[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 41 (Thursday, April 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3176-S3177]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF JAMES HORMEL

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to speak today regarding the 
nomination of James Hormel of California to be the U.S. Ambassador to 
Luxembourg.
  Last fall, after President Clinton nominated Jim Hormel to serve as 
our nation's next Ambassador to Luxembourg, the Foreign Relations 
Committee, on November 4, reported the nomination favorably by a vote 
of 16 to 2 and sent the nomination to the full Senate for 
consideration. During the course of this business meeting, no member of 
the Committee spoke in opposition to the nomination.
  The problem is that the Senate has not been able to consider this 
nomination because some of our colleagues have put ``holds'' on it. 
Before adjourning last year, the Senate confirmed some 50 nominees, 
whose nominations had been approved by the Foreign Relations Committee. 
The only nomination that languished was that of Jim Hormel and the 
reason for this is very obvious. Some of my colleagues oppose this 
nomination because Jim Hormel is openly gay. That means, in their view, 
that he is not fit to represent his country overseas in Luxembourg.
  It doesn't matter that government officials in Luxembourg have been 
eager to support this nominee. It doesn't matter, apparently, that in 
his correspondence with our colleague Senator Smith from Oregon, Jim 
Hormel went on the record--in unprecedented fashion--in saying that he 
would not use his position as Ambassador to push any personal agenda, 
that his partner would not travel with him to Luxembourg, and his 
public positions would be those of the United States government only. 
All that matters, I suspect, for some members of this Senate, is that 
Jim Hormel is gay, that the most private and intimate elements of his 
lifestyle disqualify him from public service.
  Mr. President, the issue is not and should not be Mr. Hormel's sexual 
orientation. The only relevant question here is whether he is qualified 
to undertake the position for which he has been nominated. The answer 
to that is ``yes''.
  He has impressive academic credentials, having received his 
undergraduate degree from Swarthmore College and his J.D. from the 
University of Chicago. He has served as Assistant Dean and Dean of 
students at the University of Chicago. He currently sits on the board 
of managers of Swarthmore.
  Jim Hormel is a loving father and grandfather, a businessman who ran 
a successful company for years, and a philanthropist who has supported, 
in his words but most importantly in his deeds, some of the most 
important causes facing this country. Outside the beltway, there's a 
chorus of very public support for this nominee. Those who care about 
autism, breast cancer research, AIDS research, religious diversity and 
human rights--they've all rallied together behind this nominee. The 
Episcopalian Archdiocese of California has called Jim Hormel ``an 
exemplary representative of the United States of America.'' Leaders 
from the business world, from the universities, and from diplomatic 
circles, including, I might add, former Secretary of State George 
Schultz, have stated publicly that James Hormel's public character and 
intellect make him an exceptionally strong nominee.
  This is not the first time that Jim Hormel has been asked to serve 
his

[[Page S3177]]

country. In 1995 he was a member of the U.S. delegation to the 51st 
U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Last year he was nominated to 
serve an alternative representative of the U.S. delegation to the 51st 
U.N. General Assembly--a position subject to confirmation by the 
Senate. I want to remind my colleagues that no objection was raised to 
his nomination for this position, and the Senate confirmed him 
unanimously on May 23, 1997. In the final analysis, we've all got to 
make our private decisions about what we find acceptable, about which 
personal values we embrace. However, this Senator does not believe that 
private considerations should be used to deny an individual the right 
to hold a job for which he is qualified or to deny the full Senate its 
right to exercise its constitutional responsibility to act on a 
nomination. Those Senators standing in the way of this nomination 
should remove their ``holds'' and let the Senate work its will.

                          ____________________