[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5365-S5367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 NOMINATION OF JAMES CATHERWOOD HORMEL

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the senior Senator 
from Minnesota for his courtesy. We discussed this a few minutes ago 
and decided it might be better if I go first, because he might want to 
respond to some things I might say.
  Some statements were made on the floor yesterday concerning my hold 
that I have on James Hormel to be the Ambassador to Luxembourg. It is 
true that I do have a hold on Mr. Hormel.
  To clarify what a hold is, it is a courtesy. It is not a procedural 
matter. It is something that is a courtesy to the leader so he will 
know there is opposition.
  There very well may be a vote on this individual, but I will oppose 
his nomination, and I want to stand and tell you why.
  The statement that was made on the floor was made by the senior 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone. I will read excerpts of it:

       Now, one of my colleagues, and I think it is extremely 
     unfortunate, one of my colleagues has compared Mr. Hormel, a 
     highly qualified public servant and nominee, to Mr. David 
     Duke, who, among other credentials, is a former grand wizard 
     of the Ku Klux Klan.

  He goes on to say:

       I want to say to my colleagues, that given this kind of 
     statement made publicly by a United States Senator, this kind 
     of character assassination, it is more important now than 
     ever that this man, Mr. Hormel, be voted on.

  In defense, really, of the senior Senator from Minnesota, I say that 
if I had said what he thought I said, he was certainly entitled and 
justified to make the statements that were made. But I think it is 
important to know that I did not make those statements in the context 
that he believed I made them.
  Let me, first of all, say that there probably are not two Members of 
the U.S. Senate who are further apart philosophically than the senior 
Senator from Minnesota and myself. I would probably, in my own mind, 
believe him to be an extreme left-wing radical liberal and he believes 
me to be an extreme right-wing radical conservative. And I think maybe 
we are both right.
  But one thing I respect about Senator Wellstone is he is not a 
hypocrite. He is the same thing everywhere. He honestly, in his heart, 
believes the role of Government to be something different than I 
believe it to be. So we have these honest differences of opinion. One 
of the things I like about this body, the U.S. Senate, is that you can, 
in a spirit of love, talk about these things. And that is what we are 
doing right now.
  Let me just real quickly say that I like activists. The Senator from 
Minnesota is an activist. I am an activist. In fact, this is the 
commencement season. I quite often give commencement talks. I talk to 
young people, and I say, ``Whatever you are, don't be a mushy middle. 
Stand for something.'' I would far rather, even though I am a 
conservative, have one of these young people be a radical right-wing--
or left-wing--either one--than just be in the mushy middle.
  I quote Henry Ward Beecher now and then. He said,

       I don't like these cold, precise, perfect people. In order 
     not to say wrong, say nothing; in order not to do wrong, do 
     nothing.

  And the Lord had something to say about this, too. He said,

       I know your works. You are neither hot nor cold. Because 
     you are neither hot nor cold, you are lukewarm. And because 
     you are lukewarm, I will spew thee out of my mouth.


[[Page S5366]]


  He is saying the same thing I am saying. And I really believe this. 
And the young kids, they look at us as examples. In fact, when I was in 
the other body and was first elected, I would take interns down to the 
intersection of New Jersey and Independence, and I would say as they 
went across the street, I said, ``There are three kinds of Members of 
Congress. There are extreme liberals, extreme conservatives, and then 
the mushy middle. And the goal of those in the mushy middle is to die 
in Washington, DC. And how do you die in Washington, DC? You take a 
poll, and you make statements that ingratiate yourself.''
  The senior Senator from Minnesota cannot be accused of that, nor can 
I. Unfortunately, we do have too many appeasers around.
  Hiram Mann said, ``No man survives when freedom fails. The best men 
rot in filthy jails. And those who cry ``appease'' are hanged by those 
they try to please.''
  Let me tell you quickly what I did say so that it will be clarified 
for the Record.
  I made the statement, when I was running for office--and I have been 
consistent with that--that if I get to the U.S. Senate, where I have 
the opportunity to participate in the confirmation process, that I will 
work to keep a nominee from being confirmed if that individual has his 
own personal agenda and has made statements to the effect that he 
believes stronger in his personal agenda and will use that office to 
advance his personal agenda more than he would the American agenda.
  Now, in the case of James Hormel, he is a gay activist. He has made 
statements in the past, which I will read in a moment, that have led me 
to believe that his agenda, his personal agenda is above the agenda of 
the United States.
  And I said the same thing would apply regardless of who 
the individual is. I made the statement that David Duke, if he were 
nominated, I would oppose him because he has made statements that his 
militia extremist agenda is more important than the agenda of America. 
I said in the way of Patricia Ireland, if she were nominated, I would 
feel the same way if she made statements saying that her feminist 
agenda was more important to her than the agenda of America.

  And the same thing with one of my closest friends, Ralph Reed. I 
mean, Ralph Reed, who was the one who built the Christian Coalition, he 
is one with whom I agree. I agree with what he stands for. I spent the 
Easter recess in west Africa in the countries of Benin and Nigeria and 
Cote d'Ivoire talking about Jesus Christ. So I agree with him. However, 
if he were nominated, and he said, ``I want this job so that I can 
advance my personal agenda over that of America,'' I think it would be 
wrong and I would oppose it.
  So let us just see real quickly. I am going to read a couple things, 
and then my time will expire, and I think I will be on the record as I 
want to be.
  During the course of the nomination process--I will read, first of 
all, the San Francisco Chronicle. This is on October 9 of 1997.

       President Clinton's nomination of James Hormel . . . is the 
     latest sign that he is making good on his post-election 
     promise to reward gays and lesbians for their support, 
     national gay leaders said today . . .'' I think it's the 
     result of very hard work behind the scenes of national gay 
     and lesbian organizations that have been pushing and pushing 
     for these appointments to be made''. . . .

  That was Kerry Lobel, the executive director of the National Gay and 
Lesbian Task Force.
  I would also like to quote someone I think who is familiar to all of 
us--we hold her in very high esteem--Faith Whittlesey, former U.S. 
Ambassador to Switzerland. She was talking about this trend of trying 
to put people with their own personal agendas in the various Embassies. 
She made this statement. She said:

       The United States is more socially radicalized than any 
     other country in the world on this issue (gay rights). 
     Ambassadorships may no longer be essential foreign policy 
     positions, but they are still symbolically important. 
     Starting with small countries to set a precedent for bigger 
     appointments, what they're trying to do is use the U.S. 
     diplomatic service to open deeply held religious convictions 
     and social mores in other countries. Ambassadorial 
     appointments should not be used for the purposes of social 
     engineering in the countries to which the ambassadors are 
     assigned.

  One of the many statements that had been made previous about James 
Hormel that led me to the conclusion that he wanted to use this 
position to advance his agenda was the following statement he made on 
June 16, 1996. He said:

       I specifically asked to be Ambassador to Norway because, at 
     the time, they were about to pass legislation that would 
     acknowledge same-sex relationships, and they had indicated 
     their reception, their receptivity, to gay men and lesbians.

  I think it is very difficult to put any interpretation on that other 
than the fact that individual wanted to be ambassador to that country 
because of pending legislation in that country.
  So, Mr. President, I stand by the statements I have made. I certainly 
do not want anyone to say that I am comparing two individuals as 
individual personalities. But I will continue to oppose the 
confirmation of individuals who are nominated for various positions, if 
I believe, in my own heart, that that individual is not going to 
represent the best interests of America and has his own personal agenda 
in advance of Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask the Chair to let me know when I have used 
5 minutes, because I have another matter I want to discuss?

  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. So ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, Mr. President, let me say to my 
colleague from Oklahoma, I appreciate his gracious personal remarks. I 
am proud to have his friendship. And the respect is mutual. The respect 
is mutual.
  Second of all, let me say to my colleague that I am pleased to find 
out that he did not say it exactly as it seemed to be reported in Roll 
Call. And I think his clarification is terribly important. I might not 
agree with his analogy, but I understand exactly what he is saying. And 
I think he has clarified the record.
  Third, let me just simply say to my colleague, and to other 
colleagues as well, that we have here a man, James Hormel, who has been 
nominated to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. Mr. Hormel comes 
to the U.S. Senate with enormous qualifications: dean of the students 
of the University of Chicago Law School, on the boards of such diverse 
groups as the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Swarthmore College, a 
generous giver, committed to community, a dedicated public servant. 
Frankly, the list goes on and on.
  On May 23, 1997, a year ago, this very Senate unanimously confirmed 
him to serve as an alternative representative on the U.S. delegation to 
the 51st U.N. General Assembly. He has done a lot of marvelous work in 
human rights as well.
  Mr. President, the fact that there is an article in the paper that 
says that the President nominated Mr. Hormel and believes that this was 
important to the gay community does not in any way, shape, or form 
suggest that Mr. Hormel has a personal agenda.
  The fact that Mr. Hormel talked about a country that seems to have 
done a great job of moving away from discrimination against gays and 
lesbians as a very attractive country to him does not mean in any way, 
shape, or form that he would use this position to promote his own 
personal agenda.
  In fact, Jim Hormel has clearly and publicly stated that he would 
``not use the Office of the Ambassador to advocate any personal 
views.''
  Mr. President, I simply have to say to my colleagues there is a 
personal part to this and a political part. For the personal part, here 
is a letter to Senator Lott:

       I am writing to you to urge you to bring James C. Hormel's 
     nomination as Ambassador to Luxembourg to a vote on the floor 
     of the Senate. The stone-walling of this appointment reflects 
     a flagrant disregard to all that we hold precious in a 
     democratic society. If he is voted down then so be it, but 
     not to allow due process to take place is clearly an 
     indictment of the branch of our government that seems at 
     times to be inclined to exhibit its own peculiar form of 
     despotism. The President has nominated him and the Senate 
     Foreign Relations Committee has recommended him. Let the 
     process take place.
       I am a sixty three year old retired counseling 
     psychologist. I am the mother of six children and the step-
     mother of three. I have 17 grandchildren. Thirteen of those 
     grandchildren I share with James Hormel. I have

[[Page S5367]]

     known Jim for 46 years and for ten of those years I was 
     married to him. During those ten years we had five children.

  And she goes on to say,

       For many of those years he tried his hardest to live what 
     was a lie. Of course, you might say I was the ``injured 
     party,'' but I grew to understand the terrible prejudice and 
     hatred that he knew he would have to face, that he has faced 
     and is facing as he goes through the difficult process that 
     this nomination and its opponents have put him through. James 
     Hormel is my dear friend. I care deeply about him and have 
     great admiration for his courage in being open about his 
     homosexuality and his willingness to put himself on the line 
     in accepting this nomination.
       James Hormel's former wife.

  Mr. President, let me simply say to my colleagues that this is really 
an outrage. I understand what my colleague from Oklahoma had to say, 
but I will have an amendment when we come back that I will put on the 
first bill I can after the tobacco bill, which will say that the Senate 
ought to bring this up. The majority leader, we owe it to him.
  Now, my colleague from Oklahoma has been clear on his position. I 
accept that. But I say to my colleagues that this man is eminently 
qualified. That is crystal clear, I think, to many of us, the majority 
of us. This man should be able to serve. And if, in fact, the reason he 
is being stopped--and this is what I fear; and I am not speaking to my 
colleague from Oklahoma--but if he is being stopped because of 
discrimination, because of the fact that he is gay, then let that come 
out on the Senate floor. Let us have the debate. And let's have 
colleagues come out here, no more holds, and speak directly to this 
nomination.
  If you oppose him, then oppose him on the floor of the Senate. My 
colleague from Oklahoma has been clear about his position, but let's 
have that debate. We owe James Hormel this. We owe the U.S. Senate 
this.
  This institution is on trial. If we don't bring this forward, I say 
to the majority leader, then I think we have to look at ourselves in 
the mirror. We need to bring this nomination forward. We need to have 
this debate. And we need to vote up or down. I believe elementary 
decency dictates that we do that. I will start having amendments on 
bills that will call on the majority leader to bring this nomination to 
the floor.

                          ____________________