[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 146 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12586-S12589]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE NOMINATION OF JAMES C. HORMEL
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as the 105th Congress draws to a
close, I rise to express my disappointment over something we did not
do. The Senate, despite strong support from both sides of the aisle,
has not brought the nomination of James C. Hormel to serve as U.S.
Ambassador to Luxembourg to the floor, has not had a debate on the
nomination, and has not had a vote on it.
This failure is really quite incomprehensible.
The President nominated James Hormel for this post on October 6,
1997. After a thorough review by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, the committee approved the nomination by a vote of 16-2 and
reported it to the full Senate with the recommendation that it be
confirmed. And yet here it is, October 14, 1998, in the final hours of
this Congress, and the nomination has not budged from the Executive
Calendar.
Mr. Hormel is eminently qualified for the job of U.S. Ambassador to
Luxembourg. He has had a diverse and distinguished career as a lawyer,
businessman, educator, and philanthropist, and he gained diplomatic
experience as a member of the U.S. delegation to the 51st U.N. Human
Rights Commission in Geneva in 1995 and as a member of the U.S.
delegation to the 51st U.N. General Assembly in 1997. He was even
confirmed unanimously by this very Senate for the latter post on May
23, 1997.
He has been an upstanding civic leader in San Francisco, and he has
been honored for his work by organizations too numerous to mention. He
is a man who is kind to all he meets, generous beyond measure, and
deeply committed to making the world and his community a better place
to live for all people. He is a devoted father of five grown children,
and grandfather of 13. Anyone who knows him, as I have been privileged
to do for over two decades, knows that he is a man of decency and
honor, and the type of person who should be encouraged to be in public
service.
So this is the situation we face: we have a nominee with outstanding
talents and credentials; he was previously confirmed by this Senate for
another post; he was approved by the Foreign Relations Committee by a
16-2 vote nearly a year ago; and over 60 Senators support bringing his
nomination to a vote. And yet, we have never had the opportunity to
vote on it.
Why? Because several Senators on the other side of the aisle have
placed holds on the nomination, preventing a debate and a vote they
knew they would lose. And the Majority Leader has refused to call up
the nomination, effectively allowing the passage of time to kill it.
Why has Mr. Hormel been denied the Constitutionally delineated due
process of a Senate debate and vote? The answer is simple: Mr. Hormel
is gay. With no other reasonable grounds to block this nomination, one
can come to no other conclusion than that some Senators are simply
opposed to a gay man serving our country as a U.S. Ambassador. I
believe the Senate does not want to allow this type of discrimination
to prevail, and I think the vast majority of my colleagues agree. But
so far, it appears that discrimination has prevailed.
I believe the majority of Americans agree with this position as well.
To cite just one measure, newspaper editorials have appeared in support
of Mr. Hormel's nomination across the country, including in the: Albany
Times Union, Albuquerque Journal, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Atlanta
Journal & Constitution, Boston Globe, Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette,
Chicago Tribune, Cincinnati Post, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Detroit Free
Press, Evansville Courier, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Hartford Courant,
Houston Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal,
Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune, Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger, New
Orleans Times Picayune, New York Daily News, New York Times, Peoria
Journal-Star, Philadelphia Inquirer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Portland
Press Herald, Providence Journal, Riverside (Ca.) Press-Enterprise,
Rocky Mountain News, San Diego Union-Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle,
San Francisco Examiner, Santa Rosa (Ca.) Press Democrat, Seattle Post-
Intelligencer, Springfield (Ill.) Journal-Register, St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, St. Petersburg Times, Syracuse Post-Standard, Tulsa World,
Washington Post, and York (Pa.) Daily Record.
Many of these newspapers have also run op-ed columns which call for a
vote on the nomination, as have the: Arizona Republic, Buffalo News,
Columbus Dispatch, Dallas Morning News, Denver Post, Des Moines
Register, Detroit News, Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Greensboro News &
Record, Madison Capital Times, Memphis Commercial Appeal, Northern New
Jersey Record, Raleigh News & Observer, Salt Lake City Tribune, and USA
Today.
I deeply regret that the Senate has not been permitted to have its
say on this eminently qualified nominee solely because he is gay. But
the Senate's failure to act need not prevent Mr. Hormel from assuming
his post. In a case such as this, where the Senate has so clearly
failed to fulfill its Constitutional obligation with respect to a
nomination, even though a clear majority of the Senate supports that
nomination, I believe it is entirely appropriate for the President to
use his Constitutional authority to make a recess appointment.
Luxembourg is a NATO ally, and we need an ambassador there. Mr.
Hormel has every qualification necessary to be an outstanding
ambassador, and he would have been overwhelmingly confirmed if the
Senate had been allowed to vote. But we were not. I, therefore, urge
President Clinton, after Congress adjourns, to make a recess
appointment of James Hormel to be U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. It is
the right thing to do, and it will give the country the benefit of the
service of James Hormel, which the Senate has failed to do.
Mr. President, because the Senate has not had the opportunity to
debate this nomination, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record
some of the materials I would have used in the course of that debate,
including some of the notable editorials, op-ed pieces, and letters of
support that have come to my attention.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Los Angeles Times, July 22, 1998]
Game's Not Over for Hormel
Even though this hasn't been a notably busy or productive
year for the U.S. Senate, Majority Leader Trent Lott has
decided that there simply is no time available to vote on the
nomination of James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg. Never
mind that Hormel's confirmation has been pending since last
fall, that hearings on his fitness have long since been
completed or that Lott early on declared his unshakable
belief that Hormel should not represent his country abroad
because he is a homosexual. The excuse du jour is that the
Senate calendar is
[[Page S12587]]
too crowded to permit a confirmation vote. So Lott and a
handful of others of like mind will have denied the Senate
its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent to
this nomination.
That's not the end of the story, however. The Constitution
also empowers the president to fill vacancies when Congress
is in recess. Congress is rushing toward recess now, its
members eager to campaign for the November elections. Once it
has adjourned, President Clinton can name Hormel to the
Luxembourg post. He is qualified, he is acceptable to the
host government and his sexual orientation is utterly
irrelevant.
That's the way most senators feel, as Lott well knows. Had
the Senate leader allowed a floor vote, Hormel would easily
have been confirmed. Instead Lott used his powers to prevent
a vote, meanwhile taking to the airwaves to give his opinion
that homosexuality is a treatable condition, as he put it,
like alcoholism or kleptomania. In other words, anyone who
makes the effort can surmount it. That notion may play well
in some circles. It hardly elevates the reputation of the
Senate.
In a few weeks the Senate will recess. There's no reason
why Hormel shouldn't be presenting his credentials in
Luxembourg not long after.
____
[From the Atlanta Constitution, July 2, 1998]
Senate Discriminates Against Gays
When gay Americans have sought protection against being
fired from jobs or being denied employment solely because of
their sexual orientation, they have been slapped with the
charge that they are seeking ``special rights.''
The implication of the term, ``special rights,'' has been
that gay Americans don't really need job protection, that
they seek some sort of exalted legal status above and beyond
that enjoyed by other Americans. That doesn't make much sense
to gay Americans, for whom job discrimination is very real,
but it has nonetheless become the standard line for
politicians in rejecting gay-rights legislation.
The example of businessman James Hormel has exposed the
hypocrisy of that argument. President Clinton has nominated
Hormel to be U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg, a largely
honorary role that requires confirmation by the U.S. Senate.
But a vote on Hormel's nomination has been blocked by a small
minority of U.S. senators for one very obvious and silly
reason: He is gay, and they don't like gay people.
It's a situation rich in irony. Most of those opposing
Hormel have no doubt cited the ``special rights'' argument in
the past, denying that gay Americans need protection. Now
here they are, in a very public setting, committing a form of
discrimination that supposedly does not exist.
For that reason, the Hormel nomination already has served a
great public benefit. It has stripped away the code phrases
and the weasel words that certain politicians have used to
communicate their message of hate to one crowd while
maintaining the pretense of tolerance for others. It has
ripped away the mask exposing the hate that has always hidden
behind that term ``special rights.''
Here is a good man, a person of great accomplishment and
civic contributions, denied the chance to represent his
country simply because he is gay. And the wellspring of that
bias and hate, the agency denying him a job because of his
sexual orientation, is the U.S. Senate.
That is shameful.
No American should be denied the opportunity to contribute
to his country, or more fundamentally, to simply earn a
living, because of his sexual nature. If the right to earn a
living and contribute to one's country is a ``special
right,'' it is a special right that must be available to all
Americans.
____
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, June 23, 1998]
Hold That Homophobia
Maybe Don Nickles, the second-ranking Republican in the
Senate, thinks he's Don Rickles, the insult-comedian? That
might explain his screed Sunday against a gay businessman
nominated to be an ambassador.
Alas, Mr. Nickles and other die-hard opponents of sending
James Hormel to Luxembourg are slinging their insults in dead
earnest.
They say it's not simply that this would-be diplomat is
gay; it's that he's out of the closet. Mr. Hormel, a wealthy
San Franciscan, has given tons of money to various causes and
institutions, including Swarthmore College. But his foes
fulminate about his donations to ``a gay and lesbian center''
at San Francisco's main library.
``One might have that lifestyle,'' said Mr. Nickles, ``but
if one promotes it as acceptable behavior . . . I don't think
they [sic] should be representative of this country.''
Never mind that Mr. Hormel's public service includes stints
at the U.N. Human Rights Commission and General Assembly.
Never mind that his nomination has been endorsed by
Republicans such as former Secretary of State George Shulz
and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch.
Never mind that his defenders, including the executive
director of the American Library Association, argue that
libraries ought to include a breadth of materials.
For months now, his nomination has been in limbo because a
few senators invoke their informal power to put an indefinite
``hold'' on it. If homophobes want to oppose Mr. Hormel, even
though Luxembourg has expressed its approval, let 'em. But
his future should be decided by the full Senate, not X'd out
by a tiny minority.
____
[From the New York Times, June 22, 1998]
Let Them Vote on Mr. Hormel
James Hormel, President Clinton's nominee to be ambassador
to Luxembourg, is opposed by a small group of Republican
senators who are looking smaller all the time. It is not Mr.
Hormel's credentials that are in question. An heir to the
Hormel Meat-packing fortune, a former dean of the University
of Chicago Law School, he has given leadership and money to
causes that range from the San Francisco Symphony to
Swarthmore College and the Human Rights Campaign, the main
political lobby for homosexual rights.
Mr. Hormel is gay, but that is not an issue in Luxembourg.
As Alphonse Berns, Luxembourg's Ambassador to the United
States, said on Friday, ``We would welcome Mr. Hormel.'' But
for months, Senators James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Tim Hutchinson
of Arkansas and Robert Smith of New Hampshire have been
blocking a vote on the nomination, making dark suggestions
about Mr. Hormel's gay-rights ``agenda,'' as if he might
somehow seek to lead the moral standards of Luxembourg array.
Discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual
orientation is outlawed in Luxembourg and in all the other
countries in the European Union. It is illegal in San
Francisco, where Mr. Hormel lives, and in Washington--except
in such place as Congress, where the Republican leadership
has made a fetish of it lately.
Last week, Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader, who has
refused to bring the Hormel nomination up for a vote, said in
a television interview that he thought homosexuality was a
sin. He likened it to alcoholism, kleptornania and ``sex
addiction.'' The next day, Dick Armey, the House majority
leader, said he thought it was a sin too, and cited some
Bible scripture to the effect that neither fornicators, nor
adulterers, ``nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
mankind'' shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Finally, in a letter to Mr. Lott made public on Thursday,
Senator Alfonse D'Amato of new York broke the silence of his
fellow Republicans to say that it was wrong to block Hormel's
nomination simply because he is gay. ``I am embarrassed,'' he
said. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California has said she
believes more than 60 senators support Mr. Hormel. Mr. Lott
should let the nomination go to the floor, so Mr. Hormel. can
be judged on his merit.
____
[From the Washington Post, May 12, 1998]
Qualified To Serve
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, refuses to let the
Senate vote on President Clinton's nominee to be ambassador
to Luxembourg. Four of Mr. Lott's fellow Republicans have
objected to would-be ambassador James Hormel because, they
say, of his support for gay rights. But many other Clinton
appointees have shared Mr. Hormel's views on that matter. The
real problem seems to be that Mr. Hormel is himself openly
gay.
Mr. Hormel, 65, is a longtime supporter of the Democratic
Party, and you could certainly make a case that more career
diplomats and fewer political contributors should get
ambassadorial posts. But as political nominations go, Mr.
Hormel is, according to wide bipartisan consensus, unusually
well qualified. A lawyer and businessman from San Francisco,
Mr. Hormel has been a longtime and effective supporter of
many charitable causes. George Shultz, former secretary of
state, says Mr. Hormel ``would be a wonderful representative
for our country.''
The senators who object--Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, James
Inhofe of Oklahoma, Robert Smith of New Hampshire and a
fourth who remains anonymous--say they fear he would use his
ambassadorship to advance a gay rights agenda. How that might
come about in Luxembourg is hard to see; in any case, Mr.
Hormel has made clear that he would use his post to promote
U.S. policy, and U.S. policy only.
Mr. Hormel's nomination sailed through the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee last fall. Now he deserves a vote in the
full Senate. Those senators who don't believe a gay person
should represent the United States overseas would be able to
vote no. Those who believe the United States should welcome
to public service its most qualified citizens regardless of
race, religion, gender, ethnic background or sexual
orientation, would be able to vote yes. We believe a majority
of the Senate inclines toward the latter view. As Republican
Sen. Orrin Hatch said in support of Mr. Hormel's nomination,
``I just don't believe in prejudice against any individual,
regardless.''
____
[From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette]
Strange Diplomacy--Senator Hutchinson, Meet Mr. Hormel
Any day now Tim Hutchinson is to meet with James Hormel.
Mr. Hutchinson, you may have noticed, is the junior senator
from Arkansas, and Mr. Hormel is the ambassador-designate to
Luxembourg whose appointment Senator Hutchinson has been
holding up.
We thought better of Tim Hutchinson. It's one thing to
block an ambassadorial nomination when policy is the issue.
That's what Jesse Helms did when William Weld, then governor
of Massachusetts, was nominated
[[Page S12588]]
as ambassador to Mexico. The irrepressible senator from North
Carolina reasoned that the drug trade was going to be a major
issue between the United States and Mexico, and that made Mr.
Weld's position on legalizing marijuana fair game.
But now Senator Hutchinson has put ahold on the nomination
of James Hormel--scion of the Spam-making family--as
ambassador to Luxembourg. The senator says he's concerned
about the ``activism'' of Mr. Hormel in pushing rights for
homosexuals.
Funny, we don't remember homosexuality being a major issue
between the United States and Luxembourg. Nor does Luxembourg
seem to offer much of a platform for espousing any political
agenda. Luxembourg is by all accounts a lovely country about
the size of Rhode Island, and one not likely to be confused
with a great power.
Tim Hutchinson says he plans to find out more for himself
about the nominee's background. When he does he'll learn that
James Hormel has many qualifications as representative of
this country.
* * * * *
Not only all that, but James Hormel already has a
diplomatic background of sorts: He was a delegate to the
United Nations Human Rights Commission's meeting in Geneva in
1995, and he was an alternate in this country's delegation to
the UN General Assembly this year.
That last position required confirmation by the Senate. Mr.
Hormel's ``activism'' wasn't an issue for Senator Hutchinson
when that vote came up.
When it comes down to it and ambassadorship to a small
friendly country requires little more than an ability to
throw good parties. What's our junior senator worried about--
that James Hormel will serve Spam at diplomatic receptions?
That he'll re-decorate the ambassador's residence in
lavender? Come On, senator. Wake up and grow up.
Senators have more realistic problems to worry about. Or
should have Senator Hutchinson's objections to Mr. Hormel are
enough to make that clunky, over-worked word Homophobis all
too relevant.
Orrin Hatch, the senator from Utah, said it plain when he
urged his colleagues to lift Tim Hutchinson's embarrassing
hold on this nomination. ``We ought to vote on him,'' Senator
Hatch said of the nominee, ``and I personally believe he
would pass and he'd become the next ambassador to Luxembourg.
I just don't believe in prejudice against any individual and,
frankly, we have far too much of that.'' to quote Orrin
Hatch. ``I get tired of that kind of stuff.'' So do we.
____
[From the Washington Post, July 7, 1998]
A Vote for Hormel
(By James K. Glassman)
Luxembourg is a nation of 400,000 souls in the middle of
Europe. It's smaller than Jacksonville, Fla., but it's the
focus of a big controversy in Washington. Back in October,
President Clinton picked James C. Hormel of San Francisco, an
investor and philanthropist, to be U.S. ambassador to
Luxembourg. The next month, he was approved by the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, 16-2. But it is unlikely that
the ``Spam heir,'' as the local newspapers call him, will
ever become our envoy to the Grand Duchy.
Trent Lott, the Senate Majority Leader, refuses to put the
matter to a vote. Hormel is gay, and Lott considers
homosexuality a sin. In an interview on ``The Armstrong
Williams Show,'' Lott elaborated: ``You should still love
that person. You should not try to mistreat them or treat
them as outcasts. You should try to show them a way to deal
with that problem, just like alcohol . . . or sex addiction .
. . or kleptomaniacs.''
Kleptomaniacs! The Hormel nomination has brought anti-gay
sentiment among GOP leaders out of the closet--and it is an
ugly sight. Recent comments by Lott, Foreign Relations
Chairman Jesse Helms (``it's sickening'') and Senate Whip Don
Nickles (``immoral behavior'') may appear unenlightened and
ignorant, but politicians, like the rest of us, are entitled
to their bigotries.
Through their actions as lawmakers, however, politicians
should not be entitled to impose such bigotries--or religious
or moral convictions, if you prefer--about matters of
personal behavior on the rest of us.
In general, while Americans don't approve of homosexuality,
they are very tolerant of it--and getting more so. For
example, 52 percent of respondents to a Gallup poll last year
said homosexuality was ``not an acceptable alternative
lifestyle''--a figure essentially unchanged from 1982. But 84
percent (up from 59 percent 16 years ago) said homosexuals
``should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities.''
Gallup says that ``solid majorities'' favor gays as
elementary school teachers (up from 27 percent in 1977) and
clergy (up from 36 percent).
What's truly disturbing about the Hormel affair is that it
shows how conservatives, who claim to favor a smaller, less
intrusive government, can't resist using it to impose their
own moral views on the public.
Frederich von Hayek, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and
a patron saint to many conservatives, identified this
propensity in a famous essay in 1960. ``In general,'' he
wrote, ``it can probably be said that the conservative does
not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is
used for what he regards as right purposes. . . . Like the
socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the values
he holds on other people.''
At a conference on homosexuality at Georgetown University,
Bill Kristol, a conservative intellectual leader and editor
of the Weekly Standard, complained about ``a denial of the
public's right to uphold moral standards.'' But he, too,
misses the key distinction: No one is denying the right of
individuals and groups to campaign against immorality as they
see it. But public officials, in the discharge of their
duties are something else. Judgments about truly personal
behavior are not their province.
Some of Hormel's foes claim they are against him not
because he's gay but because he's a vigorous proselytizer for
gay causes. ``He has promoted that lifestyle and promoted it
in a big way, in a way that is very offensive,'' said
Nickles.
But this is a meaningless distinction. Gays are denied jobs
because of their sexual orientation. Why shouldn't Hormel
campaign to change that situation? Lott and Nickles sound
like a couple of 1950s southern segregationists: ``It's not
that we're against nigras. It's that we're against them
marching for their so-called rights.''
One reason the American system works so well is that, in
Hayek's words, ``we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.''
It's that agreement ``that makes it possible to build a
peaceful society with a minimum of force.''
When we abandon tolerance, the trouble begins. It's bad
enough on college campuses, where rules against ``offensive
speech'' are used to stifle ideas unpopular to the left and,
of course, to hypersensitive gays. But when it comes to
government, which wields the power to tax and imprison,
tolerance is an absolute necessity.
As far as our international relations are concerned, it
makes no difference at all whether Hormel becomes an
ambassador. As far as the preservation of our freedoms and
proper role of our government are concerned, it makes a big
difference indeed.
____
San Francisco, CA, February 6, 1998.
Senator Trent Lott,
U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Trent: We are writing on behalf of James Hormel, a
candidate for the post of Ambassador to Luxembourg. We know
him as a highly regarded individual in the City of San
Francisco. His community service and philanthropy are
extraordinary. He gives time and personal effort as well as
resources to improve the quality of life in our community.
We recommend him to you because we believe he would be a
wonderful representative for our country. We hope that his
nomination can be brought to the floor of the Senate for a
vote as soon as possible
Sincerely,
Charlotte M. Shultz.
George P. Shultz.
____
D'Amato Urges Majority Leader Lott to Schedule Vote on Nomination of
James Hormel
Washington--U.S. Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato (R-NY) today
called on Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) to permit
an up or down vote on the nomination of James Hormel to serve
as U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. Text of Senator D'Amato's
letter follows:
Dear Majority Leader: I urge you to permit an up or down
vote on the nomination of Mr. James Hormel to serve as United
States Ambassador to Luxembourg. I support proceeding to a
vote for three basic reasons.
First, Mr. Hormel is a highly qualified nominee. His
academic, business, and community service credentials are
outstanding and are easily equal to or greater than those of
most ambassadorial nominees. I know of no statements or
actions by Mr. Hormel that make him unfit to represent our
country in this diplomatic post. Furthermore, he clearly
understands that his own personal philosophies, whatever they
may be, are not to influence his ambassadorial duties. He is
completely committed to representing the policies of the
United States government.
Second, simple fairness demands that the Senate be allowed
to vote on Mr. Hormel's nomination. The Foreign Relations
Committee overwhelmingly approved the nomination, and a
majority of Senators are on record supporting the nomination.
Opponents of the nominee should certainly have their voices
heard, but so too should supporters. And Mr. Hormel should
also be given the chance to defend himself. This can only
happen if the Senate is permitted to vote.
Third, and most fundamentally, I fear that Mr. Hormel's
nomination is being obstructed for one reason, and one reason
only, the fact that he is gay. In this day and age, when
people ably serve our country in so many capacities without
regard to sexual orientation, for the United States Senate to
deny an appointment on that basis is simply wrong. What's
more, on a personal level, I am embarrassed that our
Republican Party, the Party of Lincoln, is seen to be the
force behind this injustice.
I know that you join me in standing for the proposition
that all people should be judged on their ability to do the
job. By that sole standard, Mr. Hormel is well qualified to
be Ambassador to Luxembourg. I urge you to permit a Senate
vote on the nomination, and to join me in opposing those who
would deny Mr. Hormel this position because of his sexual
orientation.
Sincerely,
Alfonse M. D'Amato,
U.S. Senator.
[[Page S12589]]
____
Catholic Charities,
San Francisco, CA, July 22, 1998.
Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: Please accept this letter in my capacity
as the Chief Executive Officer of Catholic Charities of the
Archdiocese of San Francisco and the immediate past President
of Catholic Charities of California. It has been alleged that
James Hormel, President Clinton's nominee to be Ambassador to
Luxembourg, is anti-Catholic and anti-religious. I know the
characterizations of Mr. Hormel are not true. I know
personally that Mr. Hormel vigorously opposes discrimination
in all forms including that of religion.
I urge you to allow Mr. Hormel's nomination to come before
the full Senate for he would be an excellent representative
for the United States to the predominantly Catholic country
of Luxembourg.
Sincerely,
Frank C. Hudson,
Chief Executive Officer.
____________________