Executive Session
Floor Speech
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - January 21, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source