[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6003-S6004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF JAMES C. HORMEL

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak again--and I 
shall be relatively brief--about the nomination of James C. Hormel to 
be United States Ambassador to Luxembourg.
  I point out to colleagues that it has now been more than 8 months 
that his nomination has languished, awaiting an opportunity for us to 
consider this on the Senate floor. I have spoken on the floor before 
about Mr. Hormel.
  Let me just make one point. We in fact have voted before on Mr. 
Hormel when we made the decision as to whether or not he would be a 
representative to the U.S. delegation to the 51st U.N. General 
Assembly. As I look at his qualifications, he has had a tremendous 
amount of success as a businessman, a tremendous amount of success as a 
lawyer, a tremendous amount of success in philanthropy, a tremendous 
amount of success from the point of view of very, very moving, very 
personal testimony by his former wife, his children, his family 
members, people who really know him well--and, I say to the Chair, 
people who know him not from the point of view of formal credentials, 
not from the point of view of any political fight, but from the point 
of view of kind of measuring the character of a person.
  My feeling is, colleagues can have different views about this 
nomination, but I believe it is extremely important that this 
nomination be brought to the floor. I've said it before. I have spoken 
any number of different times on the floor about Mr. Hormel. What I 
have said is that if there is a debate about his qualifications, that 
is quite one thing. If so, then let us have that debate.
  But I do not want the Senate to deny a nomination to anyone because 
of their sexual orientation. I think that would be discrimination. It's 
not just that I think that would be discrimination; it would be 
discrimination. And I think it is terribly important that the Senate 
take a long, hard look at itself and, at the very minimum, we have the 
debate. I think to be silent about this

[[Page S6004]]

is a betrayal of what the Senate stands for, which is a fundamental 
respect for the dignity and worth of each and every person.
  The reason I come to the floor is just to say, colleagues, we have 
the tobacco bill before us. And we have had a number of amendments. We 
have still got a long ways to go. I do not know that I will bring an 
amendment to the floor on this bill or not, in any case. But certainly 
if not the tobacco bill, on the next bill--or the next appropriate 
vehicle, as soon as possible; the sooner the better--I will have an 
amendment which in some way puts a focus on this whole question of 
judging a person by the content of his or her character, judging them 
by their qualifications, judging them by their leadership, and in no 
way, shape, or form making any kind of judgment based upon any form of 
discrimination.
  Understand me, because I am talking--and a friend of mine is 
presiding, a good friend, someone whom I disagree with, but whom I 
really like a lot. And I hope it is mutual. I am not arguing that 
different people can't have different views, and I am not arguing that 
there are some who in very good faith may oppose this nomination. 
Absolutely not. But I just think that there are some big questions to 
be resolved here.
  It is terribly important we not just block this. It is terribly 
important we have an honest discussion and an honest debate and we have 
an up-or-down vote. I think my role as a Senator is to bring some 
amendments to the floor on pieces of legislation to put this into very 
sharp focus.

                          ____________________