETTS: Thanks.
(LAUGHTER)
RICKETTS: Were any service members, law enforcement officers killed in that operation?
RUBIO: No.
RICKETTS: Had --
RUBIO: Not any of ours. None of ours, right.
RICKETTS: Has there largely been a broad support across Latin America for Maduro's removal?
RUBIO: Yes.
RICKETTS: And is the United States better off with Nicolas Maduro in custody?
RUBIO: Yes. And Venezuela, too.
RICKETTS: Right.
I realize that you'll hear differing views during this hearing but I want to at least offer my personal congratulations to you and everybody who
helped carry this out, because the world is better off without Nicolas Maduro.
A few weeks ago, you briefed the Senate on your three-phase plan. You've been talking about it here today, on stabilization, recovery and the
transition in Venezuela.
Is there anything this Congress can do to be helpful in executing on that plan?
RUBIO: There will be, in time, there's no doubt about it. On the stabilization front, you know, in order to stabilize it, for example, we're
going to have to begin to provide some licenses through OFAC.
So as an example, if a company wants to go down and explore the opportunity to do some economic activity in Venezuela, they will require a license from
Treasury to be able to do that. And so that doesn't require congressional action.
But I wanted you to be aware of it when you start to see some of these things. Some of these are just exploratory.
The second is, I think, in time, look, Venezuela is a very wealthy country. This is not a country that's going to require money from the United States
to rebuild, to stabilize, to transition. It really isn't. It has the ability to be and it has been historically the wealthiest country in the
Western Hemisphere, in Latin and South America in many cases.
The problem is that the wealth of the country was being stolen. And so part of the -- both the recovery and the transition phase is ensuring that you
leave in place a prosperous, free, democratic, allied with the United States and friendly but also prosperous Venezuela, where the resources of
the country are being done responsibly.
Are being utilized responsibly and to the benefit of the people and their economy. So in time, you know, I imagine we will be coming back to you with
specific legislation that may be required to assist in that function.
But we don't expect that this is going to require any spending on our part. On the contrary, unlike many of the other parts of the world, we've gotten
involved. Venezuela is -- we're not spending any money in Venezuela right now, other than whatever it costs to stand up our embassy.
RICKETTS: Let me switch gears a little bit. One of the common criticisms after Maduro's capture was that this would incentivize Communist China to
take similar actions in Taiwan. My opinion, this couldn't be further from the truth.
For starters, Communist China doesn't care about international law or norms. They've demonstrated that repeatedly. Just ask the Philippines. Nor
does it believe an international law even applies to Taiwan.
But most importantly, Xi Jinping's calculus on whether to take kinetic action against Taiwan rests solely on whether or not he believes he will be
successful or not.
In this sense, the tactical proficiency displayed during Operation Absolute Resolve may have actually given Xi more pause to take than -- in taking
action in Taiwan, because, despite its massive military buildup, the PLA continues to lack the experience so clearly on display that the United
States demonstrated in Maduro's capture.
And the PLA leaders that do have combat experience, like general Jiang, just got purged -- or at least one of them did.
So secretary Rubio, do you believe that operation, the operation to take Maduro into custody, will have any impact on Communist China's actions or
intentions toward Taiwan?
RUBIO: No. Look, the situation on Taiwan is a geolegacy (ph) project that he's made very clear that that's what he intends to do. And that's going to
be irrespective of anything that happens in the world.
Your point, though, is well taken and that is the U.S., in conducting this operation, I think, was certainly startling to China, to Russia, to Iran,
to any adversary around the world, because the U.S. is the only country in the world, the only country in the world that could have done this
operation.
RICKETTS: Mr. Chairman, if I could just real briefly, just -- and I just mentioned General Jiang getting purged here. He was obviously a very
important official in China.
Can you share with just your assessment on what that means, that Xi just purged one of these?
RUBIO: Well, this is, I think, part of a pattern we've seen over the last few years, which is a purge of leaders in their military. They're spending
a lot of money on their military. And obviously, some of these guys are stealing that money. And they're trying to address that.
So it's an issue internally in their system. They're obviously not sharing with us or talking to us in depth about any of that. But it's certainly
something we watch with interest.
RICKETTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
RISCH: Thank you, Senator Ricketts.
Senator Coons.
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Secretary Rubio, good to be with you again.
My basic question is, what are we doing here?
What is the point?
What is the goal of this hearing?
As you know well, having served on this dais alongside me for 14 years, this is an oversight hearing.
[10:45:02]
And the point, the purpose of oversight is to encourage, if necessary, to compel consultation between the administration and Congress.
And I just wanted to raise with you, at the outset, of course, the commander in chief has, under Article II, the power to defend the American
people against an imminent threat or an incoming attack.
How else could we be kept safe?
But our Article I power requires consultation. I'll agree with all of my colleagues, Nicolas Maduro is a bad guy. He was indicted. There was a
bounty on his head over several administrations. His removal flawlessly executed by American troops. Thankfully, none of them hurt.
Did cost the lives of 75 to 100 Venezuelans and Cubans, was a dangerous and high-risk maneuver. I am glad that it ended as well as it possibly could.
But the point here that I want to make first is that it was rehearsed for months. The administration had a number of contingencies it was trying to
navigate through.
But over the course of months, when the administration was taking strike after strike after strike against drug trafficking boats, in several
instances where senior leaders of the administration briefed this committee and others, we were told that military action to remove Maduro was not on
the table.
That the campaign to try and deter drug trafficking was not going to include the military action that followed. Yet it was being rehearsed. If
there was time to practice, there was time to consult. And consulting with Congress is not just some high-minded principle, not some abstract thing,
not a nice-to-have. It's a got-to-have.
And look, the chairman opened by saying that this was limited in scope and duration, that it was executed flawlessly and we should all be happy about
the result. That much I agree with.
But our president continues to threaten Delcy Rodriguez and the remnant of the Maduro regime with military force if they don't comply.
We should know, what are the policies, what is the path?
What is the plan forward?
You and I both know the long and painful history of wars that began and seemed to be resolved and then opened up into excruciating, expensive,
years-long conflicts, in Iraq, in particular, in Libya and elsewhere. Things do not always go as planned.
And so consultation with Congress that is truthful and forthcoming and transparent is critical in your service in this body. You knew that. You
experienced it. I was in the room as you held to account members of previous administrations for not coming forward as they should have.
So look, in order to avoid our men and women in our armed forces going into harm's way, doubting whether they have the support of the Congress,
consultation hearings and deliberations are required.
I understand the risk of leaks. That's a risk every administration takes. But at the end of the day, our framers entrusted the power of the
declaration of war to this body, not to the executive. And where there is the time to consult, there has to be consultation.
Second, I just wanted to talk about allies and alliances. I was just in Europe. I led a bipartisan delegation, as Senator Shaheen referenced, to
Denmark. And our president's comments about NATO, about Denmark and his attempts to coerce Denmark into giving up Greenland, are appalling. They
profoundly harmed our security.
And I am asking you to do everything you can to reinforce our commitment to NATO. I was concerned that you just said NATO needs to be reimagined. Let's
just be clear about the record.
You know as well as I, Article V has only been invoked once and it was in defense of us after we were attacked. Danes and soldiers from almost every
other NATO ally deployed and served, fought and died, 52 Danes.
And for me, the most emotional moment of my visit to Denmark was laying a wreath at the memorial to the Danes who served, fought and died alongside
Americans.
So when our president says we never asked for anything from NATO and they never gave us anything and you suggest that they aren't carrying their
weight, whether it's in bases or in access or in troops or in service, it is allies that will keep us safe in the Indo-Pacific.
Our treaty allies, Korea and Japan and Australia and the Philippines, are going to be critical to Indo-Pacific security against our principal threat,
China, and in Europe. I'm worried that the very foundations of trust are being shaken.
Our democracy depends on consultation with Congress that is truthful and timely. And the confidence of our allies depends on them knowing where
we're going next.
[10:50:03]
Today, an armada is steaming toward Iran. Our president is on social media, threatening Iran. And I hope I can count on you, Mr. Secretary, to consult
with us and inform us, before our next actions, whether against Nigeria, Colombia, Cuba, Iran or anywhere else.
And I hope and believe that I can count on you to reinforce the sanctity of NATO, not to reimagine it but to reinforce it.
RUBIO: Thank you.
Well, let me unpack the three points you touched upon, consultation, NATO, Greenland, alliances in Greenland. Let me tell you the consultation. Look,
this has been a point of tension, not just in this administration, in Congress, but in multiple administrations.
As you rightly pointed out, I was a big fan of consultation when I was sitting over there. Now you know, it's a different job, different time. But
that's not necessarily the point. This is a very unique situation that we faced here.
The fact of the matter is that our mission and the one you were briefed on and talked about, that mission remains ongoing. And that is the
counternarcotics mission that we continue to carry out in the -- as controversial as it may be, you may not all be fans of it, obviously.
But it is happening in the eastern Pacific and it is also happening in the Caribbean Basin. The problem is -- or the good news is, there aren't a lot
of drug boats moving in the Caribbean Basin anymore. And that's what we had briefed Congress upon.
This specific mission that you've talked about, one of the reasons why you rehearse this is to see if it's even feasible, to basically go to the
president and say, is this something that's even an option on the table?
The truth of the matter is that this not -- this mission could not have been briefed to Congress because it wasn't even in the realm of possible
until very late in December, when all of our efforts to negotiate with Maduro had failed. And the president was finally presented these options to
make these decisions.
It was also a trigger-based operation. It may never have happened. It required a number of factors to all align at the right place, at the right
time, in a very limited window and it wasn't even clear if it was ever going to be possible.
There's also the aspect which I do not control and that is deference to the department of war on operational security. Despite the fact that we had
kept this quite constrained, the truth of the matter is that this was leaked.
We now know it was leaked by a contractor at the department of war, that, had it been published, would have endangered the lives of people and/or
would have probably canceled the ability to carry out the mission.
So this is a real tension and one that I'm doing the best I can to try to manage within the constraints of two things, operational security and also
decisions being made.
We have -- I -- there are multiple contingencies for events all over the world, including some that none of us think were ever going to come to
fruition. And in this particular case, one of the reasons why you rehearse these things in advance is to know whether it's even possible.
Is this even doable and what are the risks associated with doing, so you can present options to the president, who ultimately makes these decisions.
In the case of reimagining NATO, it most certainly has to be reimagined. And the reason why it has to be reimagined is not because its purpose is
reimagined. Its capabilities have to be reimagined.
Let me give you, as a point of example, there's a lot of talk about security guarantees and it's something that there's general agreement about
now with the case of Ukraine. But those security guarantees basically involve the deployment of a handful of European troops, primarily French,
in the U.K. and then a U.S. backstop.
But in fact, the security guarantee is the U.S. backstop. It is not the -- and I'm not diminishing the fact that some countries in Europe are willing
to place troops in a postwar Ukraine.
What I'm pointing out is that is irrelevant without the U.S. backstop. And so -- and the reason why you need such a strong U.S. backstop is because
our allies and our partners have not invested enough in their own defense capabilities over the last 20 or 30 years.
Now hopefully that's going to change. Hopefully that is changing. And in some cases and in some particular countries, it's already changed. But this
is a fact that we cannot ignore.
NATO is going to be stronger if our allies are more capable, especially -- and here's the reality, whether we want to accept it or not. We have
interests all over the world. We have interests in the Middle East. We have interests in the Western Hemisphere and we most certainly have interests in
the Indo-Pacific.
A number of you have already pointed out that China is the chief challenge. We can't have the same soldiers or the same ships in both Europe and in the
Indo-Pacific. We have to pick, no matter how many ships we build, no matter how many capabilities we grow, we're going to have to make these
adjustments.
And the stronger our partners are in NATO, the more flexibility the United States will have to secure our interests in different parts of the world.
That's not an abandonment of NATO. That is a reality of the 21st century and a world that's changing.
Now in the case of Greenland, I'll say we're in a good place right now. We had excellent meetings with the general secretary of -- secretary general
of NATO. In fact, even as I speak to you now, there'll be some technical level meetings between us and our partners in Greenland and Denmark on this
issue.
And I think we have in place a process that's going to bring us to a good outcome for everybody. The president's interest on Greenland has been
clear. It's a national security interest. It's a longstanding interest that predates this administration. It's one that our allies acknowledge is real.
I think we're going to get something positive done.
We're going to begin that process in a very professional, straightforward way. It begins today. And it will be a regular process. We're going to try
to do it in a way that isn't like a media circus every time these conversations happen.
[10:55:03]
Because we think that creates more flexibility on both sides to arrive at a positive outcome. And I think we're going to get there. And I thought it
was noteworthy and important that, despite your concerns, the president at his speech in Davos made very clear that the United States was not going to
use force or military force in Greenland.
So I think we're going to wind up in a good place. We got a little bit of work to do but I think we're going to wind up in a good place. And I think
you'll hear the same from our colleagues in Europe very shortly.
COONS: Mr. Secretary, the Gang of Eight has never leaked.
RUBIO: Senator --
COONS: It is critical that you consult with Congress. For us to be safe, our allies have to trust us. And for this committee to do our work, we have
to trust you. Thank you. We have to work together to restore that.
RISCH: Thank you, Senator.
Senator McCormick.
SEN. DAVE MCCORMICK (R-PA): Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
Defending American interests in the face of Russian, Iranian and Chinese encroachment in the Western Hemisphere is a key to the Trump corollary of
the Monroe Doctrine. But Venezuela's new interim leader, in her public commentary, at least, defends their ties to Russia, Iran and the PRC and
had said, this week, had enough of U.S. interference.
So beyond the oil leverage, which you talked about in your testimony, what steps is the administration taking to demand from the interim government,
to put incentives in place, to ensure that they prevent malign actors, foreign terror organizations and so forth, from continuing to have
influence and safe haven in Venezuela?
RUBIO: Yes. It's true. I mean, yes, there's leverage. And I wouldn't just say, well, I think anything that's sanctioned in Venezuela, in order for
them to normalize it, will require cooperation with the United States.
But it's not just leverage. It's also their national interest. It's an alignment of their interests. The truth of the matter is that the United
States will be a far better partner for a future Venezuelan government that's free and democratic and even for the current authorities than some
of the partners they've signed up with now.
Frankly, I -- we think it's not in Venezuela's interests to have an Iranian presence or the sale of Iranian weaponry or anything like that into their
country. So I think there's alignment there. We think and can argue that, some of these criminal elements, which they've allowed to act with impunity
in parts of their country, is a deal with the devil.
In the short term, it provided revenues to some corrupt regime officials but in the long term has created real destabilization not for just them, by
the way but also for Colombia.
Let's understand something, the FARC dissidents and the ELN operate with impunity from Venezuelan territory. They control Venezuelan territory. And
some of that was through deals with individuals aligned with the regime because they made money off of that.
But we don't think that's in the long-term interest.
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIO: And what's been expressed to us by leaders of the interim authorities is that they agree. And now we're going --
(CROSSTALK)
MCCORMICK: -- the public commentary, there's the recognition, you think, in progress?
RUBIO: Look, we all have politics.
MCCORMICK: Yes.
RUBIO: Even in places like that. Suffice it to say, what I've said from the very beginning and that is we are going to judge based on actions, not
words. And that's going both ways.
You can tell us you're going to do all these great things, if you don't do them, you didn't do them. Or you can say, I'm not going to do these great
things but if you do them, you did them.
MCCORMICK: Good.
RUBIO: And I think we've made -- I think we can point to some things now that show you, just as an example, think about it. Within 2.5 weeks of
Maduro's removal, they passed reforms to their hydrocarbon laws, which basically roll back many of the Chavez era restrictions on private
ownership and investment in their country.
It doesn't go far enough. It probably needs to do more. But that's extraordinary. That never would have happened two or three weeks ago. It
certainly wouldn't have happened is Maduro was still there. So I think these are signs of progress.
Do they still have political prisoners?
They do. But many are increasingly being released every single day and some are actually being released and beginning to speak out again. And we're
going to watch very closely how they're treated and how that happens, because that will be part of how we judge them and their actions.
MCCORMICK: You touched on my -- on my second question, which is this long history of a very sordid history for outside investors coming into
Venezuela. And the president and you had a meeting with our energy leaders in the Oval Office to talk about the opportunity to invest.
And there was worries about the safety of investing.
What steps beyond what you just described in terms of the hydrocarbon law, security guarantees for workers, any sorts of uncertainty that investors
are gaining, which is going to allow them to have the confidence to move on the opportunities in Venezuela?
RUBIO: Yes. I mean, the first step is some of these investors or potential investors need to get a license from OFAC to be able to even explore this.
Then they need to be able to go down there and meet with people and see what's happening and make that determination.
Here's what I would say. Venezuela has a lot of oil. They do. But there's a lot of oil in other places, too. Companies are only going to invest
somewhere if they know we're going to invest. We're going to make our money back with a profit and our land isn't going to be taken from us.
And if you tried to, there's a court we can go to and contracts we can enforce. That's the level of certainty that we're talking about in terms of
security.
And that's what that's part of this transition process, that's part of this recovery process, is to normalize their industry, because, if not, they'll
just invest the money in Guyana or they'll just invest the money in some other part of the world that has oil. They're not going to risk it.
So it's to their benefit to have set up a normal, transparent process that encourages foreign investment, not just in oil, by the way --
END
