[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 53 (Monday, May 4, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4197-S4198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF JAMES C. HORMEL

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today with a little bit of 
sense of sadness to bring to my colleagues' attention the nomination--I 
guess I will add, and indignation--the nomination of James C. Hormel to 
be U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. As is the case too often up here, the 
nomination has been put on the shelf, held by a ``hold'' at the request 
of a few Senators.
  Before I talk about the reasons for the ``hold,'' I want to talk 
briefly about the history of the nomination and some facts about the 
nominee, Mr. Hormel, and his background.
  Last fall, following a hearing on his nomination, the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee voted 16 to 2 in favor of Mr. Hormel. This vote 
took place November 4, 1997. Originally, it was a voice vote. It was 
approved. That means by unanimous vote. Two Senators then requested to 
have a recorded vote and went on record in opposition. So it was a 16-2 
vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That is a very strong 
vote.

  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.
  Madam President, that such a distinguished and qualified nominee 
would face opposition is on its face hard to understand.
  Jim Hormel is first and foremost a loving and devoted father of five 
and a grandfather of 13. His entire family has been unfailingly 
supportive of his nomination. And people who know him well say he is 
decent, patient and a very gentle person.
  Madam President, I was very moved by a letter from Alice Turner, 
former wife of James Hormel, a letter written to the majority leader, 
Senator Lott, supporting her ex-husband's nomination. And I quote:

       I have known Jim for 46 years and for ten of those years I 
     was married to him . . . I grew to understand the terrible 
     prejudice and hatred that he knew he would have to face . . . 
     and is facing as he goes through the difficult process this 
     nomination and its opponents have put him through . . . I 
     share with you these personal things because I gather his 
     personal ethics have been questioned. If anyone on this earth 
     could come close to judging that it would be me. He is a 
     wonderful father, grandfather and friend . . . Jim Hormel has 
     given enormously to his family, his community and to this 
     country. He is just asking to be allowed to give one more 
     time. This is a good man. Give him a chance.

  End of quote to Senator Lott.
  His professional credentials are equally impressive. He is an 
accomplished businessman. He serves as chairman of Equidex, an 
investment firm, 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 lawyer and as an educator. He served as a 
dean and assistant dean of students at the University of Chicago Law 
School. In addition, he currently serves as a member of the board of 
members of his alma mater, Swarthmore College.
  Let me just give my colleagues a sampling of the kind of 
organizations he served on, 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, Catholic Youth Organization, Jewish 
Family and Child 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. His 
commitment to public service and his commitment to the cause of human 
rights came together when he was named as a member of the United States 
delegation to the 51st U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva in 1995. 
And there he helped the United States press its case for improved human 
rights in nations as diverse as China, Cuba, and Iraq.
  Finally, he was nominated in 1977 to serve as an alternative 
representative on the U.S. delegation to the 51st General Assembly.

  There is an irony because on May 23, 1997, the same U.S. Senate that 
opposes his nomination, not letting us have a vote, unanimously 
confirmed James Hormel to represent this country at the United Nations.
  Madam President, it seems clear to many of us why some Senators do 
not want to allow a vote on James Hormel's nomination. It is because 
James Hormel is gay. In a queer, unquestionable case of discrimination, 
these Senators refuse to let the full Senate vote on a qualified 
nominee because of his sexual orientation. Surely, the U.S. Senate does 
not want to be party to this kind of discrimination.
  James 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. We need people like him in public service. We cannot afford to 
drive him away because of his sexual orientation.
  So, Madam President, this is a matter of simple fairness. We have 
before us a qualified nominee, with broad support, approved by the 
committee of jurisdiction. We should at least be allowed a vote on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate. If people have concerns, let them express 
them. Let us have a debate, and let us address them, but let us give 
James Hormel a chance. Let us have a vote.
  So I call on the majority leader to schedule a vote on James Hormel's 
nomination. I call upon those who have a hold to allow the nomination 
to reach the floor. If other Senators wish, let us debate the 
qualifications. But it is wrong to prevent the Senate from having an 
up-or-down vote on this nomination.
  Some of the Senators who have holds on this nomination claim that it 
is not

[[Page S4198]]

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 do not know exactly what their objections are.
  But there is a more important truth. If Senators disagree with this 
nomination, let them come to the floor. Let us debate this out in the 
open. That is what the tradition of the U.S. Senate about deliberative 
action is all about. So I challenge my colleagues who have holds on 
this nomination to come to this very floor, explain why they believe 
James 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 this argument.
  The issue is a very simple one. We have a qualified nominee who was 
resoundingly approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is 
entitled to a vote. And as a United States Senator, I am entitled to 
cast my vote for him.
  Madam President, I have language which would be a sense of the Senate 
to express the intention of the Senate to consider the nomination of 
James Hormel as United States Ambassador to Luxembourg, that the Senate 
would make clear its intention to consider this nomination before a 
certain date and to vote. I will not bring this amendment up on this 
bill. But this is an amendment that I will bring to the floor of the 
U.S. Senate on another bill. It is time for us to speak up. It is time 
for us to deal with what is an injustice.
  Mr. President, I will work with my colleagues from California, 
Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. And I will work with other 
colleagues as well.

  Let me just conclude by reading on this matter--and I say to my 
colleague from Arkansas, I have just one other matter in morning 
business to cover, and I shall be brief--from the Fort Worth Star-
Telegram, ``Senate Should Be Allowed To Vote.'' In an editorial calling 
for Republicans to let the Senate vote on James Hormel, the Fort Worth 
Star-Telegram writes:

       Conservatives, like Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon and Orrin 
     Hatch of Utah take him at his word and support his 
     nomination. Some others, harking to conservative groups that 
     are part of the GOP constituency, do not. Yet they say the 
     issue is not his sexual orientation. If it is not, then the 
     Senate should be allowed to vote, yea or nay. If sexual 
     orientation actually is the issue, then the Senate needs to 
     take a look at itself in the mirror.

  I repeat that. ``If sexual orientation actually is the issue''--I say 
this to the majority leader. I call on the majority leader to bring 
this matter before the Senate for a vote. I quote the Fort Worth Star-
Telegram, the conclusion:

       If sexual orientation actually is the issue, then the 
     Senate needs to take a look at itself in the mirror.

  We will not know until we have this nomination out on the floor. And 
we must do that. I hope the majority leader will take action. I have an 
amendment that I will bring to the floor if that is what is necessary. 
I think it is time for all of us to speak up.
  Madam President, I just have one other matter that I want to cover in 
morning business.

                          ____________________