[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 21 (Thursday, March 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1394-S1395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CALLING FOR A VOTE ON JAMES HORMEL

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, last week, President Clinton called 
upon the Senate to use but one principal criteria when considering 
nominations for ambassadors for the United States. In his words, that 
criteria simply stated is: ``Will he or will he not be a good 
ambassador?''
  Over 30 years ago, the Senate was confronted with a similar situation 
to one before us today. This body was asked to assess whether Patricia 
Harris

[[Page S1395]]

should be approved to be U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. She was a 
prominent lawyer. There was no question about her qualifications. 
Indeed, during the course of her career, she went on to be Secretary of 
HUD and of HEW. But, in 1965, Patricia Harris represented the first 
African American woman to become an American ambassador. The Senate 
then was left with a challenge of meeting what Thomas Jefferson 
considered our highest calling. That is, in his words, whether this 
would be a nation of ``equal opportunity for all and special privilege 
for none.''
  I cite the judgment of the Senate in confronting the nomination of 
Patricia Harris for Ambassador to Luxembourg because the Senate now 
faces a similar choice. President Clinton has sent before the Senate 
the name of Mr. James Hormel to become Ambassador to Luxembourg. Mr. 
Hormel was a member of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission. Last May, the Senate approved the nomination for him to 
serve as an alternate representative to the 51st session of the U.N. 
General Assembly. Last October, the Foreign Relations Committee 
recommended Mr. Hormel as our envoy to Luxembourg. But for a few of my 
colleagues, that is not enough. Just as Patricia Harris met opposition 
to her nomination as Ambassador to Luxembourg, Mr. Hormel is now being 
prejudged by some because of his sexual orientation.
  Mr. President, I rise today not simply to advance the nomination of 
Mr. Hormel, but I rise against those who would prejudge his 
qualifications based simply on the prejudice because of his personal 
lifestyle and his sexual orientation. I believe that fairness and 
decency require that Mr. Hormel be afforded his God-given right to 
serve his country in a position for which he is clearly qualified.
  No one can argue with his professional experience, his academic 
achievement, or the qualifications that led this Senate previously to 
send his name to be a member of our representation to the United 
Nations or that led the Foreign Relations Committee to recommend his 
service as an ambassador.
  Mr. Hormel received a doctorate degree from the University of Chicago 
Law School. He served there as a dean of students. He is a member of 
the Board of Managers of Swarthmore College, from which he graduated.
  Mr. Hormel is a committed philanthropist and public servant. He 
serves as chairman of the Equidex Corporation and has donated millions 
of dollars to some of the most important charities in America. They 
include the Virginia Institute on Autism, the Catholic Youth 
Organization, the American Indian College Fund, United Negro College 
Fund, and the Jewish and Children's Family Services. In recognition, he 
has received numerous awards and was named Outstanding Philanthropist 
by the National Society of Fundraising Executives.
  He is a member of the board of directors of the San Francisco 
Symphony, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the Human Rights 
Campaign, and the American Foundation for AIDS Research. He is founding 
director of the City Club of San Francisco, a club created to bring 
together community leaders of diverse backgrounds.
  Mr. President, as the Secretary of State, Secretary Albright, said, 
``. . . Mr. Hormel has demonstrated outstanding diplomatic and 
leadership skills. He will be an excellent United States Ambassador to 
Luxembourg.''
  Mr. President, what else could this Senate ask of a nominee to be an 
American Ambassador, with leadership in corporate fields, in civic 
pursuits, a philanthropist, a leader of great American universities? 
What other American Ambassadors have better backgrounds, proven 
community service, or come with higher praise? This isn't about Mr. 
Hormel's qualifications. It isn't about his ability to serve as an 
Ambassador. This has become a referendum on Mr. Hormel's lifestyle, the 
most private intimate matters of his sexual orientation.
  It is said by some colleagues in this institution who stand in 
opposition to his nomination that his lifestyle is inappropriate and 
that he is representing a country that is overwhelmingly Catholic. They 
failed to note, indeed, that the country of Luxembourg itself has 
spoken favorably of Mr. Hormel's potential service as our Ambassador.
  My colleagues know that Mr. Hormel has spoken candidly about his 
potential service in Luxembourg and has made clear that he will not use 
his position to advocate his own views or his own private agenda. 
Indeed, my colleagues know that American Ambassadors are appointed and 
confirmed to serve solely the interests of the U.S. Government. Whether 
it is their political views, their religious views, or their sexual 
orientation, the advance of any of those opinions would be 
inappropriate by an American Ambassador. They serve in this position 
for one purpose and one purpose only: to advance the views of the U.S. 
Government.
  Yet, Mr. Hormel, like Patricia Harris before him, stands in a 
historic position, potentially being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and 
has made pledges which should be unnecessary--indeed, are 
unprecedented--and made several pledges to this institution:
  First, to limit his charitable giving to 501(c)(3) organizations and 
to only donate through private foundations that do not bear his name. 
He doesn't have to do so, but he has.
  He has pledged to prohibit any organization from using his name as a 
fundraising tool. He doesn't have to, but he made this pledge.
  He has pledged to remove his name from any fundraising or charitable 
activities conducted by outside organizations.
  He has pledged to resign from all boards of directors, except 
Swarthmore College and the San Francisco Symphony.
  Yet, critics of Mr. Hormel argue that he is somehow out of step with 
American life or American values.
  Mr. President, it is Mr. Hormel's critics who are out of step with 
American values. A fundamental principle of this country is that 
everyone has an opportunity to serve, that everyone is accepted and 
judged based on their ability to contribute. Mr. Hormel asks to be 
judged only by that standard.
  Mr. President, through the years, from race to gender to religion to 
ethnicity, this Senate has had to deal with the painful questions of 
removing prejudice and learning to deal with people based on the 
content of character that all individuals face equally and fairly as 
they seek to serve our country. Mr. Hormel asks no more. He has a right 
to expect no less.
  President Clinton has challenged this Senate to judge Mr. Hormel's 
nomination to be Ambassador to Luxembourg on its own merits. I hope in 
the great traditions of this institution we will give Mr. Hormel that 
chance.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________