[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.

                          ____________________