[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1680-S1682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE NOMINATION OF JAMES C. HORMEL

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to my 
colleagues' attention the nomination of James C. Hormel to be U.S. 
Ambassador to Luxembourg. As was the case with Dr. Satcher's nomination 
to be Surgeon General, his nomination has been on the shelf, held by a 
``hold'' at the request of only a few Senators. I will deal shortly 
with the reasons Jim Hormel's nomination has been stalled. But let me 
take just a few moments to review the history of the nomination and 
some of the facts about the nominee and his background.
  Last fall, following a hearing on his nomination, the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee voted to approve Jim Hormel's nomination by a vote 
of 16 to 2 at a business meeting on November 4, 1997. In point of fact, 
for those who were not present at the business meeting, the nomination 
was deemed a routine matter, and was approved by a voice vote, along 
with the rest of the committee's agenda of nominations and legislation 
for that day. No Senator spoke in opposition to the nomination. It was 
only after the meeting that two Senators asked to be recorded against 
the nomination, as was their right, which resulted in the final tally. 
Still, 16 to 2 is a strong endorsement by the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.
  The nomination was placed on the Executive Calendar, and, despite the 
fact that the Senate confirmed every other Foreign Relations Committee 
nominee before the close of the first session--some 50 nominees in 
total--Jim Hormel's nomination was left languishing because of 
``holds'' placed on it by a few Senators.
  That such a distinguished and qualified nominee would face opposition 
is, on its face, hard to understand. Let me tell you a little about the 
Jim Hormel I have known for some 20 years now. He is, first and 
foremost, a loving and devoted father of 5, and a grandfather of 13. 
His entire family has been unfailingly supportive of his nomination. 
Anyone who has met him or knows him knows that he is decent, patient, 
and a very gentle person.
  His professional credentials are equally impressive. He is an 
accomplished businessman. He serves as chairman of the California 
investment firm, Equidex, and he serves as a member of the board of 
directors of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
  He has also spent time as a successful lawyer and educator. He 
received his J.D. from the University of Chicago, one of our Nation's 
finest law schools, and he later returned there to serve as dean and 
assistant dean of students from 1961 to 1967. In addition, he currently 
serves as a member of the board

[[Page S1681]]

of managers of his alma mater, Swarthmore College, another of our 
Nation's finest institutions of higher learning.
  Jim Hormel has also been a remarkably generous philanthropist and 
dedicated community activist. He has supported a wide variety of causes 
and organizations, but there has always been a common theme: bringing 
people together, resolving conflict, helping those who are in need, and 
making the surrounding community a more pleasant place in which to 
live.
  Even a sampling of the organizations he has supported is impressive 
in its breadth as well as its diversity. In addition to his support for 
Swarthmore and the University of Chicago, he has provided resources and 
assistance to the Virginia Institute of Autism, Breast Cancer Action, 
the American Foundation for AIDS Research, the American Indian College 
Fund, the United Negro College Fund, the NAACP, the Institute for 
International Education, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the 
Catholic Youth Organization, Jewish Family and Children's Services, the 
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the San Francisco Public Library, 
the San Francisco ballet, and the San Francisco symphony. Many of these 
organizations have honored him with awards.
  Not surprisingly from such a community-minded individual, Jim Hormel 
has throughout his life also harbored a firm commitment to public 
service. The first example of this was his service in the U.S. Coast 
Guard, Active Reserve, from 1951 to 1957. Later, he established the 
James C. Hormel Public Service Program at the University of Chicago Law 
School to encourage law students to go into public service. As a 
consequence of his leadership in this area, he was recognized by his 
peers when he received the Public Service Citation from the University 
of Chicago Alumni Association.
  His commitment to public service and his dedication to the cause of 
human rights ultimately came together when he was named as a member of 
the U.S. delegation to the 51st U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva 
in 1995. There, he helped the United States team press its case for 
improved human rights in nations as diverse as Cuba, China, and Iraq.
  Finally, he was nominated in 1997 to serve as an alternate 
representative of the U.S. delegation to the 51st U.N. General 
Assembly. Now, this part of his biography is particularly ironic, in 
light of the situation we find ourselves in today, because this 
position is subject to Senate confirmation, and, indeed, on May 23, 
1997, this same U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Jim Hormel to 
represent this country at the United Nations.
  So we have a well-qualified nominee for Ambassador. He has had a 
remarkable and distinguished career in several fields. He has 
demonstrated a lifelong commitment to public service. In recent years 
he has gained firsthand experience in diplomacy as a representative of 
the United States. He was overwhelmingly approved by the Foreign 
Relations Committee, and most notably, he was confirmed by this very 
same U.S. Senate only 10 months ago.
  I suspect most listeners--and most of my colleagues--would expect 
such a nomination to be quickly brought to a vote and confirmed. Yet, 
the majority leader has refused to call this nomination for an up-or-
down vote, and a number of Senators on the other side of the aisle have 
placed ``holds'' on the nomination.
  It seems clear to many of us why these Senators do not want to allow 
a vote on Jim Hormel's nomination: because Jim Hormel is gay. In a 
clear, unquestionable case of discrimination, these Senators refuse to 
let the full Senate vote for a qualified nominee because of his sexual 
orientation. This Senator does not believe that the Senate wants to be 
party to this kind of discrimination.
  Jim Hormel is exactly the kind of person who should be encouraged to 
engage in public service. He is intelligent, civic minded, generous, 
and he is a person of proven accomplishment who wants to serve our 
country. So we need people like this in public service, and we cannot 
afford to drive them away because of their sexual orientation.
  I think that is the point that was made well in a letter from the 
former Secretary of State, George Shultz, and Mrs. Shultz, when they 
wrote to the majority leader urging Jim Hormel's speedy approval, 
stating that they know him very well, and concluding with this:

       We recommend him to you because we believe he would be a 
     wonderful representative for our country. We hope that his 
     nomination can be brought to the floor of the Senate for a 
     vote as soon as possible.

  I submit to you, Mr. President, that George Shultz, former Secretary 
of State, should know who would be a wonderful representative and who 
would not be a wonderful representative of our country.
  So, as a matter of simple fairness, a qualified nominee with broad 
support, approved by the committee of jurisdiction, should at least be 
allowed a vote. If people have concerns, express them. Let's address 
them. But let's give the nominee a vote.
  In this regard, I want to compliment the distinguished chairman, my 
chairman, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for his 
thoughtful remarks on this subject when he appeared on NBC's Meet the 
Press on November 30, 1997. He said:

       I get tired of that stuff. We ought to vote on him. And I 
     personally believe he would pass, and he'd become the next 
     ambassador to Luxembourg. I just don't believe in prejudice 
     against any individual, regardless. And frankly, we have far 
     too much of that.

  I believe Senator Hatch is right on every point.
  So I call on the majority leader, Mr. President, to schedule a vote 
on Jim Hormel's nomination. I call upon those who have holds to allow 
the nomination to reach the floor. If they wish, let's debate the 
qualifications. Let's debate any allegation about him, or against him. 
But it is wrong to simply prevent the Senate from speaking on this 
nomination.
  I have seen news reports where some of the Senators who have 
``holds'' on this nomination claim it is not because he is gay. They 
claim it is because of his views on certain issues involving gay 
rights, or something to that effect. The truth is I am not sure exactly 
what their objections are because they have been very reluctant to 
describe them publicly. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to 
meet privately with those Senators who are holding up the nomination to 
talk through their concerns.
  Perhaps my colleagues who have holds are embarrassed in some way, or 
perhaps they feel their arguments are not strong enough to stand the 
light of day. I am hard pressed to come to any other conclusion 
because, apart from fleeting quotes in news articles and vague 
statements by spokespersons, the Senators opposed to Jim Hormel have 
done little to lay out their case against him. They are content to just 
quietly allow the Senate rules to prevent a vote.
  That is not right, Mr. President. Around here, if a Senator takes a 
strong position on an issue, or a nomination, they have an obligation 
to their constituents, their colleagues, and the Senate itself, to 
explain themselves publicly. This is what the tradition of deliberative 
debate is all about.
  So I challenge my colleagues who have ``holds'' on this nomination to 
come to this very floor, explain why they believe Jim Hormel is unfit 
to become an American Ambassador because he happens to be gay. Let 
other Senators and the American people judge on the merits of the 
argument.
  From what I have read in news reports, I can anticipate that some of 
these Senators, if they choose to speak at all, will try to argue that 
this is not about Jim Hormel being gay--rather it is about his views on 
gay rights.
  We may hear a lot of stories about books that appear in the San 
Francisco Public Library to which Jim Hormel generously donated half a 
million dollars. Are we to understand that donating funds to a library 
means you are responsible for every book in this library? Many of these 
same books are in the Library of Congress. Is the Senate responsible, 
because we fund that library, for the content of every book in that 
library? Of course not, Mr. President. You know that. I know that. This 
is a specious argument. This is designed to kill a nomination.

  We may also hear stories about Jim Hormel's charitable giving, some 
of which has gone to organizations which support equal rights for gays 
and lesbians. Is equal rights a cause we in the

[[Page S1682]]

Senate do not support? And even if this issue is subject to some 
controversy in the Senate, do the Senators blocking this nomination 
know or care that Jim Hormel has, in writing, committed to limiting his 
charitable contributions to noncontroversial areas such as the 
performing arts, museums, educational institutions, humanitarian 
assistance and health care? He will not use his office to advocate or 
promote any personal view on any issue and will not engage or associate 
himself with any outside activities that conflict with his official 
duties and responsibilities. We have that in writing. This is the only 
time I know of any ambassadorial nominee who has actually put that in 
writing. I find it, in a way, very difficult to recognize that he has 
to do it. Nonetheless he has done it.
  So the issue is a very simple one. We have a qualified nominee who 
was resoundingly approved by the Foreign Relations Committee. He is 
entitled to a vote, and I, as a U.S. Senator, am entitled to cast my 
vote for him.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________