John Cornyn Hillary Clinton Confirmation VIDEO

Floor Statement: Hillary Clinton Confirmation FULL STREAMING VIDEO Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and I find that I agree with virtually all of them so I want to make clear at the outset

that this is really 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. And I appreciate particularly the Senator from Massachusetts' good faith acknowledgment of his concerns that were also expressed by Senator Lugar. I think the concerns were acknowledged by both the Clinton Foundation and by Senator Clinton herself by entering into a memorandum of understanding with the transition team of the now President Obama administration.

Yesterday, I know we all realize this, but it's important to say again that it was a historic day with the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States. Among many things that he said that I agree with, I was particularly glad to hear him say that we should do our business in the light of day because only then can we restore the public, the vital trust between the people and their government.

As 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 one thousand percent. And I pledge to him and to my colleagues across the aisle that there are things we can do working together like 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 because in fact, as we know, the foundation of our legitimacy comes from consent of the government, the people of this country. If they don't know what the government is doing or 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're 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 or not. She is. And I intend to vote for her confirmation but I also believe it's very important to flesh out some of the concerns that have been raised legitimately by Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar and others that I think bears some public discussion and some debate here in the Senate.

I explained to Senator Clinton yesterday my position 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 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's fine with me, we would be glad to work together to try to come up with something to make this kind of disclosure across the board.

Although I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts to have a former President of the United States running a foundation like this and have his spouse as Secretary of State is an unusual and perhaps unprecedented event so giving rise to these unusual and unprecedented concerns. But of course many taxpayers make frequent disclosures to the government on a monthly or quarterly basis. 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 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's contributing to our campaigns and be attuned to any concerns that may arise.

I want to be clear also that nor or my concerns 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 Secretary of State is viewed around the world as beyond reproach.

Mr. President, I would ask that an article from the "New York Times" dated December 19, 2008, be put in put in the record immediately following my remarks titled, "In The Clinton List A Veil Is Lifted On Foundation."

As many of our colleagues know, when this memorandum of understanding was entered in to, for the first time the Clinton Foundation revealed the source of it's some five hundred million dollars worth of contributions over the last ten years. Many were unremarkable but some of them were troubling raising the very issue that we're discussing here today. Contributions from foreign nations directly by, for example, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, directly to the foundation. Clearly, Senator Clinton as Secretary of State will be dealing with as a diplomat with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I ask unanimous consent that the list of the Clinton Foundation select foreign sources of contributions be made part of the record at the end of my remarks.

It includes the state of Kuwait, the state of Qatar, various foreign individuals, and in the article that I mentioned a moment ago in the "New York Times" there's just one example of the perception of conflict of interest that I think ought to give all of us concern. Now, last year, 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 is, for example, one of the individuals who was lobbying for that, a politician in India who gave between $1 million and $5 million to the foundation, was actually lobbying Congress to pass this very same deal at the time he was making a significant contribution to the foundation. I'm not suggesting anything untoward or impoper about that but I'm pointing out the very real example of the perception of conflict of interest, something I think we all would hope to avoid.

There's also a list of other contributors, domestic contributors, including some of the financial services industry on Wall Street that's 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 that list be also made part of the record at the end of my remarks.

Senator Lugar, admired by all of us for his knowledge and experience in 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 who believes it could currie 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 and I concur with his comments 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 reiterated in those hearings, what he said 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 but a matter of serious concern of public policy.

It's a matter of record that, as I said, that the transition team and 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 restriction to disclosure statements I don't think go far enough. It's in the nation's interests for the Clinton Foundation to refuse foreign sources donation while Senator Clinton serves as Secretary of State. But 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 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, I think 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 disclosure once a year is simply not enough in order to acheive that transparency 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 and 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 contributions that they raise from these various sources that are not transparent, not subject to prompt disclosure.

Obviously I think it's important that the Senate discuss and debate this in the context of her nomination, not until the inevitable conflict or crisis arises. Mr. President, I would also ask to be made part of the record the "New York Times" editorial, the "Washington Post" editorial, and the "Los Angeles Times" editorial which identify some of these same concerns, I ask that they be made part of the record at the end of my remarks.

So in short, I was encouraged by my conservation with Senator Clinton yestarday 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, one that wasn't just targeted at her and the Clinton Foundation. I think there is a meaningful basis upon which to further discuss this and negotiate it, and it would be my intention to work with other colleagues to introduce legislation as we flesh that out which might accomplish that in the days ahead.