[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.

                          ____________________