[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 97 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S8550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF JAMES HORMEL

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I read today in the paper--and I am not 
quite sure where we are headed, and I always look forward to having a 
chance to meet and talk with the majority leader, agree or disagree, on 
all issues--but I read in the paper the majority leader said he didn't 
think he would have time to bring up the nomination of James Hormel. 
That is a terrible mistake.
  I have spoken on the floor. I said after the tobacco legislation, I 
was looking for an opportunity to offer an amendment. Frankly, on the 
basis of discussions I had with a lot of different people, I decided 
that it would be better to wait because I was hoping, if you will, that 
cooler heads would prevail on this matter and we would figure out a way 
to bring this nomination to the floor.
  If it is a debate or discussion, it will be a good debate and good 
discussion. Too much of the climate has become too poisonous. If the 
majority leader is basically shutting the door on any action on the 
floor of the Senate--I hope he isn't; I guess that is my plea to the 
majority leader: I hope you have not done that--I want to find out as 
soon as possible. Then, I believe, it will be important for some of us 
to bring amendments to the floor and, basically, one way or another, 
have a debate and have an up-or-down vote.

  Every Senator is entitled to their own opinion about whether or not 
James Hormel would be an able Ambassador to Luxembourg, and every 
Senator is entitled to a vote. I am entitled to my opinion, and I am 
entitled to a vote. I think the majority of us --well over 60 of us--
would vote to confirm this nomination.
  I cannot see anything in Mr. Hormel's record--anything in his record, 
anything in his record--that would disqualify him from this job. I see 
someone with an enormously successful background in education--that 
means a lot to me; education has been my life's work--a very successful 
business person, philanthropist, and very active in the legal 
profession. For the life of me, there is no reason to stop this 
nomination, except for the fact--and if this is the fact, let's get it 
out in the open--that he is gay. If that is what troubles colleagues, 
come out here and say it. If colleagues want to say he is gay, or if 
they want to say he has been too outspoken on gay causes, then let's 
get that out here.
  Too many comments have been made in the last several months --made 
here, there--and I don't think that is good for the Senate. Frankly, 
the failure of the U.S. Senate to at least bring this nomination to the 
floor and have an honest discussion and an honest debate--frankly, this 
is less about Jim Hormel than it is about the Senate. The Senate is far 
more on trial than is Jim Hormel. This is not good for this 
institution. If this is just a case of discrimination against somebody 
because of their sexual orientation, we all have to look ourselves in 
the mirror. If not, fine, we will have the discussion, we will have the 
debate, and we will have the vote. But I don't think, as much as I 
might respect the majority leader or respect his prerogatives, 
necessarily his word would be the final word, at least in terms of a 
discussion and a debate. My hope is, we can figure out a way of 
bringing Mr. Hormel's nomination to the floor and that there will be a 
vote.

                          ____________________