[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 21, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S673-S681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate shall proceed to executive session to consider the following
nomination which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Hillary Rodham
Clinton, of New York, to be Secretary of State.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 3 hours of debate equally divided and controlled between the
leaders or their designees.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign
Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of the
following nomination: Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York to be
Secretary of State.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that if
there
[[Page S674]]
are quorum calls to be placed during the course of this equally divided
time, those quorum calls will be charged equally to both sides.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, yesterday--a historic day--we swore in a
new President who has the vigor and the vision to restore America's
place in the world. I think we would all agree that yesterday he made
very inspiring and bold statements about America and how we will invite
the world to join us in the efforts to restore our values, in a sense,
to the center stage of that debate, but also to join in a renewed
effort to find peace and end conflict. I thought his words,
particularly to the Muslim world, were very important. We hope,
obviously, to be able to move on those initiatives as rapidly as
possible. Already, the new administration is taking crucial, long-
awaited steps to embark on a new era of moral leadership and global
outreach.
It is an understatement to say these are challenging times. We are
fighting two wars and the threat of terrorism, as we all know, is as
strong as ever. As the President said, we labor under gathering clouds
and raging storms of the severest economic crisis of our lifetime. At
such a moment, it is essential that we provide the President with the
tools and the resources he needs to effect change. That starts by
making sure he has the national security team he has chosen in place as
soon as possible. Even this afternoon, the President will follow
through on promises he has made to sit down on day one with his
national security team, particularly with the military leadership, in
order to talk about Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the wars we are
involved in. That team includes Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
I think everyone can agree that at her confirmation hearing,
Secretary-designate Hillary Clinton demonstrated an impressive grasp of
the numerous complex foreign policy issues we face and she demonstrated
why she is going to make such an effective Secretary of State. She has
the stature to project America's leadership globally and to help build
alliances at home and abroad. That is going to be vital to our success
in the years ahead.
Now, I understand the concerns that were raised about fundraising
activities of the Clinton Foundation. Let me start by saying that
Secretary-designate Clinton and former President Clinton have
voluntarily entered into an ethics review and disclosure process with
respect to donations to former President Clinton's foundation that goes
well beyond any requirements under the law or any applicable ethics
regulations. This is an unprecedented situation none of us can contest,
nor would we. There is no existing blueprint on which to draw here.
Secretary-designate Clinton and former President Clinton have gone to
considerable lengths to create a new review process tailored to these
particular circumstances.
Senator Lugar, myself, and others on the Foreign Relations Committee
expressed our own concerns about aspects of this new arrangement. We
went through a thorough review of the relevant agreements that Senator
Clinton and former President Clinton have entered into. We submitted
numerous questions for the record, and they were very direct and blunt
questions. We examined this issue extensively in the lead-up to Senator
Clinton's nomination hearing, and then again at the hearing itself.
Senator Lugar at quite some length expressed why he saw some issues
here and expressed some concerns, but at the same time could not have
been more clear about his support--enthusiastic support--for Senator
Clinton assuming these responsibilities. The conclusion we reached was
whatever the concerns some in this body may have--and we don't contest
the legitimacy of believing that, as Senator Lugar said, perhaps going
further would have cleared some of the questions that still exist--but
that doesn't mean that on the other side there is an automatic--that
there is a problem. So in essence, none of these questions call into
question at all Senator Clinton's fitness, readiness, and
appropriateness in serving as Secretary of State. Senator Lugar, in his
very clearly stated view with respect to this issue, offered a series
of well-thought-out additional proposals, and he made clear that
notwithstanding those proposals--which in his heart and in his mind he
felt would have simply made this much clearer--he nevertheless was
clear about his intention, without those being put in place, that he
felt it was important that Senator Clinton be confirmed. It is
noteworthy that after a very lengthy discussion about review and
disclosure and after the full consideration by the committee itself,
the Foreign Relations Committee passed her nomination out and brought
it here to the floor by a vote of 16 to 1.
Now, as we think about this issue, for anybody who is not yet decided
about what they may or may not do, context is very important. The
Clinton Foundation does extraordinary, worthwhile, lifesaving work in
areas such as HIV/AIDS, global climate change, and economic development
in some of the most impoverished corners of this planet. It is
important to remember that the Clintons do not in any way personally
benefit financially from the actions of the foundation. So there is
none of the sort of traditional notion of financial conflict of
interest. It doesn't exist because there is no personal financial
interest by either of them. Moreover, according to Secretary-designate
Clinton, all donations to the Clinton Foundation, including donations
to the Clinton Global Initiative, will be disclosed publicly. So
nothing relevant to the measurement of a potential conflict is being
withheld from the public. Transparency is critically important here,
obviously, because it allows the American people, the media, and those
of us here in Congress with an oversight responsibility to be able to
judge for ourselves that no conflicts, real or apparent, exist.
Senator Clinton was also very clear personally at the hearing and in
her answers to the questions for the record in saying that she fully
understands her obligation and her interest in avoiding any kind of
unwelcome distraction. I take her at her word. I hope the rest of our
colleagues will do so also.
I understand that Senator Lugar and some others have requested that
large donations from foreign entities ought to be disclosed more
frequently than the once-a-year requirement outlined in the agreement.
I happen to agree that that would have been preferable, but the bottom
line is that the desired deterrent effect still exists, and the bottom
line is the public will still know, albeit in a different time frame,
but it will know what the situation is. Furthermore, all contributions
by foreign governments will be subject to a review process by the State
Department's ethics officials. This review will occur prior to the
receipt of any such contribution, and Senator Clinton has made it clear
that the process has been designed to avoid even the appearance of a
conflict of interest. As all of us know, the appearance of a conflict
under the law is always as critical as the reality of a conflict. It
stands at the same level of scrutiny and, therefore, I think her
statement is a very important one.
It is important to note that the pledges for future contributions by
foreign governments will also be subject to this same review process.
That was an issue of particular interest to me and some other members
of the committee, and I appreciate the willingness of Secretary-
designate Clinton and the foundation to address the issues during the
discussions we had over the memorandum of understanding leading up to
the hearing. Again, I and others preferred that those pledges might
have also been subject to disclosure requirements. Still, we take
comfort in the fact that they are going to be subject to the ethics
review process and subject also, frankly, to the stated interest
Senator Clinton expressed before the committee of avoiding any kind of
conflict or perception issue, and I am confident she is going to bend
over backward to try to make sure that happens.
So, in the end, I fully respect the questions that have been raised.
I acknowledge that some members of the committee felt that perhaps the
final product could have expressed more, but the final product is not
contained entirely within the framework of the four corners of the
agreement. It is contained in the framework of the hearings and it is
contained also in the expressions made publicly by Senator
[[Page S675]]
Clinton about what she intends to do as a matter of personal oversight
in this effort to live up to the standards that have been expressed.
So I am confident that significant and sufficient checks and balances
exist and that we should proceed forward and overwhelmingly--I hope
unanimously but certainly overwhelmingly--confirm Senator Clinton. She
needs to assume these responsibilities and begin serving the country as
our Secretary of State. And while the Senate ponders the ethical
implications of Senator Clinton's charitable work and President
Clinton's charitable work, we need to remember that the world is moving
at a fast pace. There isn't time to delay American engagement in
ongoing crises. Gaza is waiting, the Middle East is waiting, Pakistan,
Afghanistan, and a host of other issues, and our Secretary of State
needs to be in place and empowered to engage in discussions that have
been waiting all these months and weeks now, where President Obama has
made so clear that we only have one President at a time. Well, now we
have that President and that President needs and deserves his security
team.
So I hope my colleagues will join me in appreciating the larger
importance of this moment, put aside those concerns with an
appropriate, obvious sort of further expression of them but move
forward to allow President Obama and his Secretary of State to confront
the multiple crises and challenges that are going to be the measure of
our achievement as a country and as a Senate and Congress over the
course of the next few years.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I find I
agree with virtually all of them, so I wish to make clear at the outset
that this is an opportunity for us, over the next few hours, to talk
about what ought to be our goal and that is to confirm a new Secretary
of State who will be able to do the Nation's work and be able to avoid
any perceived conflict of interest as a result of the fundraising by
her husband's foundation.
I appreciate particularly the good-faith acknowledgement of the
concerns of the Senator from Massachusetts. They were also expressed by
Senator Lugar. I think the concerns were acknowledged by both the
Clinton Foundation and by Senator Clinton herself in entering into a
memorandum of understanding with the transition team of the now
President Obama administration.
I know we all realize this, but it is important to say again that
yesterday was a historic day, with the inauguration of the 44th
President of the United States. Among the many things President Obama
said, and that I agree with, I was particularly glad to hear him say we
should do our business in the light of day because only then can we
restore the vital trust between the people and their Government. I am
someone who has long believed that our Government is too opaque to most
of the people we work for, and as an advocate of open government, I
agree with him 1,000 percent. I pledge to him and to my colleagues
across the aisle that if there are things we can do, such as working
together, as Senator Leahy and I have on Freedom of Information Act
reform, to improve the openness and transparency of our Government, we
ought to be all about that. As we know, the foundation of our
legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed--the people of this
country. If they do not know what their Government is doing or if
certain things are hidden from their view, they cannot consent, and
they operate in a less-than-legitimate way.
I wish President Obama and his administration well. His success will
mean America's success. But if we are going to restore trust between
the American people and their Government, we need to be careful that
the reality matches the rhetoric. My concern is not whether our
colleague, Senator Clinton, is qualified to be Secretary of State--she
is, and I intend to vote for her confirmation--but I believe it is very
important to flesh out some of the concerns that have been raised,
legitimately, by Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, and others that I think
bear some public discussion and some debate in the Senate.
I argued to Senator Clinton yesterday--or I didn't argue to her, but
I explained my position to her; that I thought greater transparency
would make it better for her as she enters this new job as Secretary of
State because any cloud or question that remains because of the lack of
transparency or lack of disclosure I think hurts her and hurts the
Obama administration at a time when we want to see it succeed. Of
course, the concern is that, as she explained to me, any rule we have
should not just apply to her and the former President, and I told her
that is fine with me; that we would be glad to work together to try to
come up with something that would make this kind of disclosure across
the board.
I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts, having a former
President of the United States running a foundation such as this and to
have his spouse as Secretary of State is an unusual and perhaps
unprecedented event, giving rise to these unusual and unprecedented
concerns. But many taxpayers make frequent disclosures to the
Government on a monthly or quarterly basis. I don't see why the Clinton
Foundation could not do so on a more frequent basis, as suggested by
Senator Lugar, the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee. I
don't see any particular hardship for her--or, excuse me, for the
foundation--to do something that taxpayers are required to do
regularly--file monthly or quarterly reports. And, of course, all of us
who run for office are familiar with the fact we have to file campaign
finance reports so the public can know who is contributing to our
campaigns and be attuned to any concerns that may arise.
I wish to be clear that my concerns are not with the charitable
activities of the Clinton Foundation, which I and others admire. But we
should not let our respect for Senator Clinton or our admiration for
the many good works of the Clinton Foundation blind us to the danger of
perceived conflicts of interest caused by the solicitation of hundreds
of millions of dollars from foreign and some domestic sources. The
perception and reality must be that the office of the Secretary of
State, as viewed around the world, is beyond reproach.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an article from the New York Times, dated December 19, 2008,
immediately following my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CORNYN. The title of that article is: ``In Clinton List, a Veil
Is Lifted on Foundation.''
As many of our colleagues know, when this memorandum of understanding
was entered into, for the first time the Clinton Foundation revealed
the source of its some $500 million worth of contributions over the
last 10 years. Many of them were unremarkable, but some of them were
troubling, raising the very issue we are discussing today--
contributions from foreign nations, for example, from the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia directly to the foundation. Clearly, Senator Clinton, as
Secretary of State, as our chief diplomat, is going to be dealing with
the country and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of the Clinton Foundation's select foreign sources of
contributions following my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, that list includes the State of Kuwait,
the State of Qatar, and various foreign individuals.
In the article I mentioned a moment ago from the New York Times,
there is just one example of the perception of conflict of interest
that I think ought to give all of us concern. Last year, in the last
Congress, we voted to support a civilian nuclear technology arrangement
with the country of India, and I voted for it. But one of the problems,
for example, is that one of the individuals who was lobbying for that
was a politician in India who gave between $1
[[Page S676]]
million and $5 million to the foundation. That individual was actually
lobbying Congress to pass that very same bill at the same time he is
making a significant contribution to the foundation.
Now, I am not suggesting anything untoward or improper about that,
but I am pointing out the very real example of a perception of conflict
of interest, which is something that I think we all would hope to
avoid.
There is also a list of other contributors, domestic contributors,
including some of the financial services industry on Wall Street, which
has been the beneficiary of various Government bailouts during the
course of the last few months during the economic crisis.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
that list at the end of my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 3.)
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Senator Lugar, who is admired by all of us
for his knowledge and experience on the Foreign Relations Committee,
explained the likelihood of a conflict of interest. He said that the
Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation to any foreign entity or
government that believes it can curry favor through a donation, and
obviously that creates a potential perception problem with any action
taken by the Secretary of State in relation to foreign givers of their
country. I share Senator Lugar's concerns, as I have explained here. I
concur with his commonsense solution that during Senator Clinton's
tenure as Secretary of State, the foundation should actually refuse all
contributions from foreign sources. That would take care of that
particular problem outright.
Senator Kerry, as he said in those hearings and reiterated today,
pointed out that Senator Lugar wasn't speaking from a partisan
perspective, he was speaking for the committee. In other words, this is
not a partisan matter. This is a matter of serious concern regarding
public policy. It is a matter of record that, as I said, the transition
team, Senator Clinton, and the foundation agreed to a memorandum of
understanding. Of course, this does not require disclosure of past
contributions with any sort of real detail, which would be helpful to
the observer. It does require annual disclosure, and I think that was a
very positive step in the right direction. But simply stated, the
fundraising restrictions of disclosure statements I don't think go far
enough. It is in the Nation's interest for the Clinton Foundation to
refuse foreign-sourced donations while Senator Clinton serves as
Secretary of State.
If the foundation refuses to do so--and I realize Senator Clinton has
limited control, if any, over what the foundation does--I think there
should be other options available that would reduce the likelihood of
real or perceived conflicts of interest. Senator Lugar himself has
recommended several disclosure requirements. For example, he suggested
that gifts of $50,000 or more to the Clinton Foundation from any
foreign source, including individuals, should be submitted to the
agreed-upon State Department ethics review process.
I would alert my colleagues to the fact that the agreement between
the Obama team and the foundation only commits the foundation to submit
for State Department review those gifts from foreign governments and
government-controlled entities. As Senator Lugar aptly pointed out, in
many foreign countries the tie between the government and private
citizens is blurred. Individuals with close connections to the
government or governing families often act as surrogates for those
governments. Consequently, contributions from foreign governments or
foreign-controlled companies are not the only foreign contributions
that could raise serious conflicts of interest.
I would go further and require that every pledge or donation be made
publicly available online within a short time--perhaps a week. If we
did it on a monthly basis, that would be far better than what the MOU
currently provides.
The foundation's agreement to make disclosures once a year is simply
not enough in order to achieve that kind of transparency President
Obama talked about yesterday that will help give the American people
more confidence in their Government. That is not doing business in the
light of day in a way that restores that vital trust, to do it only
annually, after the fact. This is only one example of some of the
improvements that could be made.
In short, I remain concerned that Senator--soon to be Secretary of
State--Clinton's diplomatic work will be encumbered by the global
activities of the Clinton Foundation under these circumstances--not
their good and charitable work, which I certainly support, but the
contributions they raise from these various sources that are not
transparent, not subject to prompt disclosure. Obviously, I think it is
important that the Senate discuss and debate this in the context of her
nomination, not wait until the inevitable conflict or crisis arises.
Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a New York Times editorial, a Washington Post editorial, and a
Los Angeles Times editorial, which identify some of these same
concerns, at the conclusion of my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 4.)
Mr. CORNYN. In short, I was encouraged by my conversation with
Senator Clinton yesterday in the Rotunda following the inaugural
ceremonies where she said she would be open to a requirement that
really was an across-the-board disclosure requirement that was not just
targeted at her and the Clinton Foundation. I think there is a
meaningful basis upon which to further discuss this, negotiate it, and
it would be my intention, working with other colleagues here, to
produce legislation, as we flesh that out, which might accomplish that
in the days ahead.
Exhibit 1
[From the New York Times, Dec. 19, 2008]
In Clinton List, a Veil Is Lifted on Foundation
(By Peter Baker and Charlie Savage)
Washington.--Former President Bill Clinton has collected
tens of millions of dollars for his foundation over the last
10 years from governments in the Middle Fast, tycoons from
Canada, India, Nigeria and Ukraine, and other international
figures with interests in American foreign policy.
Lifting a longstanding cloak of secrecy, Mr. Clinton on
Thursday released a complete list of more than 200,000 donors
to his foundation as part of an agreement to douse concerns
about potential conflicts if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
is confirmed as secretary of state in the Obama
administration.
The donor list offers a glimpse into the high-powered, big-
dollar world in which Mr. Clinton has traveled since leaving
the White House as he jetted around the globe making money
for himself and raising vast sums for his ambitious
philanthropic programs fighting disease, poverty and climate
change. Some of the world's richest people and most famous
celebrities handed over large checks to finance his
presidential library and charitable activities.
With his wife now poised to take over as America's top
diplomat, Mr. Clinton's fund-raising is coming under new
scrutiny for relationships that could pose potential
conflict-of-interest issues for Mrs. Clinton in her job. Some
of her husband's biggest backers have much at stake in the
policies that President-elect Barack Obama's incoming
administration adopts toward their regions or business
ventures.
Saudi Arabia alone gave to the foundation $10 million to
$25 million, as did government aid agencies in Australia and
the Dominican Republic. Brunei, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar
and Taiwan each gave more than $1 million. So did the ruling
family of Abu Dhabi and the Dubai Foundation, both based in
the United Arab Emirates, and the Friends of Saudi Arabia,
founded by a Saudi prince.
Also among the largest donors were a businessman who was
close to the onetime military ruler of Nigeria, a Ukrainian
tycoon who was son-in-law of that former Soviet republic's
authoritarian president and a Canadian mining executive who
took Mr. Clinton to Kazakhstan while trying to win lucrative
uranium contracts.
In addition, the foundation accepted sizable contributions
from several prominent figures from India, like a billionaire
steel magnate and a politician who lobbied Mrs. Clinton this
year on behalf of a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement
between India and the United States, a deal that has rankled
Pakistan, a key foreign policy focus of the incoming
administration.
Such contributions could provoke suspicion at home and
abroad among those wondering about any effect on
administration policy.
Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy, said donations from ``countries where
we have particularly sensitive issues and relations'' would
invariably raise concerns about
[[Page S677]]
whether Mrs. Clinton had conflicts of interest.
``The real question,'' Mr. Levitt said, ``is to what extent
you can really separate the activities and influence of any
husband and wife, and certainly a husband and wife team that
is such a powerhouse.''
Mr. Clinton's office said in a statement that the
disclosure itself should ensure that there would be ``not
even the appearance of a conflict of interest.''
Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for Mr. Obama, said the
president-elect had chosen Mrs. Clinton for his cabinet
because ``no one could better represent the United States.''
``Past donations to the Clinton foundation,'' Ms. Cutter
said, ``have no connection to Senator Clinton's prospective
tenure as secretary of state.''
Repuclians have addressed the issue cautiously, suggesting
that they would examine it but not necessarily hold up Mrs.
Clinton's confirmation as a result. Senator Richard G. Lugar
of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations
Committee, which will consider her nomination, was in Russia
on Thursday and unavailable for comment, according to Mr.
Lugar's office.
But in an interview on Nov. 30 on ``This Week'' on ABC, Mr.
Lugar said Mr. Clinton's activities would raise legitimate
questions, adding, ``I don't know how, given all of our
ethics standards now, anyone quite measures up to this who
has such cosmic ties.''
Still, he indicated that he would vote for Mrs. Clinton and
praised Mr. Obama's team for doing ``a good job in trying to
pin down the most important elements'' in its agreement with
Mr. Clinton.
To avoid potential conflicts, the Obama team, represented
by its transition co-chairwoman, Valerie Jarrett, signed a
memorandum of understanding on Dec. 12 with the William J.
Clinton Foundation, represented by its chief executive, Bruce
R. Lindsey. The five-page memorandum, provided to reporters
on Thursday, required Mr. Clinton to disclose his past donors
by the end of the year and any future contributors once a
year.
The memorandum also requires that if Mrs. Clinton is
confirmed, the Clinton Global Initiative, an offshoot of the
foundation, will be incorporated separately, will no longer
hold events outside the United States and will refuse any
further contributions from foreign governments. Other
initiatives operating under the auspices of the foundation
would follow new rules and consult with State Department
ethics officials in certain circumstances.
Federal law does not require former presidents to reveal
foundation donors, and Mr. Clinton had until now declined to
do so, arguing that many who gave expected confidentiality.
Other former presidents have taken money from overseas
sources, including President George Bush, whose son has sat
in the Oval Office for the last years. The elder Mr. Bush has
accepted millions of dollars from Saudi, Kuwaiti and other
foreign sources for his own library.
Mr. Clinton's foundation has raised $500 million since
1997, growing into a global operation with 1,100 paid staff
members and volunteers in 40 countries. It said it had
provided medicine to 1.4 million people living with H.I.V./
AIDS, helped dozens of cities reduce heat-trapping gases and
worked to spread economic opportunity.
Mr. Clinton's advocates said that the disclosure on
Thursday showed he had nothing to hide and that most of his
largest contributors were already known.
Yet while unprecedented, the disclosure was also limited.
The list posted on the foundation's Web site--
www.clintonfoundation.org_did not provide the nationality or
occupation of the donors, the dates they contributed or the
precise amounts of their gifts, instead breaking down
contributors by dollar ranges. Nor did the list include
pledges for future donations. As a result, it is impossible
to know from the list which donations were made while Mr.
Clinton was still president or while Mrs. Clinton was running
for president.
Many benefactors are well-known Americans, like Stephen L.
Bing; Alfonso Fanjul; Bill Gates; Tom Golisano, a billionaire
who ran for New York governor; Rupert Murdoch; and Barbra
Streisand. Bloomberg L.P., the financial media empire founded
by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, contributed, as
did Freddie Mac, the mortgage company now partly blamed for
the housing market collapse.
Another potentially sensitive donation came from Blackwater
Training Center, part of the private security firm hired to
protect American diplomats in Iraq. Five of its guards have
been indicted for their roles in a 2007 shooting that left 17
Iraqi civilians dead.
The potential for appearances of conflict was illustrated
by Amar Singh, a politician in India who gave $1 million to
$5 million. Mr. Singh visited the United States in September
to lobby for a deal allowing India to obtain civilian nuclear
technology even though it never signed the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. He met with Mrs. Clinton, who he said assured him
that Democrats would not block the deal. Congress approved it
weeks later.
Other donors have connections with India, a potential
flashpoint because of tensions with Pakistan. Among them was
Lakshmi Mittal, a steel magnate and, according to Forbes
magazine, the fourth-richest person in the world. Mr. Mittal,
who donated $1 million to $5 million, was involved in a
scandal in 2002 in London, where he lives. After Mr. Mittal
made a large donation to the Labor Party, Prime Minister Tony
Blair helped him persuade Romania to sell him its state steel
company.
Another donor was Gilbert Chagoury, a businessman close to
Gen. Sani Abacha of Nigeria, widely criticized for a brutal
and corrupt rule.
Mr. Chagoury tried during the 1990s to win favor for Mr.
Abacha from the Clinton administration, contributing $460,000
to a voter registration group to which Democratic officials
steered him, according to news accounts. He won meetings with
National Security Council officials, including Susan E. Rice,
who is now Mr. Obama's choice to be ambassador to the United
Nations.
____
Exhibit 2
CLINTON FOUNDATION--SELECT FOREIGN SOURCES
$10M-25M: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
$5M-10M: Government of Norway.
$1M-5M: Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi--Saudi/Ethiopian
businessman; Nasser Al-Rashid--Saudi businessman; Dubai
Foundation--partnership between Harvard Med and Dubai;
Friends of Saudi Arabia; Lakshmi N. Mittal--Indian
businessman; State of Kuwait; State of Qatar; Taiwan Economic
and Cultural Office; The Government of Brunei Darussalam; The
Sultanate of Oman; Zayed Family--Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan
was former president of UAE.
$500K-1M: Walid A. Juffali--Saudi billionaire; Kjell I.
Rokke--Norweigan businessman; Soros Foundation; The Swedish
Postcode Lottery.
$250K-500K: Abbas Al-Yousef; Carlos Bremer Gutierrez--CEO
of Mexican corporation; China Overseas Real Estate
Development; Gustavo Cisneros & Venevision--Venezuelan
businessman and his company; Rolando Gonzalez-Bunster--CEO of
Int'l power company; Ajit Gulabchand--Indian business
executive; Vinod Gupta--Indian business executive; Hanwah
Engineering and Construction Corporation--Chinese
corporation; Hanwah L&C Corporation--Chinese corporation;
Lalit Suri (deceased)--Indian hotel entrepreneur; US Islamic
World Conference; Niklas Zennstrom--Swedish entrepreneur.
$100K to 250K: Aker Kvaerner ASA--Norweigan corporation;
Hamza B. Al Kholi--Saudi businessman; Alibaba.com
Corporation--Chinese corporation; Credit Suisse--Swiss
financial services corporation; India Today Group; Karlheinz
Koegel--German businessman; Lata Krishnan--Indian
entrepreneur; National Opera of Paris; The Monte dei Paschi
di Siena--Italian bank; Poju Zabludowicz--Finnish
businessman.
____
Exhibit 3
$1M to $5M: Citi Foundation; Entergy; Sterling Stamos
Capital Management, LP; The Wal-Mart Foundation.
$500K to $1M: Bank of America Foundation; Hewlett Packard
Company; ICAP Services North America; Pfizer Inc; Procter &
Gamble; Sanyo North America Corporation; The Anheuser-Busch
Foundation.
$250K to $500K: American International Group, Inc. (AIG);
Energy Developments and Investments Corporation; Google;
Microsoft Corporation; Orbitex Management Inc.; The Coca-Cola
Company.
$100K to $250K: Charles Schwab & Co.; Citigroup Inc.; FedEx
Services; Hyundai Motor America; Lehman Brothers Holdings
Inc.; Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation, Inc.; Bay Harbour
Management; Visa Inc.
$50K to $100K: General Motors Corporation.
____
Exhibit 4
[From The New York Times, Jan. 11, 2009]
Bill Clinton's Donors
In the likely event that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is
confirmed as secretary of state, the last thing she will need
is a distracting ethics controversy.
That is why Mrs. Clinton's confirmation hearing, now
scheduled to begin on Tuesday before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, must cover wider terrain than pressing
world issues. It should address the awkward intersection
between Mrs. Clinton's new post and the charitable and
business activities of her husband, former President Bill
Clinton.
Last month, Mr. Clinton disclosed the names of more than
200,000 donors to his foundation. It was a positive step
toward the transparency that Mr. Obama insisted on before
selecting Mrs. Clinton. But it also reinforced concerns about
potential conflicts of interest ahead.
The roster of donors to Mr. Clinton's presidential library
and global foundation enterprises include million-dollar-plus
contributions from governments in the Middle East, tycoons
from India, Nigeria, Ukraine and Canada, and international
figures with interests in the policies Mrs. Clinton will be
helping to write and carry out.
The five-page accord signed by representatives of Mr.
Clinton and Mr. Obama could use tightening. For example, the
wording calls for disclosure of ``new contributors'' to
Clinton Foundation programs. It does not necessarily require
disclosing the size of their gifts or the dates they were
made. Disclosure of Mr. Clinton's charitable fund-raising and
relevant private fees should be done monthly, or at least
quarterly, not just once a year.
The overarching principle should be prompt disclosure of
the amount and source of all payments to any Clinton charity
or to Mr. Clinton personally by any person or entity with a
political or economic interest, real
[[Page S678]]
or perceived, in State Department decisions. Ideally, the
White House counsel's office would be assigned a larger role
than envisioned in screening Mr. Clinton's speaking and
consulting deals before any check is received.
Mr. Clinton has agreed to reduce his fund-raising and
administrative role in the Clinton Global Initiative. The
international project will no longer accept contributions
from foreign governments or hold big events outside the
United States once Mrs. Clinton is installed. These are
prudent moves. The committee must decide if they are
sufficient, given Mr. Clinton's continuing ties.
During her confirmation hearing, Mrs. Clinton must make it
emphatically clear that past and future supporters of her
husband or his work will not get favored treatment by the
State Department. Avoiding the appearance of favoritism will
be as important as the fact.
We believe that Mrs. Clinton has the potential to be a
superb secretary of state. We also value Mr. Clinton's work
since leaving the White House to help advance the fight
against AIDS, malaria, malnutrition and other global ills. He
has agreed to greater transparency and more restrictions than
any former president, going beyond what law requires. That
does not alter the committee's duty to scour the plans for
workability and loopholes.
Everyone should recognize that there is no perfect solution
for Mrs. Clinton's particular spousal dilemma. And,
realistically, no set of rules, however well-meaning or
tightly drafted, can substitute for the exercise of sound
judgment and proper restraint. But they can help.
____
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 9, 2009]
Quid Pro Clinton?--Potential Conflicts of Interest Could Haunt
President-Elect Obama
In a letter to the editor Tuesday, Bruce Lindsey, chairman
and chief executive of the William J. Clinton Foundation,
took us to task for an editorial last month suggesting that
former president Bill Clinton suspend fundraising for his
foundation upon the confirmation and during the tenure of his
wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)), as secretary of
state. Mr. Lindsey called our suggestion ``shortsighted and
dangerous.'' But not to see the appearance of a conflict of
interest is shortsighted and potentially dangerous for one
person who has enough to worry about: President-elect Barack
Obama.
The good works of Mr. Clinton or his foundation are not in
question. His work to lessen or eliminate the suffering
brought about by HIV/AIDS and to address the challenges
presented by climate change is impressive. So is his ability
to raise vast sums for his foundation to tackle these issues.
The money comes from sources in the United States and abroad.
What has always been worrisome is that such prodigious
fundraising could set up the potential of someone looking to
curry favor with Ms. Clinton by making a sizable donation to
Mr. Clinton's organization. Even the appearance of a conflict
could call into question the motives of both Clintons and the
donor.
A prime example emerged this week as a result of Mr.
Clinton disclosing his contributors as part of an agreement
with Mr. Obama that smoothed Ms. Clinton's nomination. The
New York Times reported Sunday that upstate New York
developer Robert J. Congel gave $100,000 to Mr. Clinton's
foundation in November 2004, one month after enactment of a
law, first supported by Ms. Clinton in 2000, that gave Mr.
Congel access to tax-exempt ``green bonds'' to build the
Destiny USA shopping complex in Syracuse. Nine months later
Ms. Clinton secured $5 million in funding for road
construction at the complex. We hasten to point out that Ms.
Clinton was joined by other members of the New York
delegation in urging passage of both bills, including the
state's senior senator, Charles E. Schumer (D).
While Mr. Clinton's fundraising has been an appearance of a
conflict waiting to happen with his wife a senator, it will
only get worse and more troublesome once Ms. Clinton is
confirmed as secretary of state. Per the agreement with Mr.
Obama, a list of who is bankrolling the foundation will be
released once a year. Only new donations from foreign
governments will be examined by government ethics officials.
And there is no prior review of donations from foreign
companies or individuals or those in the United States with
interests overseas. Mr. Clinton's continued globetrotting
while collecting checks along the way could embarrass the
administration on multiple, sensitive and dangerous fronts.
____
[From the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 14, 2009]
The Clinton Connections--The Former President Should Keep His
Foundation at Arm's Length While His Wife Holds a Cabinet Post.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose confirmation as secretary of
State is a foregone conclusion after a three-hour love-fest
of a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on
Tuesday, will probably do a fine job in the post--as long as
her husband can keep his wallet zipped.
Former President Clinton's charitable foundation has the
potential to haunt both his wife and the Obama
administration, and not just because it has a history of
accepting donations from tyrants and corrupt businessmen.
Foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, Australia, the
Dominican Republic and Kuwait, have given millions to the
Clinton Foundation, which might complicate Hillary Clinton's
dealings with those countries--and could lead to a
perception, justified or not, that one way to influence U.S.
policy is to slip a few bucks to the secretary of States
husband's charity. Given the importance of perception in
international relations, that's no small concern.
Bill Clinton has a troubling history of doing favors for
his political donors, and although his charity's work is
beyond reproach--it has contributed millions to fighting AIDS
and climate change around the world--the foundation's
connection to enterprises that personally enrich both
Clintons is murky. Many of its donors also have paid hundreds
of thousands of dollars in speaking fees to the former
president. Then there are highly questionable donations, such
as the $500,000 he was paid by a Japanese American business
for a speech he never gave, and that he later donated to the
foundation, as reported in Tuesday's Times by Andrew Zajac.
The Obama administration struck a deal with the foundation
aimed at improving transparency and avoiding conflicts, but
it doesn't go far enough. Though the names of future donors
will be released, it will be on an annual basis, and foreign
govemments will be subject to review by federal ethics
officers only if they're new donors.
The best way out of this mess would be for Bill Clinton to
divorce himself from all of his foundation's fundraising
activities for as long as Hillary Clinton is secretary of
State; he can consider it partial atonement to his long-
suffering wife. If he won't, the foundation should at least
reveal its donors in real time, as the contributions are
received, and should follow a suggestion made Tuesday by Sen.
Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and forswear new foreign
contributions. That won't end potential conflicts from U.S.-
based donors with international interests, but it's a start.
Mr. CORNYN. I see there are other colleagues here who wish to speak.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Florida and then, after that, if I may yield to the Senator from
Arizona and the Senator from Maine for comments.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida is
recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, there is an example of another
one of our Senators in this body who is now assuming a very high and
important position in the Government. The President and the Vice
President have sprung forth from this Chamber. How honored we are, it
having just been announced that Senator Salazar has resigned since he
has been confirmed as Secretary of the Interior.
The issue before us is Senator Clinton. The Senator from Texas has
laid out his concerns and has said he finds the arrangement unusual. I
appreciate his remarks. He has noted the good works of the Clinton
Foundation. This Senator would think this arrangement is unusually
good--for reasons. What has the Clinton Foundation done? It is not as
if the spouse of a high-level new Secretary of State is in a foundation
or a corporation of some nefarious kind of activity. Indeed, this is
the kind of activity, as noted by the Senator from Texas, that is
extraordinarily good.
For example, the Clinton Foundation has helped millions of people
around the world. Mr. President, 1.4 million people living with HIV/
AIDS now have access to lifesaving drugs. Because of this foundation's
efforts and the former President's efforts to lower the cost of those
antiretroviral drugs, 71 countries have access to these lifesaving
medicines, which represents more than 92 percent of the people living
on this planet with HIV.
I will give another example: 425,000 Rwandans are served by four
health facilities that have been strengthened by the Clinton
Foundation.
Because of these efforts, they have increased countries' human
resource capacity to deliver care and treatment to their people, and it
has helped prevent the transmission of disease from mothers to their
children.
Take for example the Clinton Climate Initiative. It is working with
40 of the world's largest cities, both in the United States and around
the globe, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat global
warming--something in which the next speaker, the Senator from Arizona,
has been so intimately involved. These Clinton programs are
[[Page S679]]
fostering sustainable development in Africa and Latin America.
As Americans, we can clearly applaud the efforts of the former
President and his exceptional humanitarian work he has accomplished
over the years that he has been a private citizen and that he has
worked on through the Clinton Foundation.
We were reminded yesterday, with the inaugural celebration and the
inaugural activities, of the importance of getting the national
security team in place and getting it in place fast. The President laid
out the imminent crises he is having to face. We need a Secretary of
State in place. Senator Clinton's integrity and her record of service
are clear. We should not delay any longer, and we ought to confirm her
quickly to be our next Secretary of State.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator from Arizona,
Mr. Lugar, who would normally be here as the ranking member, the
distinguished ranking member, who is one of our most respected voices
on foreign policy, is not feeling well, so he is not here right now.
But he has asked me to personally make sure his comments are printed in
the Record in full. I wish to share just 30 seconds here. He says:
In my judgment she is an extremely well qualified nominee
who is deserving of confirmation. Her presence at the helm of
the State Department could open unique opportunities for U.S.
diplomacy and could bolster efforts to improve foreign
attitudes toward the United States.
He goes on to talk about her relationship with world leaders at the
time and her understanding of U.S. foreign policy.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the nomination
of Senator Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. In my judgment she
is an extremely well qualified nominee who is deserving of
confirmation. Her presence at the helm of the State Department could
open unique opportunities for U.S. diplomacy and could bolster efforts
to improve foreign attitudes toward the United States. She has
longstanding relationships with many world leaders that could be put to
great use in the service of our country. Her time in the Senate has
given her a deep understanding of how U.S. foreign policy can be
enriched by establishing a closer relationship between the executive
and legislative branches. She is fully prepared to engage the world on
a myriad of issues that urgently require attention.
Given Senator Clinton's remarkable qualifications, President Obama's
strong confidence in her, and pressing global issues, which I do not
need to enumerate, I favored having our friend confirmed yesterday by
unanimous consent. Relevant points of concern about conflicts of
interest arising from the fundraising of the Clinton Foundation were
made during her confirmation hearing. In my judgment, only Senator
Clinton and President Clinton, themselves, have the ability to avoid
these problems. At the hearing, I strongly urged Senator Clinton to
ensure that no conflict of interest problems arise. She stated that she
would do so, and I am confident that she understands the importance of
this commitment.
Nevertheless, I recognize that some colleagues who do not serve on
the Foreign Relations Committee shared similar concerns about the
potential for conflicts of interest. They wanted an opportunity to
discuss these concerns, and the Senate gives them that right. The
Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate have oversight
responsibility over anything that might add or detract from U.S.
foreign policy. The Obama Transition and Senator Clinton implicitly
recognized this Senate responsibility when they forwarded their
memorandum of understanding addressing Clinton Foundation activities to
the Foreign Relations Committee for its review.
I understand that the Clinton's are proud of the Clinton Foundation,
and I applaud the work it has done. I also understand that the
foundation is devoted to many ongoing projects and beneficiaries.
President Clinton has given a great deal of time and energy to this
enterprise, and he and other leaders of the foundation are reluctant to
accept changes or restrictions that they perceive as potentially
inhibiting its momentum.
But this understandable concern for the work of the foundation does
not trump the vital business of U.S. foreign policy that will be
directed by Senator Clinton. The work of the Clinton Foundation is a
unique complication for Senator Clinton's service that will have to be
managed with great care and transparency.
The point I attempted to make during the hearing and in other
communications leading up to the hearing was that the Clinton
Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government
that believes it could curry favor through a donation. As such, it sets
up potential perception problems with any action taken by the Secretary
of State in relation to foreign givers or their countries. There need
be no wrongdoing on the part of anyone to generate controversy or
misperceptions. Every new foreign donation that is accepted by the
foundation comes with the risk that it will be connected in the global
media to a proximate State Department policy or decision. Foreign
perceptions are incredibly important to U.S. foreign policy, and
mistaken impressions or suspicions can deeply affect the actions of
foreign governments toward the United States. Moreover, we do not want
our own Government's deliberations distracted by avoidable
controversies played out in the media. The bottom line is that even
well intentioned foreign donations carry risks for U.S. foreign policy.
At the hearing, I recommended that the only certain way to eliminate
this risk would be for the Clinton Foundation to forswear new foreign
contributions and rely on its large base of U.S. donors during Senator
Clinton's time as Secretary of State.
Alternatively, I suggested that the Clinton Foundation could enhance
public confidence and minimize risks of conflict of interest with a few
additional transparency commitments, none of which would threaten the
operations of the Clinton Foundation. Inconveniences for the foundation
or a reduction in some types of donations that have been accepted in
the past are small prices to pay when balanced against the serious
business of U.S. foreign policy that affects the security of every
American. If there is the slightest doubt about the appearance that a
donation might create, the foundation should not take it. If there are
issues about how a donation should be disclosed, the issues should be
resolved by disclosing the donation sooner and with as much specificity
as possible.
In particular, I suggested three additional commitments that the
Clinton Foundation could make in the interest of transparency. First,
all donations of $50,000 or more in a given year from any source should
be disclosed immediately upon receipt, rather than waiting up to 12
months to list them in the annual disclosure. Second, pledges from
foreign entities to donate more than $50,000 in the future should be
disclosed both at the time the pledge is made and when the donation
eventually occurs. Third, gifts of $50,000 or more from any foreign
source, including individuals, should be submitted to the State
Department ethics official for the same ethics review that will be
applied to donations from foreign governments. This is especially
important because the lines between foreign governments and foreign
individuals are often blurred. For example, conflicts of interest could
arise from a donation from a Gazprom executive or a member of the Saudi
Royal family as easily as from the governments of Russia and Saudi
Arabia.
Since the inception of the Clinton Foundation in 1997, 499 donors
have given $50,000 or more, an average of less than one per week. So
the administrative burden of these additional transparency commitments
would be minimal. But adopting them would yield substantial
transparency benefits with regard to the donations that are most likely
to raise issues.
In answers to questions for the record, Senator Clinton offered no
reasons why these additional disclosure items would not be beneficial.
Instead, answers stated that the MOU went beyond what other spouses of
cabinet officials have done to limit their Foundations and that there
is no law or ethics regulations requiring further steps. These
statements are true, but beside the point.
[[Page S680]]
First, the issues surrounding the fundraising of the Clinton
Foundation and its impact on Senator Clinton's service as Secretary of
State are not primarily legal. The imperative here is protecting U.S.
foreign policy, not satisfying a legal or ethical requirement. If a
transparency measure would help guard against donations that could
jeopardize Senator Clinton's participation in some matters, prejudice
foreign opinion against U.S. policies, or generate public
controversies, it should be embraced. Each proposal should be judged on
its own merits, rather than rejecting suggestions on the basis that
enough has been done. Is it, or is it not a good idea to subject all
foreign donations greater than $50,000 to the State Department ethics
review process, for example.
Second, following precedents established by other foundations is
unsatisfying given that this case far exceeds previous cases in
magnitude and risk. Senator Clinton will be the Secretary of State--the
top foreign policy official of the United States after the President.
President Clinton is one of the most recognizable personages and
prolific fundraisers in the world. As an ex-President, he is regarded
as having personal influence with members of our Government and other
governments. Moreover, we have already seen in the December disclosure
of past donors that the Clinton Foundation has received tens of
millions of dollars from foreign governments, government-controlled
entities, foreign businesses and others who may have interests affected
by State Department policy. Other cases lack this extraordinary
confluence of a Secretary of State with responsibility for foreign
policy, a globally recognized ex-President spouse who has raised money
in every corner of the world, and a foundation that has implemented an
aggressive foreign fundraising strategy.
Furthermore, we should be clear that the MOU is a negotiated,
political agreement that involved both the Obama Transition and the
Clinton Foundation exerting leverage and making compromises. There is
nothing wrong with this. But we should not confuse it with a document
produced by ethics experts seeking to construct the most effective
arrangement for avoiding conflicts of interest. These negotiations
produced a useful, good-faith agreement, but not one beyond
improvement. It represents a beginning, not an end. Its success will
require that all parties make the integrity of U.S. foreign policy
their first principle of implementation.
I am hopeful that Senator Clinton and the Clinton Foundation will
take time to reexamine their position on these items. If they do, I
believe they will see that they could reap substantial transparency and
public confidence benefits by going beyond what the MOU requires them
to do. More importantly, all involved should recognize that protecting
the foreign policy of the United States from conflict of interest
appearances far outweighs the relatively minimal impact additional
transparency measures might have on the operations of the Clinton
Foundation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I will speak briefly. I
know the Senator from Maine would like to say a few words.
I really believe we should move forward with the nomination of our
former colleague--I guess our still present colleague--Senator Hillary
Clinton, to take up the urgent and important duties she holds, which
are to meet some very serious challenges. We should not delay. I do not
have to remind you, Mr. President, or anyone else in this body that we
are in two wars. There is a very fragile cease-fire in the Gaza now
between the Israelis and Hamas. The situation in North Korea seems to
have deteriorated again with the paradoxical and unpredictable behavior
of the North Korean dictator and Government. I think we need to
immediately, or as soon as possible this morning, by voice vote, move
forward with the nomination and confirmation of the Senator from New
York to be the next Secretary of State.
I remind all my colleagues, we had an election and we also had a
remarkable and historic time yesterday as this Nation has come together
in a way it has not for some time. I, like all good politicians, pay
attention to the President's approval ratings. They are very high. But
more important, I think the message the American people are sending us
now is they want us to work together and get to work. I think we ought
to let Senator Clinton--who is obviously qualified and obviously will
serve--get to work immediately.
I ask unanimous consent that at the completion of the remarks any of
my colleagues might have, we vitiate the vote at 4:30 and proceed by
voice vote to a confirmation of Senator Hillary Clinton to be the next
Secretary of State for the United States of America.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am in a
very strange position here of wanting to protect the prerogatives of
the minority, which is an important part of how we work here but at the
same time completely supporting the Senator from Arizona.
I will balance this out for a moment.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield? While the unanimous consent
request is being considered, perhaps my other colleagues could speak?
Mr. KERRY. If we could ask for forbearance for the unanimous consent,
perhaps it would be more appropriate if Senator Cornyn or someone from
the other side of the aisle were willing to lodge that objection
because I am personally very uncomfortable doing so.
Mr. McCAIN. Let me say to my colleague, I just had a conversation
with Senator Cornyn. He does not object to that.
Mr. KERRY. I was going to ask for the same thing at the end of the
comments, but I wanted to first see if he was prepared to clear it. Mr.
President, could I ask if the Senator will withhold his unanimous
consent request for a moment and if the Senator from Maine could be
permitted to speak? We will see if we can jump through this hoop.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine is
recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
confirmation of Senator Hillary Clinton to be our next Secretary of
State. Last Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
overwhelmingly approved Senator Clinton to become our Nation's top
diplomat. I rise today to echo the committee's approval and to urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of her confirmation.
Senator Clinton's many years of public service make her an
outstanding nominee for Secretary of State. In her confirmation
hearing, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Senator Lugar, spoke of Senator Clinton as ``the epitome of a big
leaguer,'' who has remarkable qualifications for the post of Secretary
of State. The committee chairman, Senator Kerry, shared his faith in
her qualifications and abilities, having seen her ``diplomatic acumen
up close.'' He also said that Senator Clinton did an outstanding job in
her testimony before the committee, as those of us who observed the
hearings can affirm.
Senator Clinton is the ``first'' First Lady of the United States
elected to public office. As First Lady, she traveled the world for 8
years, visiting more than 80 countries. In doing so, she took an active
role in helping to carry out our Nation's foreign policy and was an
advocate for our Nation. She not only met with foreign leaders at the
highest levels of government, but she made it a hallmark of her trips
to visit villages, clinics, and other remote areas, learning firsthand
the importance of a foreign policy founded at the most basic levels of
humanity.
During my service in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to work
very closely with Senator Clinton on a number of issues, particularly
since we both serve as fellow members of the Armed Services Committee.
We have worked together tirelessly to improve the detection,
assessment, and treatment of traumatic brain injury among wounded
servicemembers.
We also cochaired the Alzheimer's Task Force and have worked together
to increase funding for research into this devastating disease.
Senator Clinton and I have had the opportunity to travel with Senator
[[Page S681]]
McCain to Iraq and Afghanistan. I witnessed her world knowledge and
authoritative approach to foreign policy. I have seen her tireless work
ethic and intelligence up close, as well as her ability to engage with
colleagues across the aisle to get the job done and to meet the needs
of the American people.
I will always remember one meeting in particular that we had together
in Afghanistan. Senator Clinton and I broke off from the group to go
meet with a group of Afghan women from all walks of life. I was so
impressed with Senator Clinton's engagement with these women, with her
genuine interest and the details of their lives, whether it was their
access to health care or the education for their children. She was very
engaged in the conversations despite the fact that we had traveled all
night and were extremely tired.
Her caring, her compassion came across in her conversations with
these women. I know these qualities--her caring, her compassion, her
commitment, her extraordinary preparation and intelligence--will serve
her well and will serve our country well as Secretary of State.
Today our Nation faces many pressing challenges abroad. The
challenges are many, not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but security in
the Middle East and the safety of the people of Israel, and the
dangerous situation in Pakistan. I am encouraged by Senator Clinton's
commitment to a foreign policy and a national security strategy that is
built on bipartisan consensus and executed with nonpartisan commitment
and confidence. She has promised a foreign policy based on principles
and pragmatism, not rigid ideology; facts and evidence, not emotion or
prejudice.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of her
confirmation, and I echo the suggestion of Senator McCain that we get
on with this as she is an extraordinary nominee and deserves our
support.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona and the
Senator from Maine for their important comments, with which I agree. I
understand the Senate is under a prior order to actually recess.
I ask unanimous consent that we allow one more speaker, the Senator
from South Carolina, at which time the Senate would recess for the
caucus lunches and return, I believe, at 2:15.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. McCAIN. Do you think it is possible, if we can get it cleared, to
perhaps have this unanimous consent vote before breaking for lunch?
Mr. KERRY. I think it is possible if the Senator can persuade three
members of his caucus that they do not need to speak on this issue. If
that can happen in the next 5 minutes, I believe it is possible for us
to move forward.
I think the Senator's cloakroom has those names and, obviously, to
protect their right to be able to speak, we need to check with them.
But that is the only thing standing between our ability to confirm the
nomination before the recess.
Mr. McCAIN. I will follow up with another question for my colleague;
that is, if we are unable to do it in the next few minutes, perhaps we
could, for sure, during the lunch break, be ready to go at the
conclusion of the lunch break.
Mr. KERRY. I think that would be terrific. Again, if all three
Senators would raise this issue at the caucus, at their caucus
luncheon, we ought to be able to come back and expedite the
confirmation. We are prepared to vote now. We were prepared to vote
yesterday. I might add, Senator Lugar was encouraging our moving by
unanimous consent yesterday. So we are a day overdue, and we are ready
to proceed.
With that, I would yield such time as the Senator from South Carolina
might consume.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the request is
agreed to.
The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the committee chairman. I want to
recognize the work the committee did. I thought the hearings were very
important for the country. They were well done. They were timely held.
Any concerns about conflicts of interest, there will be a process in
the future, if that happens to be a concern, to go through the
committee. I have a lot of confidence in the committee to provide
oversight.
But having said that, I have a lot of confidence in Senator Clinton
to be a good Secretary of State. We have a new President. We had a
tough campaign. The campaign is over, but the wars are not. The
challenges facing the country are enormous, domestically and
internationally.
I think this new President deserves to have his team in place. I
could not think of a better choice for Secretary of State, and he has
many to choose from. So he has made his choice; the committee has
acted. I do hope the Senate can act expeditiously after lunch. Everyone
deserves to have their say. I respect the chairman preserving the
ability of Senators to have their say.
I intend to vote for Senator Clinton. I have had the pleasure of
serving with her, traveling throughout the world. I know she
understands the world; people understand her. There is no place in the
world that she cannot go that people do not have, I think, a very
favorable impression of her. She will help execute a foreign policy
that is going to be difficult. I want it to be bipartisan where it can.
If we can get this done today, it will be good for the country. She
will do an outstanding job. I have a lot of confidence in the committee
to make sure that any potential conflict of interests are fairly dealt
with.
With that, I hope this afternoon we can do it by voice vote. But
let's get it done. This country needs a Secretary of State right now,
this minute, engaging the world because we have young men and women
throughout the world in harm's way, and they need an advocate on the
world stage.
There is no better advocate I can think of than Senator Hillary
Clinton. She can do an outstanding job. I appreciate the chairman
allowing me to speak on her behalf, and I enthusiastically will support
her.
____________________