[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 100 (Thursday, July 21, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8590-S8602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Health Information Technology
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on leader time--the managers will be coming
to the floor--one final thought.
I am pleased to report that we are making progress on an issue which
I mentioned in my previous remarks on information technology. We are
working together in a strongly bipartisan way to improve our health
care system, to get rid of waste and abuse and ultimately save lives
and improve quality by promoting and making it easy to use the
protected electronic health record. Yesterday, the Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee reported out the Wired for Health Care
Quality Act that was introduced by myself, and Senators Enzi, Kennedy,
and Clinton. The four of us have been working together aggressively
with the HELP Committee.
Soon, at the urging of Congress, the administration will make the
Veterans' Administration's Electronic Health Record System, called
VISTA, available to health care providers free of charge. Making that
system available will be hugely beneficial, with tens of thousands of
physicians who treat seniors being able to harness the power of having
this electronic health record. It will improve the quality of care, the
efficiency of care that they provide. It will ultimately pull down
cost, and it will get rid of waste within the system.
There is much more to be done. That is why I look to rapidly move the
HELP-reported bill that will hopefully be before us soon, the Wired for
Health Care Quality Act. It also will protect patient privacy and
promote secure exchange of lifesaving health information. It will allow
for the rapid adoption of standards that will allow health information
technology systems to communicate, one with the other. It will allow us
to seamlessly integrate the health information technology standards. It
will reduce waste and inefficiency and put patients back at the heart
of the health care system.
Mr. President, the managers are in the Chamber. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
I rise in support of Tom Dorr, the President's nominee for Under
Secretary of Rural Development at USDA.
Tom is a fourth generation ``dirt under the fingernails'' family
farmer. He has also been a small businessman and understands the
demands and challenges of doing business in rural America.
Tom Dorr is a family man, having been married to Ann for 35 years.
They have a son and a married daughter and a beautiful granddaughter,
all who live in Iowa.
Tom is a community leader, having served as the chairman of the board
for the Heartland Care Center, a cooperative care center in Marcus.
Tom was instrumental in starting the Iowa Corn Growers Association
and served in various leadership roles before moving on to leadership
at the National Corn Growers Association.
Tom served on the board of the Chicago Federal Reserve and has also
served on the Iowa Board of Regents, which is truly one of the most
prestigious jobs in our State, a position now held by the wife of my
Senate partner from Iowa, Tom Harkin. Mrs. Harkin serves on that
prestigious body.
Tom's leadership ability has been demonstrated and utilized to the
benefit of his community and our State time and time again.
Tom has dedicated a good portion of his life to serving Iowa's rural
population and improving Iowa's rural economy.
Tom Dorr has the financial expertise and business savvy required to
run an organization as large and complicated as USDA's Rural
Development.
Rural Development is basically a large bank, with a loan portfolio of
almost $90 billion. That is as big as Wells Fargo or Chase Manhattan
and bigger than most of the banks in America. This agency has 7,000
employees located in over 800 offices across the country.
Not just any person can move from the farm and smoothly take over an
organization of this size. But Tom Dorr did exactly that. Tom Dorr ran
Rural Development as the Under Secretary for 16 months--from August
2002 until December 2003.
Because of Tom's recess appointment, we have the unique opportunity
to examine his track record.
I have heard from many people at USDA about Tom Dorr's
accomplishments. This news doesn't come only from other political
appointees, it also comes from career staff and groups who originally
had concerns.
Folks tell me about his leadership, his vision, his intellect and
most importantly, his commitment to rural America. When I hear of
comments like this from his peers and those who worked with him, I take
particular note.
Let me describe a few of Tom's accomplishments while he was the Under
Secretary for Rural Development:
No. 1, he expedited the release of $762 million of water and
wastewater infrastructure funds provided in the 2002 farm bill in just
3 months.
No. 2, he led the effort to complete the rulemaking process in order
that the $1.5 billion broadband program could begin taking applications
this year. He believes that if Americans are to live locally and
compete globally, that it is as imperative to wire the country for
technology access as it was to provide electricity nationwide 60 years
ago.
No. 3, in order to facilitate the review of $37 million in value-
added development grants, he creatively used private sector resources
to expedite the process.
No. 4, in order to deliver the financial grants authorized through
the Delta Regional Authority, he helped develop and get signed a
memorandum of understanding between Rural Development and the Delta
Regional Authority. This will allow Rural Development to assist in
delivering joint projects at no added cost to the Delta Regional
Authority.
No. 5, he facilitated the development of a memorandum of
understanding, signed by Secretaries Veneman and Martinez, between the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, that is focused on better serving housing and
infrastructure needs.
No. 6, he has developed a series of initiatives with HUD that will
allow Rural Development to more cost effectively meet the housing needs
of rural America. These have allowed USDA to provide greater access for
rural American housing, but especially minorities living in rural
America in fulfillment of the President's housing initiative.
No. 7, he has initiated a review of the Multi-family Housing Program.
This includes the hiring of an outside contractor to conduct a
comprehensive property assessment to evaluate the physical condition,
market position, and operational status of the more than 17,000
properties USDA has financed, all while determining how best to meet
the needs of low-income citizens throughout rural America.
No. 8, he has initiated a major outreach program to insure that
USDA's Rural Development programs are more easily made available to all
qualified individuals, communities, and organizations. This marketing
and branding initiative has also played an important role in changing
the attitude of employees to concentrate on customer service and
proactive outreach, with emphasis on reaching out to minorities.
Although this is an incomplete list of his accomplishments, it is
easy to see that as Under Secretary, Tom Dorr did a great job in the
short 15 months he served at Rural Development.
Clearly, I support Tom and believe he is the right person for the
job, but let me read a few comments from the folks that worked with Tom
when he was Under Secretary.
First is the Mortgage Bankers Association, a much respected national
organization in the banking industry:
We support Mr. Dorr's nomination as Under Secretary for
Rural Development because we have found him to be an engaged
leader with a true commitment to the housing and community
development needs of rural America--Jonathan L. Kempner,
President/CEO.
This organization certainly is able to recognize if someone has the
ability to
[[Page S8592]]
understand the financial issues and have the skills needed to run USDA
Rural Development.
The next quote is from the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing,
a very respected organization serving the housing industry.
On behalf of our members throughout the country, we are
writing to you today in support of the nomination of Thomas
C. Dorr to be the Under Secretary for Rural Development . . .
There is a need for strong leadership and determination to
forge long-term solutions to preserving this important
investment in rural housing--Robert Rice, Jr., President,
Council for Affordable and Rural Housing.
I have many more letters, probably 50 or more, from organizations all
across the country asking us to confirm Mr. Dorr. In addition, I have a
letter signed by many of the leading national agricultural
organizations such as the National Corn Growers Association and
American Farm Bureau Federation.
There is another issue that I feel compelled to address today. During
the 2002 hearing and in the floor debate in the Senate, concerns were
expressed regarding Tom's position on minority issues. I would like to
reference letters for the record this morning that should alleviate any
lingering concerns.
These letters are from minority organization leaders expressing their
support for Tom Dorr's confirmation.
The first letter is from the Federation of Southern Cooperatives. You
may recall that they had a representative testify against Mr. Dorr at
the 2002 Hearing. I will read a quote from their executive director,
Ralph Page:
I am personally endorsing Tom Dorr's nomination because of
his deep interest in rural development. He has made several
visits to the communities within the Federation's network and
has a great understanding of the needs of rural poor
communities. He is the man for the job
Here is another one:
Mr. Dorr [has] made great accomplishments in the position
and has earned the trust from rural Americans to carry out
this mission--Dexter L. Davis, President, Northeast Louisiana
Black Farmers and Landowners Associations.
Here is another one:
I met Mr. Dorr in Washington, DC, when he was serving as
the acting Under Secretary for Rural Development and was
impressed with his passion for small farmers. Quite frankly,
when I first met Tom, I was not expecting him to be
particularly supportive of our needs. But over the years that
we have worked together, I have found him to be a great ally
and a tireless fighter for the causes that we both support--
Calvin R. King Sr., President/CEO, Arkansas Land and Farm
Development Corporation.
Here is another one:
We hold Mr. Dorr as a valuable asset to our organization
and its future. He is one of the individuals that has played
a major role in bridging the gap between the small limited
resource and minority producers for our organization and the
USDA--Fernando Burkett, Black Farmers & Agriculturalists
Association, Arkansas Chapter.
I have many more letters that I could read, but I think it is easy to
understand the point. Thankfully, these organizations were concerned
enough to come forward after they had a chance to get to know and work
with Tom.
In addition, I also want to read portions of a letter to Mr. Dorr by
Dr. Dennis Keeney, the former head of the Leopold Center at Iowa State
University. Many of you will recall Dr. Keeney was asked to testify
against Mr. Dorr in 2002:
I write to apologize for appearing at your hearing in 2002.
It was something I should have said no to right off, but did
not. Then it sort of drug on and I had to go through with the
appearance or lose face. That still did not make it right. .
. . It was during the reading of this book (The Natural, the
Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton) that I realized
that I had become part of the mudslinging and character
assassination. This is not the type of legacy I would like to
leave. You have been misunderstood, and made a poster child
for big agriculture. I am sure that has not particularly
bothered you. But, I have not been proud of my little part in
helping paint that picture--Dr. Dennis Keeney, Emeritus
Professor, Iowa State University, in a letter to Tom Dorr,
June 25, 2003.
I thank Dr. Keeney for sharing this letter and for setting the record
straight.
In closing, I ask my colleagues to set aside the politics of the past
and concentrate on the real issues affecting rural America and what Tom
Dorr would do if confirmed for this important job at USDA.
We have neglected our duty by going 4 years without having a
confirmed Under Secretary for Rural Development at USDA. We have had
four different individuals serving in the Under Secretary position, and
none of them were confirmed by the Senate. That is not a good way to
run a business, or a large and complicated agency as important to our
States as USDA Rural Development.
Tom has been under a microscope since his original nomination and
everyone who has looked in the lense has offered glowing praise for his
work and accomplishments.
Thankfully, we do not need to speculate about whether Tom would do a
good job or not, Tom has already demonstrated he has done and will
likely continue to do a great job for rural America in the role of
Rural Development Under Secretary.
How often do we actually get to judge a nominee by their proficiency
in the job? Tom is a sure thing. Rural America is regaining its
economic, social and cultural momentum. It would be a shame to deprive
it of leadership at this critical juncture.
We have a unique second chance today. I hope we will set aside our
differences and do what is best for our rural citizens, our States, and
our country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is asking to speak on the nomination?
Mr. THOMAS. Yes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I simply wanted to rise to give my
endorsement to Tom Dorr, who has been nominated for Under Secretary for
Rural Development. This agency is important to States such as Wyoming.
We have had some experience working with Mr. Dorr and we are pleased
with that.
Many of the groups from my State have endorsed him, including the
Cattleman's Association, the American Farm Bureau, the Farm Council,
and so on. I hope we will give the consideration and approval this
gentleman continues to deserve in this area. He has done a great job. I
hope he will have a chance to continue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, is
recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the
parliamentary situation we face right now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixty minutes equally divided between the
junior and senior Senators from Iowa, followed by a cloture vote. The
Senator from Iowa has 30 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the nomination of Thomas C. Dorr for the
position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development has
been controversial from the outset. It has generated a great deal of
concern and opposition and very serious questions. The controversy
concern, and questions have continued from Mr. Dorr's nomination in the
107th Congress, to a recess appointment, to his renomination in the
108th Congress, and his renomination this year.
I regret very much that so many problems have arisen regarding the
nomination of a fellow Iowan. As any of us would feel, it is a matter
of pride for me when somebody from my State is nominated for a high
position in our Federal Government, regardless of party. This is the
first time in my 20 years in the Senate that I have opposed a
nomination of a fellow Iowan. Through the Reagan years, the first Bush
years, it didn't matter. Regardless of party or about philosophy. Some
were a lot more conservative than I am, and I never opposed one of
them.
Like most Senators, I believe the President should receive a good
deal of deference regarding nominations to Cabinet and sub-Cabinet
positions. However, our Constitution doesn't make us a rubberstamp. We
have a responsibility to review nominees--not to decide whether the
nominee would be our first choice but whether the nominee at least
meets certain standards for the job.
As a member of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
I have a serious responsibility concerning nominations. I have worked
with Chairman Chambliss, former chairmen Senators Cochran and Lugar, to
move nominees through the Agriculture Committee and through the floor
fairly and expeditiously. I
[[Page S8593]]
have done so both as chairman and as ranking member. That has been true
for nominees of both parties.
This is not a minor nomination. The Under Secretary for Rural
Development is critically important to family-size farms and ranches
and to smaller communities all across America. The responsibilities
include helping build water and wastewater facilities; financing
decent, affordable housing; supporting electric power and rural
businesses, such as cooperatives. They also include promoting community
development and helping to boost economic growth, creating jobs, and
improving the quality of life in rural America.
Given those responsibilities, one of this nominee's first
controversies arose when Mr. Dorr's position on agriculture was
reported in the New York Times of May 4, 1998. He proposed replacing
the present-day version of the family farm with 225,000-acre mega
farms, consisting of three computer-linked pods. Well, with the average
Iowa farm at about 350 acres, this vision certainly was radical, to say
the least.
On another occasion, at a 1999 conference at Iowa State University,
Mr. Dorr criticized the State of Iowa for failing to move aggressively
toward very large vertically integrated hog production facilities. The
record also shows Mr. Dorr verbally attacking the ISU extension service
and harassing the Director of the ISU Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture. I ask, is this really the attitude and the vision for
agriculture and rural communities that the Under Secretary for rural
development ought to bring to the job?
The person in that position must also be responsive and sensitive to
the demands of serving America's very diverse rural citizens and
communities. That requirement cannot be overemphasized in a department
that has been plagued with civil rights abuses of both employees and
clients.
Here is what Mr. Dorr had to say about ethnic and religious diversity
at the Iowa State University conference:
I know this is not at all the correct environment to say
this, but I think you have to perhaps go out and look at what
you perceive are the three most successful rural economic
environments in this State. And you will notice when you get
to looking at them that they are not particularly diverse, at
least not ethnically diverse. They are very diverse in their
economic growth, but they have been very focused and
nondiverse in their ethnic background and their religious
background, and there is something there, obviously, that has
enabled them to succeed and to succeed very well.
Should we have as Under Secretary of Rural Development someone who
lacks the judgment to avoid uttering such intentionally provocative and
divisive remarks? How does this sort of insensitivity serve the urgent
need to reverse USDA's poor civil rights record?
Let me also point to a letter Mr. Dorr sent me in October of 1999 to
complain about charges on his telephone bill for the national access
fee and the Federal universal service fee. Now, the proceeds from these
relatively modest fees go to help provide telephone service and
Internet service to rural communities, hospitals, and schools--
including, I might add, Mr. Dorr's hometown, Marcus, IA, school
district. It strikes me as very odd that Mr. Dorr would have the
responsibility for helping rural communities obtain telecommunications
services and technology when he was so vehemently opposed to a program
that serves that very purpose.
Here is what he said about the national access fee and the Federal
universal access fee:
With these kind of taxation and subsidy games, you
collectively are responsible for turning Iowa into a State of
peasants, totally dependent on your largesse. But should you
decide to take a few side trips through the Iowa countryside,
you will see an inordinate number of homes surrounded by 5 to
10 cars. The homes generally have a value of less than
$10,000. This just confirms my ``10 car $10,000 home''
theory. The more you try to help, the more you hinder. The
results are everywhere.
Those were Tom Dorr's own words in writing to me. Time and again, we
gave Mr. Dorr the opportunity to explain this, but he could not explain
this broad attack against help to rural communities.
In fact, it seems clear that Mr. Dorr was degrading the very people,
the very rural communities he is nominated to serve at USDA. He was
making light of lower income Americans in rural communities who are
struggling to make a living and get ahead and declaring that it is
counterproductive to try to help them.
When he appeared before our committee, I asked him about it, and he
could not explain it. So I asked Mr. Dorr: Mr. Dorr, have you ever
gotten any Government help? He did not respond.
I said: Did you ever get a guaranteed student loan when you went to
college? He admitted that he had.
I asked him if he had received any Government-backed loans for
farming operations?
Yes.
Had he ever gotten any farm payments from the Federal Government for
his farming operations?
Yes, he had.
I listed a number of ways in which the Federal Government had helped
him. And I asked rather rhetorically if it hindered him.
It seems to me Mr. Dorr was quite willing for the Federal Government
to help him get ahead, but if the Federal Government is going to help
someone of low income, living in a rural area who is in poverty, he
says, no, if you help them, you just hinder them. Is this the kind of
person we want in charge of rural development--I think to do any job
well one has to believe in its value--if the very purposes of USDA's
rural development programs are anathema to the beliefs and the
philosophy of Mr. Dorr?
Furthermore, the nominee's record shows that he prefers to provoke,
bruise, and offend rather than to seek cooperation and common ground.
This simply is not an acceptable approach for the U.S. official in
charge of rural development.
As with any nominee, the Senate has a responsibility also to examine
Mr. Dorr's financial background and dealings. Former Secretary Veneman
put it perfectly when she wrote to me:
Any person who serves this Nation should live by the
highest of standards.
So let us see whether Mr. Dorr meets the standards articulated by
Secretary Veneman on behalf of the administration.
Mr. Dorr was the self-described president and chief executive officer
of Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Company, of which he and his wife were the
sole shareholders. In that position, as president and CEO, Mr. Dorr
created an exceedingly complex web of farming business arrangements.
This chart illustrates all of the various farming operations in which
Mr. Dorr was involved.
Mostly you will hear about a couple of trusts: the Melvin Dorr trust
and the Harold Dorr trust. There are also Seven Sons, there is the
Iotex Farm Company, there is Ned Harpenau, Diamond D Bar. There is a
complex web of different operations.
His operations included land in two trusts set up in 1977, one by his
father, Melvin Dorr, and one by his uncle, Harold Dorr. For a time, Tom
Dorr, through his company, Dorr's Pine Grove Farm, farmed the land held
by the trusts under 50-50 crop share leases, with half of the crop
proceeds and half of the farm benefits going to Tom Dorr's Pine Grove
Farm and half going to the trust.
Then, beginning in 1988, Mr. Dorr filed new documents with USDA
indicating that each trust had a 100-percent share of the crop proceeds
and were entitled to receive 100 percent of the program benefits.
Tom Dorr, acting through Dorr's Pine Grove Farm, still farmed the
land as before, but he claimed the arrangement had become ``a custom
farming arrangement.''
At some point, one of the trust beneficiaries, Mr. Dorr's brother,
Paul Dorr, began to question why the custom farming fees were so high
and out of line with other custom farming fees in that area. Paul Dorr
taped a telephone conversation with Tom Dorr that corroborated his
suspicions that Tom Dorr was engaged in misrepresentation.
Paul Dorr contacted the Farm Service Agency and persisted in his
request for an investigation. Finally, in the spring of 1996, the Farm
Service Agency conducted a review of the Melvin G. Dorr irrevocable
family trust. The Farm Service Agency found that the forms filed and
signed by Thomas C. Dorr for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 crop years
misrepresented the facts, and the trust was required to pay $16,638 to
USDA. That is just one--that is, the
[[Page S8594]]
Melvin G. Dorr trust had to repay that amount. That is the result of an
investigation in 1996.
In the fall of 2001, after Mr. Dorr had been nominated for this
position, the USDA Office of Inspector General conducted a further
review of Mr. Dorr's affairs. The OIG asked the Farm Service Agency to
review the Harold E. Dorr irrevocable family trust. Once again, that
trust then was found to be in violation of program rules because of the
misrepresentation on USDA forms signed by Thomas Dorr. So now that
trust had to pay USDA $17,152 in benefits and interest for what was
paid out to them in 1994 and 1995. So a total of $33,782 was paid back
by the two trusts.
USDA investigations determined that for the years examined, the forms
signed by Tom Dorr misrepresented the trusts' shares in the crop
proceeds. They found, in reality, the land in both of those trusts was
farmed on a 50-50 crop share basis, it was not custom farming. The
trusts, therefore, were not eligible for the 100-percent share of the
program benefits they had received because Tom Dorr had misrepresented
the actual farming arrangement.
The records show that Mr. Dorr knowingly carried on a crop share
lease arrangement between his farm, Pine Grove Farm, and each of the
trusts, even as he represented to the Farm Service Agency that it was
custom farming, not crop share leases.
How do we know this? We know this because in a telephone conversation
that Mr. Paul Dorr taped, and which I played for the committee in the
hearing this spring, Tom Dorr is on that tape, in his own words,
admitting that the so-called custom farming arrangement was, in fact, a
crop share. And here is the transcript. This is a partial transcript of
that conversation.
Paul Dorr:
It, this was all done that way in an effort to . . .
Tom Dorr interrupts him and said:
. . . avoid the $50,000 payment limitation to Pine Grove
Farms . . .
Mr. Dorr's operation.
Paul Dorr:
And . . . to, it is to your benefit to your other crop
acres . . .
Tom Dorr:
. . . that's right. . . .
Tom Dorr filed that way in order to avoid the $50,000 payment
limitation, and he knew full well what he was doing.
This is the payment limits connection. Part of the farm program
payments for land in these two trusts should have been paid directly to
Tom Dorr's Pine Grove Farm under what was actually a crop share
arrangement. Those payments would have counted toward Mr. Dorr's
payment limitation. Instead, Mr. Dorr misrepresented to USDA the
operation; therefore, the money was funneled through the trusts and not
counted against Mr. Dorr's payment limitation.
Indeed, the Farm Service Agency review of Dorr's Pine Grove Farm
Company found that Mr. Dorr's misrepresentations in signing up the
trust land in the farm program ``had the potential to result in Pine
Grove Farm receiving benefits indirectly that would exceed the maximum
payment limitation.''
Federal law provides criminal penalties for knowingly making false
statements for the purpose of obtaining farm program payments. So the
USDA Office of Inspector General referred the Dorr matter to the U.S.
attorney for the Northern District of Iowa.
In February of 2002, that office declined criminal prosecution and
any affirmative civil enforcement due to the fact that the statute of
limitations had run.
I have a copy of that letter. I ask unanimous consent to print the
letter in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney, Northern District
of Iowa,
February 7, 2002.
Re Thomas C. Dorr, Marcus, Iowa PS-0301-616.
Dallas L. Hayden,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Great Plains Region, 5799
Broadmoor, Suite 700, Mission, KS.
Dear Mr. Hayden: After reviewing the Investigative report
dated September 26, 2001, regarding the above subject and our
telephone discussion of this date, we are, declining criminal
prosecution and any affirmative civil enforcement due to
statute of limitation issues.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Larson, Sr.,
United States Attorney.
Judith A. Whetstine,
Assistant United States Attorney.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, that is the letter from the U.S.
Attorney's Office saying they were not moving ahead because the statute
of limitations had run and they could not do anything--not that they
had found Mr. Dorr innocent, but the statute of limitations had run.
Mr. Dorr's arrangement with these two trusts was only part, as I
pointed out, of his extensive farming operations. Based on the
seriousness of the violations involved, it was our responsibility to
exercise due diligence regarding other parts of Mr. Dorr's complex
farming arrangements and to take at least a look at earlier years that
had not been involved in these investigations.
Again, whatever the Farm Service Agency or the Office of Inspector
General did or did not pursue, that is not the end of the matter. We
have the responsibility to look into this because fraud is fraud, and
it is serious.
Shortly after the March 2002 nomination, Senator Dayton, a member of
our committee, wrote a letter asking for other information on the other
financial entities with which Mr. Dorr was involved in 1988 to 1995. We
never heard back. So I wrote to Secretary Veneman on May 17 and on June
6, 2002, seeking a response to the committee's questions. We finally
received a response to the letter and some materials, dated June 27,
2002.
I ask unanimous consent to have these letters from Senator Dayton and
me, along with the transcript of the audiotape printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, March 21, 2002.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to express my very serious
concerns regarding the nomination of Mr. Thomas C. Dorr for
the post of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Under
Secretary for Rural Development. As you know, on the morning
of his March 6th hearing before your Committee, The Des
Moines Register published an investigative story that Mr.
Dorr had been forced to repay the USDA's Farm Service Agency
almost $ 17,000 for improper payments between 1983 and 1995.
The news article also cited passages from a taped telephone
conversation in 1995, reportedly between Mr. Dorr and his
brother, in which Mr. Dorr stated that he was intentionally
deceiving FSA's predecessor agency, the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, about his farming
operation's financial arrangements with a family trust of
which he was a trustee with the sole power of attorney.
In this taped conversation, Mr. Dorr informed his brother
that he had certified it to be a ``custom fee'' arrangement,
when, in fact, it was a ``crop share'' arrangement. The
reason he did so was, he said, ``To quite frankly avoid
minimum payment limitations.''
When his brother asked whether this reporting was legal,
Mr. Dorr replied, ``I have no idea if its. . . I have no
idea. I suspect if they'd audit and if somebody decided to
come in and take a look at this thing, they could probably,
if they really wanted to, raise hell with us . . .
``. . . Uh, that custom fee is actually not the custom fee.
That's crop rental income to me. That's my share of the
income. . . .''
According to The Des Moines Register, the ASCS received a
complaint about this financial arrangement and subsequently
received a copy of the reported tape. After their
investigation of the financial arrangement with M.G. Dorr
Irrevocable Family Trust for the years 1993-1995, the ASCS
reportedly determined that it was a crop share arrangement,
rather than a custom fee arrangement, which Mr. Dorr, acting
with power of attorney for the trust had certified to be the
case.
However, Mr. Dorr himself directly contradicts his
certification in the taped conversation with his brother. In
his own words, Mr. Dorr knowingly and intentionally
misrepresented this farming arrangement in order, as he said,
``to quite frankly avoid minimum payment limitations.''
During my questioning of Mr. Dorr at the hearing, he
contradicted his own reported statements during the taped
conversation. He contended that the arrangement with the
trust was a custom fee, rather than a crop share arrangement.
At one point, he stated, ``There was not a filing that we
were a custom fee operation or anything like that.'' This
assertion is at variance with his reported certifications
annually to ASCS attesting to a custom fee arrangement. I
subsequently noted that the M.G. Dorr Irrevocable Family
Trust was originally established and
[[Page S8595]]
operated and farmed in a contract share arrangement, unti1
1987 or 1988, when Mr. Dorr changed the report to a custom
fee arrangement. Mr. Dorr responded, ``That is correct, and
that was at the request of my uncle. I did not initiate
that.''
When I asked him about the determination by FSA that the
Trust was ``in violation of shares'' in 1993, 1994, and 1995,
Mr. Dorr replied, ``Well, Senator, I would simply reiterate
that the county committee originally reviewed this, decided
there was, in fact, no violation of shares. Then, ultimately,
it was taken to the state committee by someone, I do not know
who, when they determined--frankly, I view this matter,
$17,000, it is not a huge sum of money, and I look at it, to
some extent, as a tax audit.''
I replied, ``Mr. Dorr, I look at it differently. I look at
it, and I think any farmer in Minnesota who deals with these
programs would look at it for what you, yourself, in these
tapes said it was: a clearly intended attempt to violate, to
circumvent, or to evade these payment limitations.''
I continued, ``I cannot imagine that somebody could be put
in place of administering this agency, which is responsible
for all of these programs, somebody who has devoted himself
to try to circumvent the very regulations and laws which were
set up just for this reason, and where you, yourself,
knowingly falsified statements and documents that were
submitted to the Federal Government, attesting to an
arrangement that you, yourself were saying at the time did
not exist, that a different arrangement existed. That is how
I view it, sir.''
For some inexplicable reason, FSA reviewed only one trust
for only the years 1993 through 1995. In his testimony, Mr.
Dorr stated that there were actually seven different entities
established by Dorr family members to own and operate
approximately 2,200 acres of farmland in Iowa. During my
questioning, he acknowledged that his farming operation had
``the same arrangement'' with the Harold Dorr Trust.
Evidently, there are other trusts or entities, perhaps even
more than seven, for which there have been no financial
audits. Even the arrangement with the trust which was found
to be in violation during three years was not further audited
for the preceding years, since Mr. Dorr himself reportedly
changed the certification from a crop share to a custom fee
arrangement.
Reportedly, an end of the year review (EOYR) was initiated
regarding Mr. Dorr's own farming operation. However, there is
evidently no record of that review being completed, nor is
there any report thereof.
Based upon this very incomplete review, and given the
definite and disturbing discrepancies cited in the one and
only review to date, I believe very strongly, and I ask you,
Mr. Chairman, that the Committee not vote on Mr. Dorr's
nomination until all of these other financial entities and
their financial transactions involving either the receipt of
or the disbursement of federal payments through USDA programs
have been reviewed during the years in question,
approximately 1988 through 1995. I believe that a further
review is necessary to ascertain that all these financial
arrangements which were supposedly revised after the FSA
determination, did in fact occur, and they have operated
properly thereafter.
Regardless of these particular findings, Mr. Chairman, I
remain deeply troubled by this nomination. However, I will
reserve my final judgment until this important information is
made known to me and to the other Members of this Committee.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Mark Dayton.
____
Transcript of Audio Tape Provided Upon Request From the Iowa State FSA
Office, Identified as: Copy of Tape Labeled ``Excerpts From
Conversation Between Tom Dorr and Paul Dorr 6/14/95''
The parties are identified as Person 1 (assumed to be Paul
Dorr) and Person 2 (assumed to be Tom Dorr).
The following are excerpts from a telephone conversation
that was recorded on June 14, 1995, occurring between Tom
Dorr and Paul Dorr.
Person 1: I, I guess I'd like to know as a beneficiary what
. . . you know, I know, I understand your desire to keep this
all out fr. . ., in the government's eyes, um, but I still
think there should be some sort of explanation as to how
these, you know exactly how this percentage, allocation is
broken out, how its, how its applied each year.
Person 2: 50/50. I charge the Trust their half of the
inputs, not the machine work. And I charge the, I charge the,
I take that back, the only machine charge, the machine charge
that I have charged always is $12.50 an acre for combining.
That was an arrangement that was entered into when dad and
Harold were still alive because of the high cost of combines.
Person 1: Yeah . . .
Person 2: Beside from that, uh, I take that back, and they
also, and we have always charged the landlords a nickel a
bushel to haul the grain into the elevator.
Person 1: Um Hmm . . .
Person 2: Beside those two machine charges everything is
done on a 50/50 normal crop share basis, it always has. And,
and, and frequently, quite frankly, I've, I've kicked stuff
in, or, you know, if there is a split that isn't quite equal
I always try to err on the side of the, on the side of the
Trust. So, that's, that's the way its been, that's the way it
always has been and that's the way these numbers will all
resolve themselves if somebody wants to sit down and go
through them that way;
Person 1: It, this was all done that way in an effort to .
. .
Person 2: . . . avoid the $50,000 payment limitation to
Pine Grove Farms.
Person 1: And . . . to, it is to your benefit to your other
crop acres . . .
Person 2: . . . that's right . . .
Person 1: . . . that, that um, this arrangement is set up
in, in such a fashion?
Person 2: That's correct.
Person 1: Uh, do we, as a Trust, um, have any risk if the
government ever audits such an arrangement? Or, was it done
your saying back when it was legal? Is it still legal?
Person 2: I have no idea if its legal. No one has ever
called me on it. I've done it this way. I've clearly kept
track of all paper work this way. And, uh . . .
Person 1: I, I understand how it works, now . . .
Person 2: I have no idea. I suspect if they would audit,
and, and somebody would decide to come in and take a look at
this thing, they could, they could probably if they really
wanted to, raise hell with us. Yep, you're absolutely right.
Uh, and I'm trying to find out where I've overcharged at.
Person 1: Well, I, I don't know what the extension service
includes in their, in their, um, uh, estimated figure on, on
machinery expense.
Person 2: That, that, that figure, I mean if you look at
that figure, and I believe, and I'd have to go back and find
it, but I know that I discussed this with the trustees and
I'm fairly certain that its in one of your annual reports.
Uh, that custom fee actually is not a custom fee. That's crop
rental income to me. That's my share of the income. I mean if
you just sat down and, and, and . . . (5 second pause with
music in background) excuse me . . .
Person 1: That's ok.
Person 2: Uh, what actually happened there was way back in,
uh, perhaps even 89, but no, no that was in 90 because that
doesn't show up until then. Either 90 or 91, uh, I refiled
the way the farm, the Trust land both for the Melvin Dorr
Trust and the, the uh, Harold Dorr Trust are operated with
the ASCS to, quite frankly, avoid minimum payment
limitations. OK?
Person 1: Right.
Person 2: And I basically told the ASCS and reregistered
those two operations such that they are, uh, singularly farm
operations on their own, OK?
Person 1: OK.
Person 2: And I custom farm it. Alright, so how are you
going to custom farm it? The reason I did it was, was to
eliminate any potential, uh, when I could still do it at that
point, of, of the government not liking the way I was doing
it. I knew what was coming. I anticipated it the same as I
did with proven corn yields way back in the 70's when I began
to prove our yields and got basis and the proven yields up. I
transferred these out when it was still legal and legitimate
to do so and basically they stand alone. Now, obviously I'm
not going to go out here and operate all this ground and
provide all this management expertise singularly, uh, for the
purpose of, of, of doing it on a $60 an acre custom fee
basis. Subsequently, what's happened is, the farm, I mean
the, the family Trust pays all of its expenses and then we
reimburse it and it sells all the income, and it sells all
the crop, and it reimburses us with the 50/50 split basis.
Person 1: I, I, I remember vaguely something being
discussed about that, I'll have to go back to the file . . .
Person 2: . . . that's exactly what's going on
(unintelligible) . . . those custom fees the way they are . .
.
Person 1: . . . and then to determine, um, that, that was,
again if that was in writing to us beneficiaries, I guess I
missed that and I'll, I'll look for that again. Um . . .
Person 2: Even if it wasn't I know that that was clearly
discussed with the trustees. The beneficiaries really had
nothing to do with it.
Person 1: OK, well, well, I appreciate your correcting me
on the interest and, uh, allocating those incomes to those
different years. That does make a difference with that
income. I think the custom fees, uh, when I took a look at
that one, and I, you know, I just started looking at this in
the last 6 weeks. When I took a look at that last figure, uh,
and looking back in the file, it may not hurt for you to
remind everybody, um, maybe even in the annual report. . . .
Person 2: I don't, I don't, really want to tell everybody,
not because I'm trying to hide the custom work fees from
anybody, but because I don't want to make any bigger deal out
of it than I have to, relative to everybody knowing about it,
including the government.
End of recording.
____
U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2002.
Hon. Ann M. Veneman,
Secretary of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Veneman: Thank you for your phone call
yesterday. To follow up on one of the matters we discussed, I
appreciate your understanding that, given the intense work
required by the farm bill conference, the Committee has not
had the opportunity to take further formal action on the
nomination of Thomas Dorr to the position of Under
[[Page S8596]]
Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development.
I certainly appreciate your interest in having an Under
Secretary for Rural Development confirmed. However, as you
recall there were substantial questions raised at Mr. Dorr's
nomination hearing and in later correspondence that will need
to be answered before proceeding further.
To my knowledge no response has been provided to the
questions in Senator Dayton's letter dated March 21, 2002. If
that is indeed the case, I would appreciate your sending to
Senator Dayton and to the Committee answers to the questions
raised in his letter. Although you and Mr. Dorr were copied
on the original letter you will find a copy of Senator
Dayton's letter attached for your information. An expeditious
response to Senator Dayton's request will greatly assist the
Committee in completing its consideration of the nomination.
Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this
matter.
Sincerely yours,
Tom Harkin,
Chairman.
____
U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2002.
Hon. Ann M. Veneman,
Secretary of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Veneman: Thank you for your letter dated May
28, 2002 regarding the nomination of Tom Dorr as Under
Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development. With the hope
of moving this matter to resolution, I would like to clarify
relevant facts and the status of responses to the Committee's
questions.
To recap what is established, for many years, Mr. Dorr,
operating through Dorr's Pine Grove Farms (of which he was
sole owner), conducted farming operations on land held by the
Melvin Dorr Trust and the Harold Dorr Trust. In some of the
earlier years, the arrangements were represented to USDA by
Mr. Dorr as crop share leases but at some later point he
represented them as involving custom farming by Dorr of the
trusts' land.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) conducted a year-end review
on the Melvin Dorr Trust for the years 1994 and 1995 in
calendar year 1996. In 2001 the FSA conducted a year-end
review on the Harold Dorr Trust for 1994 and 1995. In both
reviews, it was concluded that the arrangement between Mr.
Dorr's Pine Grove Farms and each of the trusts ``was a crop
share arrangement, not the custom farming arrangement it was
represented to be.'' The trusts were required to repay some
$17,000 in farm program payments that they had improperly
received for those years because of the ``erroneous
representation'' to USDA by Mr. Dorr, who also served as a
trustee of each of the trusts.
The conclusion that the arrangements were crop share leases
rather than custom farming is supported by information before
FSA and now before the Committee. For example, the payment to
Dorr, through Dorr's Pine Grove Farms, was similar to amounts
that would have been received through a crop share
arrangement and far above normal and usual custom farming
fees. In addition, in a tape recorded telephone conversation,
Mr. Dorr said, ``Besides those two machine charges [combining
and hauling grain to the elevator], everything else is done
on a 50-50 normal crop-share basis.'' He also said, ``that
custom fee is not a custom fee. That's crop rental income to
me. That's my share of the income.'' Regarding the reason the
arrangements were set up in this manner and represented to
USDA as custom farming, Mr. Dorr said it was to ``avoid a
50,000-dollar payment limitation to Pine Grove Farms.'' At
another point Mr. Dorr said, ``I, we filed the way the farm,
the trust land, both for the Melvin Dorr Trust and the
Harold Dorr Trust are operated with the ASCS, to quite
frankly avoid minimum [sic] payment limitations. OK?''
Evidently, these arrangements and representations to USDA
would direct farm program payments through the trusts that
would have otherwise normally under a crop share
arrangement gone directly to Mr. Dorr through Dorr's Pine
Grove Farms. As to Mr. Dorr's understanding of the
propriety of the arrangements and representations, he
said, ``I suspect if they'd audit, and if somebody decided
to come in and take a look at this thing, they could
probably, if they really wanted to, raise hell with us.''
Because of the evidence of misrepresentation to FSA in
connection with the effort to avoid payment limitations, the
Committee was and is keenly interested in determining whether
there may be other instances in which Mr. Dorr may have
misrepresented farming arrangements in connection with
seeking to avoid farm program payment limitations. Questions
were asked at the nomination hearing, but unanswered
questions remained. My letter dated May 17, 2002 and Senator
Dayton's letter dated March 21, 2002 attempt to make clear
that the Committee is interested in having the FSA conduct a
year-end review of the Harold and Melvin Dorr Trusts for each
of the years 1988 through 1993.
In your letter of May 28, you assert that the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) has concluded that the Committee has
received all the information it is requesting and that the
Inspector General indicated that a ``full and thorough
investigation has been conducted regarding the matters
pertaining to Mr. Dorr . . .'' In fact, the memorandum from
the Acting Inspector General that you attached does not
support your assertion but instead contradicts it. The
Inspector General's memorandum clearly delineates what OIG
had investigated and what it had not. It had not investigated
the years 1988-1992, and gave no indication that the
Committee had been provided the information on these years it
is seeking. Likewise, the memorandum makes clear that OIG has
investigated only the matters referred to it and that it had
not conducted a thorough investigation of all the matters
relating to Mr. Dorr. I would encourage you to discuss this
matter further with the Acting Inspector General.
Thus, the Committee continues to seek information about the
period 1988 through 1992, during which time our understanding
is that the arrangements were also represented to USDA to be
custom farming and not crop share. We would also like to know
if in fact the trusts have repaid the funds required by the
year-end reviews already conducted as noted above.
It is true that the United States Attorney for the Northern
District of Iowa declined to prosecute Mr. Dorr upon referral
from the OIG, but it is the Committee's understanding that
the statute of limitations had run in any case. Avoiding
criminal prosecution, however, is only the most minimal and
insufficient criterion for confirming an individual to a
position as important as that of Under Secretary of
Agriculture for Rural Development. Surely, nominees must be
held to a higher standard.
Consistent with my earlier statements, I do intend to move
forward on Mr. Dorr's nomination, but for the Committee to do
so--in conformity with its obligations and responsibilities--
it must receive the information it reasonably requires and
has requested to evaluate the qualifications and fitness of
the nominee to serve in this important position.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely yours,
Tom Harkin,
Chairman.
Mr. HARKIN. But critical questions remained unanswered. The materials
provided late in June showed that over $70,000 in farm program payments
had been received by the two trusts that were prior to that, from 1988
to 1992. So what turned up were some new questions.
If, in fact, Mr. Dorr had misrepresented his farming operations and
he had been caught and the trusts had to pay back money for 3 of those
years, what about the 5 years prior to that?
So I wrote a letter on July 24, 2002, and asked for the record on all
these other operations from 1988 through 1992. That was Wednesday.
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday--on Monday, I received a letter back
from Secretary Veneman, dated July 29, in which basically she said that
this issue has gone on too long, that we need to move this nominee. She
did not say they did not have the records. She basically said it is
time to move this nominee ahead.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter of July 24,
2002, the questions I submitted and the response of the Secretary of
Agriculture on July 29, 2002, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry,
Washington, DC, July 24, 2002.
Re nomination of Thomas C. Dorr
Hon. Ann M. Veneman,
Secretary of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Jamie L.
Whitten Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Veneman: Committee staff has reviewed
certain information provided concerning the Melvin G. Dorr
Irrevocable Family Trust and the Harold E. Dorr Irrevocable
Family Trust and the Department's response that the
information necessary to conduct a review of the farming
arrangements for the 1988 through 1992 crop years is no
longer available. Committee staff has also reviewed the
information provided to the Committee regarding the end-of-
year review for the 1994 and 1995 crop years for Dorr's Pine
Grove Farm Company. To examine the Committee's concerns
adequately, I respectfully request that the Department
provide the additional information requested below:
1. Please provide the Committee with copies of all
documents considered by the end-of-year review committee
regarding Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Company for the 1994 and
1995 crop years.
2. Please provide the Committee with crop shares per CCC-
477 for each of the crop years from 1988 through 1992 by farm
number for each of the following entities or individuals:
Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Company; PGF Seeds, Inc.; Thomas C.
Dorr; Melvin G. Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust; Harold E. Dorr
Irrevocable Family Trust; Melvin G. Dorr Irrevocable Trust;
Harold E. Dorr Irrevocable Trust; Melvin G. Dorr; Harold E.
Dorr; Belva Dorr; Dorr, Inc.; Ioxtex Farm Company; Seven
Sons; Austin Properties; Diamond D
[[Page S8597]]
Bar, Ltd.; Charles Dorr; Philip Dorr; Lawrence Garvin; Ned
Harpenau; Richard Tolzin; Arlene Lanigan; and Paul Polson.
3. Please provide the Committee with a list of all farm
program payments by crop year to each of the above entities
or individuals for the crop years 1988 through 1992.
4. Please provide the Committee with copies of all CCC-478
and CCC-502 forms for Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Company for crop
years 1996 through 2001.
Attached are five additional questions for the nominee.
They are submitted for the record as a continuation of his
nomination hearing, and thus Mr. Dorr should answer under
oath.
Consistent with my earlier statements, for the Committee to
move forward with this nomination, it must receive the
information it reasonably requires and has requested to
evaluate the qualifications and fitness of the nominee to
serve in this important position.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
Tom Harkin,
Chairman.
____
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HARKIN
THOMAS C. DORR
Question: In a letter dated May 8, 1996, you were informed
that your farming operation, Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Co., had
been selected for a 1995 farm program payment limitation and
payment eligibility end-of-year review. You were informed
that the farming operation would be reviewed to determine
whether the farming operation was carried out in 1995 as
represented on the CCC-502, Farm Operating Plan for Payment
Eligibility Review. You were asked to provide documents and
information and were further informed that if you failed to
provide the requested information within 30 days of the date
of the letter that you would be determined not ``actively
engaged in farming for the 1995 crop year.'' In a letter
dated June 1, 1996, you requested a 30-day extension of the
initial deadline citing weather and family concerns. In a
letter dated June 7, 1996, Michael W. Houston the County
Executive Director informed you that the Cherokee County
Committee approved your request to July 8, 1996 to provide
additional information requested by the End of Year Review
Committee. The only further information with regard to this
end-of-year review is a handwritten note in the file that
reads: ``Rec'd phone call from T. Dorr on 8-3-96 at home.
Dorr plans on completing requested info., but needs more
time. MWH'' Please explain in detail what information and
documentation you provided the county committee, when you
provided the requested information, and your recollection of
how this matter was resolved.
Question: According to Farm Service Agency records, for
most farming operations in which Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Co.,
claimed a crop share, that share was roughly 50 percent,
ranging from 44.77 percent to 51 percent. However for farm
number 2571, Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Co. claimed a 23.6
percent share in 1998 and 1999 and a 33.38 percent share in
2000 and 2001. Please explain in detail why the crop share
for farm number 2571 deviated so greatly from the customary
crop share. Please provide the Committee with documentation,
such as crop insurance records, to corroborate the crop
shares as stated on the CCC-478 for the 1998, 1999, 2000 and
2001 crop years.
Question: Please explain in detail the process you went
through to change the custom farming arrangements between
Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Co. and the Melvin G. Dorr Irrevocable
Family Trust and the Harold E. Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust
to a 50/50 crop share.
Question: Please describe the fanning arrangement between
Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Co. and each of the following entities
and individuals for each of the 1988 through 1992 crop years;
e.g., whether any land owned by the entity or individual was
leased by Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Co. or whether Dorr's Pine
Grove Farm Co. provided custom farming services for an entity
or individual. For each lease arrangement state the total
number of cropland acres leased and the terms of the lease,
i.e. whether cash rental, or if crop share the crop share
percentage. For each custom farming arrangement state the
custom farming services provided and the fees paid to Dorr's
Pine Grove Farm Co. in total and on a per acre basis.
PGF Seeds, Inc.;Thomas C. Dorr;Melvin G. Dorr Irrevocable
Family Trust;Harold E. Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust;Melvin
G. Dorr Irrevocable Trust;Harold E. Dorr Irrevocable
Trust;Melvin G. Dorr;Harold E. Dorr;Belva Dorr;Dorr,
Inc.;Ioxtex Farm Company;Seven Sons;Austin Properties;Diamond
D Bar;Charles Dorr;Philip Dorr;Lawrence Garvin;Ned
Harpenau;Richard Tolzin;Arlene Lanigan; andPaul Polson.
Question: Please list all other entities and individuals
not included in the previous question with which Dorr's Pine
Grove Farm Co. had a farming arrangement for any of the 1988
through 1992 crop years. For each entity and individual
listed describe the farming arrangement; e.g., whether land
owned by the entity or individual was leased by Dorr's Pine
Grove Farm Co. or whether Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Co. provided
custom farming services for the listed entity or individual.
For each lease arrangement state the total number of cropland
acres leased and the terms of the lease, i.e. whether cash
rental, or if crop share the crop share percentage. For each
custom farming arrangement state the custom farming services
provided and the fees paid to Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Co. in
total and on a per acre basis.
____
The Secretary of Agriculture,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2002.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition &
Forestry, Senate Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am responding to your letter of
Wednesday, July 24, 2002, regarding your request for a new,
extensive review of records regarding Tom Dorr, the
President's nominee to be USDA's Under Secretary for Rural
Development.
This Department has complied with all your previous
requests. We have done so in a timely and responsive manner.
We complied when your request was expanded to include family
members for which Tom Dorr has no control. Now, you have
requested USDA to provide not only additional information on
Mr. Dorr, his family members, but your inquiries have
expanded to include extensive information from deceased and
elderly Iowans.
Mr. Chairman, I urge you to move forward on the nomination
of Tom Dorr by requesting the full Committee to vote on his
confirmation. For more than 450 days we have acted in good
faith in providing the Committee every bit of information
requested.
Additionally, the Department has scoured through its own
records, going back nearly fifteen years, at your request. We
have done this not once, but on several occasions to
cooperate with the Committee. And, we even did so after the
Office of Inspector General, the independent investigative
arm of the government, concluded that, ``we have investigated
the matters referred to OIG concerning Mr. Dorr fully and
consider this case to be closed . . . there is no new
evidence to warrant reexamination nor the need to open a new
investigation.''
Mr. Chairman, rural development programs are critical to
communities throughout America and to your home state of
Iowa. We are working diligently to implement a new farm bill
that strengthens these programs, however, this task has
become even more difficult without the leadership at the helm
of this agency.
As well, each time a new request comes from you and your
staff, we have to take valuable time and resources away from
our already overwhelmed Iowa Farm Service Agency staff who
have been working tirelessly on farm bill implementation, and
trying to serve Iowa farmers and ranchers, who need their
help for program administration.
This latest demand of the Iowa FSA office requests an
investigation into 22 separate farm entities, data from
hundreds of forms dating back nearly fifteen years, and even
information from Iowa citizens who are deceased. Quite
frankly, from what the staff in Iowa reports, it could take
several months to compile this latest request, and drain a
great deal of time, resources and effort away from farm bill
implementation and constituent services in your state.
Chairman Harkin, I certainly appreciate the work of the
Committee on our other nominees, but am very concerned as to
the process involved with Mr. Dorr, particularly as he has
received bipartisan support from members on the Committee.
During the past year, Mr. Dorr and his family have
weathered this extensive and exhaustive process. He has done
everything asked of the Committee and has discontinued active
farming and sold all his farm equipment. Mr. Dorr has been
through an extensive hearing process, answered every question
asked of him, and in good faith provided financial
information, as requested.
I understand the need for any Senate Committee to receive
and request information about nominees. Any person who serves
this nation should live by the highest of standards. It is my
belief that Mr. Dorr has demonstrated his ability to serve
and to lead. And, throughout this process of hearings and
inquiries, he remains a strong candidate for this position.
Mr. Chairman, again, this is a massive request of
information and I feel you have held Mr. Dorr, a fellow
Iowan, to a different standard. The Committee for the past
year has sought, and received a plethora of information
regarding this nominee and I urge you to allow Members to
consider what has been provided in moving Mr. Dorr's
nomination to the full Committee for a vote.
The best course of action is to proceed forward, take a
stand, and make a decision on this nomination. The
Department, as well as Mr. Dorr, has fully cooperated through
this long and extensive process. I would hope, with all due
respect, that you would allow Mr. Dorr and his family, the
opportunity to have a Committee vote on his nomination. Mr.
Dorr, as a proud Iowa native, is ready, able and capable of
serving this Department and this nation.
Sincerely,
Ann M. Veneman.
____
U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry,
Washington, DC July 29, 2002.
Hon. Ann M. Veneman,
Secretary of Agriculture, Jamie L. Whitten Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Veneman: As you said in your letter today,
``Any person who serves this nation should live by the
highest of standards.''
[[Page S8598]]
I could not agree more. For months this Committee has
sought without success to obtain crucial information dealing
with very serious farm program payment issues involving the
nominee Thomas C. Dorr and the Farm Service Agency. The
response from the nominee and from the Department of
Agriculture has been slow, grudging and minimal. There has
been no ``plethora'' of information provided to the
Committee.
Shortly after the nomination hearing, Senator Dayton's
letter of March 21, 2002 asked for information on the various
financial entities with which Mr. Dorr was involved from 1988
through 1995. I wrote you on May 17 and June 6 seeking a
response to the Committee's questions. Your letter of June 27
and attached materials left critical questions unanswered
and, in fact, raised further questions about farm program
payments and Mr. Dorr's farming arrangements that are the
basis for the Committee's most recent request.
Based on what has been provided, it is known that the
nominee was closely involved in misrepresentations to USDA
which after investigation led to the required repayment of
substantial amounts of farm program payments. Initially, the
sum involved was some $17,000, but as the Committee looked
further into the matter, it was made aware that another
amount of some $17,000 was required to be repaid.
Furthermore, information provided to the Committee late in
June shows that some $65,000 in payments (not counting
potential penalties and interest) were received under the
same circumstances that led to the required repayment of the
two $17,000 amounts.
The nominee was the self-described Chief Executive Officer
of Dorr's Pine Grove Farms, Inc. In that position he created
an exceedingly complex and convoluted web of farming business
arrangements. The purposes for these various arrangements is
not altogether clear, but according to the nominee himself in
the case of two Dorr family trusts the purpose was to avoid
the farm program payment limitation for Dorr's Pine Grove
Farms, Inc. It was the misrepresentations to USDA of the
nature of these arrangements that led to the required
repayment of farm program benefits. The matter was referred
to the United States Attorney for possible criminal
prosecution, but it is my understanding that the statute
of limitations had run.
Recent corporate disclosures have underscored the
obligation of corporate officers to play by the rules. Just
like any other CEO, Mr. Dorr had responsibilities, not the
least of which was that of fair and honest dealing with the
Department of Agriculture regarding farm program payments. As
a nominee, he also has responsibilities, chiefly to respond
fully and honestly to questions that bear directly on his
fitness to serve in a high position of honor and trust in the
federal government. This nominee would do well to follow the
advice given to other CEO's in awkward positions: come clean
and lay all the cards on the table.
Ordinarily, a nominee would be eager to cooperate fully and
provide the necessary information to clear up legitimate
questions. The responsibility is the nominee's. It is not the
responsibility of the Committee to issue subpoenas and pursue
litigation-type discovery to get to the bottom of valid
questions about a nominee. However, instead of cooperation,
this Committee has only seen delay, unresponsiveness and now
outright refusal regarding this nomination. The length of
time it has taken to consider this nomination lies squarely
at the doorstep of the nominee and the Department.
After much effort by the Committee to obtain answers to
serious and legitimate questions, it is now clear that
neither the nominee nor the Department intends to cooperate
further with the Committee. Therefore the Committee will have
to make a decision based on the troubling and inadequate
information it has. I intend to bring the nomination before
the Committee on Thursday to consider whether this nominee in
his dealings with USDA and with this Committee does indeed
``meet the highest standards.''
Sincerely,
Tom Harkin,
Chairman.
____
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what I am saying is, let's try to boil
this down. Thomas Dorr, in 1988, went into his local USDA office and
refiled his farming operations. He said: No longer am I crop sharing
with the trusts, I am custom farming. That meant that more money would
go to the trusts and that payments to those trusts would not count
against his farming operations payment limitations.
In 1995, his brother taped this conversation. He went to the Farm
Service Agency. They investigated and found, indeed, that Thomas Dorr
had misrepresented his operations, and the family trusts had to pay
back nearly $17,000 in 1996.
Then after he got the nomination, a further investigation ensued and
found the other family trust also had to pay back over $17,000. This
was in 2001. Well, this is only for the years 1993 through 1995. So the
family trusts paid $33,782. However, I asked about those other years,
the years prior to 1993: 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992; give us the
records for all of these different operations. That is what the
Department of Agriculture would not give us. They would not give us
those records.
So we know that the farm payments to one of the trusts from 1988 to
1992 were $35,377. We also know that payments to another trust from
1993 were $35,025. What I am saying is if in fact Thomas Dorr's
operations were the same during those earlier years as they were in
1994, 1995, and 1996, for which the family trusts had to pay back the
money, Mr. Dorr's family may owe as much as $104,184 to the Federal
Government rather than the 30-some-thousand dollars the trusts had to
pay back earlier. We do not know for certain. Because I have never seen
the records. I have asked repeatedly for the Department to make those
records clear.
Again, my bottom line on this nominee, No. 1, this is an important
position. No. 2, he falsified his documents to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in order to obtain money. His family had to pay some of it
back. We cannot get the records from the Department of Agriculture to
see what may be owed for the years before, and yet we are being asked
to confirm this individual as Under Secretary for Rural Development.
As I said, I take no pleasure in opposing this nominee. I have never
before opposed an Iowan for any position. This has nothing to do with
ideology. It has nothing to do with that. I have supported many
conservatives from Iowa for positions in the Federal Government. My
bottom line is, someone who knowingly misrepresented the truth to the
Federal Government to obtain money, who was caught at it, which had to
be paid back, who by his own words on tape said he did it to avoid farm
payment limitations, I do not think that person ought to receive an
under secretary's position in the Department of Agriculture.
What message does it send to farmers? Go out and defraud the
Government, just be careful and do not get caught. What a terrible
situation.
I have no problem with any farmer arranging his or her farming
operation to get maximum payments within the law from the Government.
There is nothing wrong with that. But that is not what he did. He
knowingly filed false documents with the Government. That is what is
wrong. That is why someone such as that does not deserve to be under
secretary.
Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. First, I want to commend the Senator for his integrity
and his courage in standing up. I know, as the Senator said, this is an
unpleasant matter and that is why I wanted to bring to light, having
served with the distinguished Senator, now ranking member but then
chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is my recollection
correct that this matter was brought to light in a front-page story
expose by the leading newspaper in Iowa? This was not a matter that was
a partisan trying to find information about somebody, this was brought
forth by the newspaper itself?
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is right. The Des Moines Register did expose
this story. At that time they had the tape of the telephone
conversation. That is how it came to light at that time. It was based
on that and then based upon the investigations at that time in 1996.
Then in 2001, after he got nominated, the OIG went further and found
further discrepancies in 1994, and 1995, for which the other family
trust had to pay back more money. Well, when 2001 goes into 2002, that
is when they referred it to the U.S. Attorney's Office for prosecution.
The U.S. Attorney, as I said, wrote a one page declaratory letter
saying the statute of limitations has passed.
That is when everything was dropped. After that, we began to ask more
questions in 2002, and as the Senator from Minnesota referred to, I
wrote a letter to the Secretary asking for these records. I followed up
with a letter in July further asking for these records, and we have
never to this date received those records of the prior years to see
what his filings were like and how much money had been paid in those
previous years based on misrepresentations.
Mr. DAYTON. Would the Senator yield for another question?
[[Page S8599]]
Mr. HARKIN. I would be delighted to yield for a question.
Mr. DAYTON. During the time the Senator referenced, I believe the
Senator was the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. It was
the responsibility of the administration to perform the due diligence
necessary to investigate all of the relevant factors, the background of
this gentleman, Mr. Dorr, but especially it was then the responsibility
of the oversight committee of the Senate, the Agriculture Committee, of
which the Senator was chairman, to look into these matters. I again
commend the Senator for taking on that responsibility as the chairman
of the committee and doing it so forthrightly.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Minnesota for his great work on
the Agriculture Committee and for again trying to bring to light what
went on with this whole matter. Again, I say to my friend from
Minnesota, I take no delight in this. I have never before opposed an
Iowan and I do not take any joy in this, either. But some things rise
above party, some things rise above our own feelings about our State
and our pride in our own State. I think this rises above that. This
rises to the level of saying whether someone with that kind of
background deserves to be Under Secretary for Rural Development.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, our colleagues from Iowa, Mr. Dorr's home
State, have laid out very divergent views and analysis of the nominee's
background and temperament. I will not expand on those, as this body
has already spent considerable time and energy on this topic.
Rural America is changing a great deal. Changes in immigration,
employment patterns, technology, health care, and the economy are
continually reshaping the contours of rural America. The challenges are
many and the Under Secretary for Rural Development can have
considerable impact on those challenges. It is a position that demands
foresight, judgment, and willingness to embrace change creatively.
I will not be endorsing the Dorr nomination. But I recognize the
President's authority to make such nominations. And as the ranking
member of the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, I
stand ready to work constructively with him on issues of mutual
concern.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Tom Dorr to be
confirmed as Under Secretary for USDA Rural Development. He is a
product of rural America from the greater northern-Missouri area often
referred to as Iowa. He is a farmer, a businessman, and a tireless
innovator who understands and holds true to the values that embody the
very essence of life in rural America. Having had the privilege to meet
with Mr. Dorr on several occasions, I have been impressed with his
mind, his insight, his leadership, his passion, and his vision which is
critical to the future of rural communities in Missouri and throughout
the nation.
Mr. Dorr has lead USDA Rural Development's renewable energy efforts,
from increasing value-added agricultural ventures to ensuring that our
farmers, ranchers and rural businesses have access to capital needed to
improve their energy efficiency and create new energy systems. He
understands it is an effective way for utilizing our Nation's natural
resources, and it is critical for the security of our country.
Most importantly, Tom Dorr has worked to build coalitions amongst
Government agencies to share their expertise and resources to bring to
the table a wider array of Government resources that can ensure that
our Nation's renewable energy needs are met. We need his continued
focus and leadership.
Tom Dorr has come to my home state of Missouri and met with community
leaders and seen first hand how USDA Rural Development investments are
making a difference. He has listened to our leaders, and he will use
that insight to help him direct future rural development activities.
Mr. Dorr understands that rural development doesn't happen in
Washington, it happens in the community and he understands that the
future innovative thinking.
With this confirmation process, he will never have to prove his
patience and determination in any other way. I believe he is the
creative and active force that is needed to ensure that rural America
anticipates and seizes the opportunities of a rapidly-evolving future
and I urge his approval.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination
of Thomas C. Dorr to be Under Secretary for Rural Development and a
member of the Commodity Credit Corporation board at the Department of
Agriculture, USDA. The position at USDA to which Mr. Dorr has been
nominated is highly influential in the continued development of rural
America, holding the unique responsibility of coordinating Federal
assistance to rural areas of the Nation.
Many people, when they think of rural America, may think of small
towns, miles of rivers and streams, and perhaps farm fields. But rural
Wisconsin is also characterized by communities in need of firefighting
equipment, seniors who need access to affordable healthcare services,
and low-income families in need of a home. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Rural Development programs and services can help
individuals, families, and communities address these and other
concerns, which is why the office of Under Secretary for Rural
Development is so important.
I have deep concerns regarding Mr. Dorr's comments and opinions about
the future of rural America, particularly in light of his nomination to
this important post. I disagree with Mr. Dorr's promotion of large
corporate farms and his vision of the future of agriculture.
Nevertheless, when it comes to confirming presidential nominees for
positions advising the President, I will act in accordance with what I
feel is the proper constitutional role of the Senate. I believe that
the Senate should allow a President to appoint people to advise him who
share his philosophy and principles. My approach to judicial
nominations, of course, is different--nominees for lifetime positions
in the judicial branch warrant particularly close scrutiny.
My objections to this nomination are not simply based on the
nominee's views, however. I also have strong reservations about Mr.
Dorr's public comments on issues of race and ethnicity and I am
troubled by Mr. Dorr's apparent and admitted abuse of the Government's
farm programs. While I acknowledge Mr. Dorr's recent apology, his
insensitive remarks and ethical record are not compatible with the
important position to which he has been nominated, and I will oppose
his nomination.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to support the nomination of
Tom Dorr for Under Secretary for Rural Development in the Department of
Agriculture.
Thomas Dorr, with his powerful vision for rural America, with his
proven leadership as Under Secretary, and with the trust that so many
have placed on him, is more than qualified to be confirmed by the
Senate.
Let me provide a little background information on this nomination
process since President Bush took office in 2001. On March 22, 2001,
President Bush announced his intention to nominate Tom Dorr to serve as
the Under Secretary of Rural Development. During that year, three
nomination hearings were scheduled and then canceled; finally, during
the August 2002 recess, the President appointed Mr. Dorr as
Undersecretary.
During Mr. Dorr's tenure as Under Secretary, it has been his
leadership and dedication that led to the long list of improvements
that increased economic opportunity and improved the quality of life in
rural America.
He tackled the very complicated and difficult problems involved in
the Multi-Family Housing Program that, according to the one
congressional staff member, ``were ignored by all previous Under
Secretaries''--he believes all rural citizens deserve safe and secure
housing.
Dorr initiated an aggressive marketing program to extend the outreach
of USDA Rural Development programs to more deserving rural Americans
and qualified organizations, especially minorities.
Also while he served as Under Secretary, Mr. Dorr supported the use
of
[[Page S8600]]
renewable energy, which led to millions of dollars in grants to develop
renewable energy sources; Mr. Dorr boosted the morale of USDA Rural
Development employees; Mr. Dorr aided in the development of community
water/wastewater infrastructure--and the list goes on.
After his temporary position as Under Secretary, Tom Dorr has
completely resurfaced USDA Rural Development. This is a result of his
vision for USDA Rural Development. During his term, Mr. Dorr changed
USDA Rural Development from being the lender of last resort to one
where employees aggressively seek out investments to make in people and
organizations that will fulfill its mission.
On June 18, 2003, the Agriculture Committee recommended Mr. Dorr to
the Senate on a bi-partisan vote of 14-7. On December 19, 2003 the full
Senate failed to break Senator Harkin's hold on the nomination by a
vote of 57-39, six Democrats and fifty-one Republicans. Since the
attempted cloture, President Bush again nominated Tom Dorr in January
of this year, only for Mr. Dorr to meet more of the same from the
Senate.
One Senator has held up the confirmation since April 30, 2001, and
after President Bush has nominated a qualified candidate for this
position three times, we still have yet to see an up or down vote.
Despite the fact that Tom Dorr has proven his leadership as Under
Secretary, some have still insisted on using the politics of
obstruction and partisanship to keep Mr. Dorr from receiving
confirmation in this Senate.
For my State of Oklahoma, the strong leadership of Thomas Dorr
resulted in an increase of millions of dollars in rural development.
Mr. Dorr's leadership for Rural Development included an aggressive
outreach program to rural residents in need of assistance and an
innovative effort to leverage more appropriated dollars into program
dollars. In fact, Rural Development receives from Congress annual
budget authority of about $1.9 billion, and they turn it into $15
billion in program dollars. This includes the administrative money for
the agency. In other words, Rural Development takes 12 cents and turns
it into a dollar of assistance for rural economic development efforts,
which is a level of efficiency difficult to find in most Federal
agencies. During his term, Mr. Dorr encouraged the increased use of
guaranteed loan programs versus grants to achieve this efficiency as
well as very strict tracking of loan servicing.
In other words, Rural Development ``invests'' its dollars expecting a
return on investment, rather than just throwing money at communities
and hope they fix themselves.
I have seen many of these projects first hand in Oklahoma, from
revolving loan funds to business incubators to new water systems. Loans
matched with grants with realistic expectations from Rural Development
partners is what I see as I tour rural Oklahoma. It takes visionary
leadership to achieve this, and for a short time in 2002 and 2003, Mr.
Dorr provided this leadership. It is still needed in this important
agency.
What Mr. Dorr's vision has meant for Oklahoma is an increase in
funding assistance. Oklahoma's Program Level in the past 4 years has
gone from $193 million to $322 million. Business Programs have
increased 500 percent, Housing Programs have doubled, and all of this
is attributable to the outreach efforts encouraged by Mr. Dorr as well
as the leveraging efforts he has put in place to allow each Federal
dollar to go further.
Mr. Dorr has also made several visits to Oklahoma providing technical
assistance on ethanol production, which may lead to the development of
our first ethanol plant in our State. He has also met with our Rural
Health Care Providers in Oklahoma to help bridge the gap between rural
health needs and resources available from Rural Development.
Mr. Dorr is supported by many of our rural advocacy groups in
Oklahoma as exemplified by the following quotes:
Ernest Holloway, President of Langston University Oklahoma's 1890
College:
Langston University has a direct stake in improving
economic opportunities in rural Oklahoma . . . It is critical
that we have strong and creative leadership at the Department
of Agriculture in the Rural Development Mission Area. We
strongly support Thomas C. Dorr for the position of Under
Secretary for Rural Development.
Ray Wulf, President of Oklahoma Farmers Union, that includes 48
percent of the membership of the National Farmers Union:
. . . (Mr. Dorr) visited our state office here in Oklahoma
City. During that meeting we had a very fruitful discussion
relative to rural development and the creation of ethanol and
oilseed opportunities within the state. He shared several
rural development experiences within his own home state and
demonstrated his expertise relative to those projects . . .
we can see the value in having Mr. Dorr's expertise and
experiences put to work on behalf of rural America. We trust
that you will equally find such favor with Tom Dorr when he
is considered for confirmation by the United States Senate.
Jeramy Rich, Director of Public Policy for the Oklahoma Farm Bureau:
Mr. Dorr has proven that he has the passion, skill and
experience to lead the USDA's Rural Development efforts. Mr.
Dorr has been a leading advocate for the value-added and
sustainable agriculture that has benefited small family
farmers and offered them an opportunity to remain
competitive. In addition, he has pushed the Department to
provide more creative outreach to minorities in order to
ensure their full participation in USDA Rural Development
program . . . Our members need Tom Dorr's leadership at USDA
Rural Development.
Mr. Dorr also has the strong support of Oklahoma's Rural Development
State Director, Brent Kisling:
The fact that the President continues to stand by Mr. Dorr
since 2001 is a true testimony to the confidence he has in
the abilities of Thomas C. Dorr.
With all of the confidence that has been placed on Tom Dorr and with
the incredible results that Mr. Dorr has delivered, I believe that he
is capable of doing the job that rural America deserves.
The nomination process is supposed to be one of bipartisanship, where
the Senate is given the opportunity to evaluate the credentials and to
assess the competence of the nominee. Instead, this process has been
skewed and perverted by Senator Harkin and others that stand only for
obstruction.
To some, it seems that the confirmation of Thomas Dorr has been a
small, unimportant matter. To the agriculture industry, to the people
of my State of Oklahoma, and to the people of rural America, this
confirmation is not a small matter.
I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be inserted into the
Congressional Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and
ask unanimous consent that no time be charged against either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the Senate Agriculture Committee has
held two exhaustive hearings on the nomination of Tom Dorr to be Under
Secretary of Rural Development. One of those hearings was held under
the previous chairman's direction and a subsequent hearing was held
earlier this year during my tenure as chairman, from which two issues
were raised. The issues have been thoroughly explained by the Senator
from Iowa in his previous comments, and based upon the two
significant--and I do not want to minimize them--concerns the Senator
from Iowa has, we have made a presentation. When I say ``we,'' the
Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, has been invaluable in helping us
work through this process. Over the past 24 hours we have had
conversations with Mr. Dorr and based upon those conversations, we have
a letter in hand dated today to me as chairman of the committee, in
which Mr. Dorr basically acknowledges a statement he made in 1999 that
raised concerns of some people. He has rendered a public apology
regarding the comments he made.
He further says in this statement: Regarding farm program payment
issues, what I did was wrong. I regret I did it. If I had to do it
over, I would not have filed my farming operations as I
[[Page S8601]]
did with the Farm Service Agency. I hope other farmers learn from what
I did.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
July 21, 2005.
Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry, Russell Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chambliss: Regarding the Senate's
consideration of my nomination to be Under Secretary of
Agriculture for Rural Development, it is apparent there are
concerns I should address.
First, I want to address a statement I made about diversity
at a meeting at Iowa State University in December of 1999.
The comment was not intended to be hurtful, I now realize
that to many people it has been, and for this I apologize. I
have been brought up to respect all people and my track
record at USDA supports this belief. I have worked hard all
my life to heal diversity issues and offer equal
opportunities to all with whom I've been associated. I have
been particularly involved in addressing these issues while
serving at the Department.
Regarding farm program payment issues, what I did was
wrong. I regret that I did it. If I had to do it over, I
would not have filed my farming operations as I did with the
Farm Service Agency. I hope that other farmers learn from
what I did.
Thank you for your counsel and continued support of my
nomination.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Dorr.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Iowa that he
has been very diligent in his pursuit of this. As someone who has been
integrally involved in American agriculture for almost 40 years, I
appreciate his diligence because we need to make sure that people who
are in the administration at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are
respected and that they are the types of individuals who we need in
these positions.
I know Mr. Dorr. I have seen Mr. Dorr in action, so to speak, in his
position that he has been in for the last 4\1/2\ years. He is well
respected across the country in the agriculture community because of
the great work he has done. He is qualified for this position and I am
going to support his nomination.
Before I yield 5 minutes to Senator Harkin, which I will do, I would
be happy to yield to my friend from Delaware for any comments he wishes
to make.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I convey to Senator Chambliss my respect
and regards for the way he has handled himself in these negotiations
over the last 24 hours. Senator Harkin has done us all a favor. What he
has done is reminded us when people make a mistake--and we all make
mistakes. God knows I do--we ought to be willing to acknowledge
that. There are serious mistakes, as I think Mr. Dorr has made with
respect to his comments about diversity and minorities, and things Mr.
Dorr has done with respect to his own farming operation regarding
minimum payments. He made serious mistakes. There was a period of time
when it looked as though he wasn't willing to acknowledge those
mistakes, at least to do so in the public forum. If someone makes
mistakes of this magnitude, it doesn't mean they are forever denied the
opportunity for public service. What it means is when their name comes
before this Senate for confirmation for a senior position, in this case
in the Department of Agriculture, that person should be held
accountable for their mistakes. They should be willing to acknowledge
their mistakes and they should be willing, essentially, to ask for
forgiveness for those mistakes.
It is not always an easy thing to do. Mr. Dorr has made that
acknowledgment. He said, I was wrong; what I did was wrong and I hope
others learn from my mistakes.
It now falls to Senator Harkin who, as we all know, has fought hard
against this nomination, as to whether to accept this letter from Mr.
Dorr for us to move forward to the actual vote on the nomination.
I want to say to Tom Harkin, thank you for the way you handled
yourself in the course of this debate over the last 4 years, for the
important role you have played, and for your willingness to allow this
nomination to come to a vote today.
With that having been said, I yield my time and thank the Senator
from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Delaware
for his terrific work on this and other issues. Without his assistance
this compromise would not have come together.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, first of all, that Senator
Harkin be given 5 minutes following my comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Second, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
cloture motion be vitiated, provided further that upon the use or
yielding back of the remaining debate time, the Senate proceed to a
vote on the nomination. I further ask consent that following that vote
the Senate proceed to an immediate vote on Calendar No. 102, the
nomination of Thomas Dorr to be a member of the Board of Directors of
the Commodity Credit Corporation and that the vote be by voice;
provided further that, following that vote, the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes which I want to yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to granting an additional 2
minutes to the Senator from Minnesota?
Hearing none, the Senator from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes, to
be followed by the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. HARKIN. First, let me pay my respects and express my gratitude to
my chairman and friend, Senator Chambliss. We have worked together on
all matters of agriculture. He is a great chairman of our Agriculture
Committee and I mean that most sincerely. He has given me and my staff
every opportunity to work not just on this issue but all the other
issues in agriculture. He has been most accommodating of every request
I have ever asked. I could not have asked for more in terms of pursuing
interests on the Agriculture Committee. I publicly thank Chairman
Chambliss for being a great chairman and being a great agricultural
leader. I appreciate that very much.
I appreciate his leadership on this issue also. When you get into
these kinds of things, it is never a happy situation for anyone on
these kinds of matters. But we all have our responsibilities. As I
said, the chairman has been right in allowing these investigations and
allowing this matter to move forward in an open and transparent matter.
Again, for that I am very deeply grateful.
I thank my friend from Delaware for his diligence in looking into
this and again, for, as we say, trying to move the ball down the field,
as you might say. I want to make it clear for the record that all we
are talking about here is vitiating the cloture vote. I also want to
make it clear this letter is a letter in which finally Mr. Dorr says:
Regarding farm program payment issues, what I did was
wrong. I regret that I did it. If I had it to do over, I
would not have filed my farming operations as I did with the
Farm Service Agency. I hope that other farmers learn from
what I did.
That is the first time Mr. Dorr has ever said what he did was wrong
and I am glad he finally owned up to it. But, again, let's not get
carried away. This letter doesn't make Mr. Dorr pure as the driven
snow. Frankly, I still have concerns that we have never gotten the
records from the Department of Agriculture on the previous years. But
with a sense of accommodation and comity here in the Senate, I have
agreed, working with Senator Chambliss and others, to move this ahead.
I will not object. I did not object to the unanimous consent on
vitiating the cloture vote.
I want to be very clear, however, that I still cannot in good
conscience vote for the nominee. I will not support the nominee for
this position. But I will not pursue any further extended debate on the
nominee.
Sometimes people have deathbed conversions. The problem is sometimes
the patient recovers. I hope this is not just one of those deathbed
conversions on the part of Mr. Dorr. As the ranking member of the
Agriculture Committee,
[[Page S8602]]
I will be checking very carefully on how he carries out his
responsibilities if in fact he wins the vote. I don't even know if that
is a foregone conclusion. I assume it is, if all of the other party
vote to confirm. I don't know. But if he does take this position, I can
assure you we will be carefully looking at how he carries out his
responsibilities at the Department of Agriculture. We may still want to
take a look at those earlier records.
I want to make it clear, I still do not think Mr. Dorr meets the
standards, the highest standards, as Secretary Veneman said, for this
position, but at least with this admission that what he did was wrong,
that he has apologized for the statements he made on diversity, I
believe that is at least enough for us to get past the cloture vote and
to move to an up-or-down vote on this nominee.
With that, again, in the spirit of comity and trying to move this
ball ahead, we will do that. I thank Chairman Chambliss for all of his
work and his efforts in this regard.
I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I express my admiration to the Senator
from Iowa for his willingness to make this accommodation. Those
watching, who wonder whether we do act in the spirit of bipartisan
cooperation, can note this as one of those instances. I share, however,
the concern of the Senator about the timing of this admission by Mr.
Dorr.
The first hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee on the original
nomination was, I believe, in March of 2002. That is over 3 years ago.
If Mr. Dorr had made this kind of acknowledgment in this letter back
then, this matter would have been resolved some time ago. Instead, the
committee records will show during that time, and I believe at the
subsequent hearing--which I did not attend but I believe the record
shows happened earlier this year--he said exactly the opposite. He
denied any culpability, he denied doing anything wrong, he denied any
responsibility for anything that might have occurred inadvertently.
This is a direct contradiction of that and it does occur, as the
Senator noted, at the very last instant before this matter was going to
be voted for cloture--and I think it is seriously in doubt whether
cloture would have been invoked, in which case that nomination would
have been in limbo as it was previously, which led to a recess
appointment.
I also, with reluctance but out of necessity, will vote against this
nominee. Again, I commend the Senator from Iowa, but I think in this
matter this is a highly suspect maneuver at the very last instant.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Thomas C. Dorr, of Iowa, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for
Rural Development.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 198 Ex.]
YEAS--62
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kyl
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--38
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________