[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1245-1253]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

     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 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

[[Page 1246]]

 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 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.

[[Page 1247]]


  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 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

[[Page 1248]]

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 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

[[Page 1249]]

     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 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.

[[Page 1250]]

       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 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

[[Page 1251]]

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.
  First, the issues surrounding the fundraising of the Clinton 
Foundation

[[Page 1252]]

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.

[[Page 1253]]

  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 
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.

                          ____________________