[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 29295-29315]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

     THOMAS C. DORR TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR RURAL 
   DEVELOPMENT AND MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMMODITY 
                           CREDIT CORPORATION

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Thomas C. 
Dorr, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Thomas C. Dorr, of Iowa, 
to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development; and Thomas 
C. Dorr, of Iowa, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the 
Commodity Credit Corporation.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time until 
10:30 shall be divided equally between the chairman and ranking member 
of the Agriculture Committee or their designees.
  The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
under the order.
  As chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, I am pleased to announce 
that the committee acted favorably on the nomination of Thomas Dorr to 
be Under Secretary for the Department of Agriculture for Rural 
Development and has reported that nomination to the Senate. We 
understand that considerable debate time is planned to be used and so 
the leader decided to file a cloture on the nomination so we could 
bring this matter to a conclusion. We will have a vote on cloture after 
the debates. I hope the Senate will vote to cut off debate and we can 
move to a vote on this nomination and confirm Mr. Dorr in this job as 
Under Secretary of Agriculture.
  Mr. Dorr has served capably under a recess appointment which was made 
by the President on August 9, 2002. The Senate committee reviewed his 
qualifications and found him to be well qualified. Hearings were held 
back in 2001 when the other party was in the majority and controlled 
the Senate Agriculture Committee. Opposition to the nomination of Mr. 
Dorr was expressed at that time, and the nomination was virtually 
blocked and returned to the President without being acted upon.
  The President resubmitted that nomination, and it has languished, in 
effect, for a good while, while Senators who have been opposed to the 
nomination have expressed their concerns. It is clear that the nominee 
is very well qualified, not only because of his experience in business 
and his knowledge of rural America and the problems we face, but his 
understanding of the job at the Department of Agriculture which he has 
been asked to assume.
  Mr. Dorr oversees the Department's rural development mission area 
that consists of three agencies, $14 billion of annual funding 
authority for loans, grants and technical assistance to rural 
residents, communities and businesses, and an $80 billion portfolio of 
existing infrastructure loans to rural America.
  Rural development has over 7,000 employees across the United States, 
in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the western Pacific trust 
territories. This is a big job. It is an enormous responsibility and 
requires someone with a business background and with administrative 
skills to manage an agency of this size.
  Mr. Dorr has a broad base of experience to draw upon in agriculture, 
as well as financial and business experience. He has served as a member 
of the board of directors of the Seventh District Federal Reserve Bank 
of Chicago, the Iowa Board of Regents from 1991 to 1997, and as a 
member and officer of the Iowa and National Corn Growers Associations.
  Prior to this appointment, Mr. Dorr was the president of a family 
agribusiness company consisting of corn and soybean farms, a State-
licensed commercial grain elevator and warehouse, and two limited 
liability companies. Mr. Dorr is a graduate of Morningside College, has 
a BS degree in business administration, and he is from Marcus, IA. The 
support for the nomination is widespread. I ask unanimous consent that 
copies of letters endorsing his nomination be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 29296]]


                                                 November 3, 2003.
       Dear Senator: The below signed organizations urge you to 
     vote in support of the confirmation of Thomas Dorr as Under 
     Secretary of Rural Development, United States Department of 
     Agriculture. The position of Under Secretary of Rural 
     Development is critical in a number of ways to the success of 
     rural America and agriculture communities.
       Mr. Dorr has proven that he has the skill and experience 
     necessary to lead USDA's Rural Development efforts. The 
     Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Nutrition 
     recognizes the importance of this position and favorably 
     reported (14-7) Mr. Dorr's nomination in bipartisan fashion 
     on June 18, 2003.
       The confirmation of Mr. Dorr will allow these vital 
     programs the greatest possibility of success. Mr. Dorr 
     deserves an up or down vote in the United States Senate, we 
     urge you to vote for his confirmation.
           Sincerely,
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Meat Institute.
       American Soybean Association.
       National Association of Wheat Growers.
       National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
       National Chicken Council.
       National Corn Growers Association.
       National Cotton Council.
       National Milk Producers Federation.
       National Pork Producers Council.
       National Turkey Federation.
       United Egg Association.
       United Egg Producers.
       United Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Association.
       USA Rice Federation.
                                  ____

                                        Office for the Advancement


                                     of Public Black Colleges,

                                                  October 2, 2003.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: As chair of the Council of 1890 
     Presidents/Chancellors, I am writing to express our 
     appreciation for your continued leadership and to convey our 
     support of Thomas C. Dorr, Under Secretary, Rural 
     Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
       For your information, the Council represents the nation's 
     18 Black-land-grant colleges/universities and is a 
     policymaking body that is committed to advancing the land-
     grant mission. The 1890s are located in 17 states, the 
     District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands and enroll 
     nearly 50 percent of all students attending HBCUs. We work 
     closely with the National Association of State Universities 
     and Land-Grant Colleges and provide leadership for the 
     Council of 1890 Colleges/Universities.
       As ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and 
     Forestry Committee, your support of the 1890s has made a 
     significant difference in the infrastructure of our 
     institutions and in our ability to assume greater 
     responsibility for advancing and securing the nation's food 
     and agricultural enterprise. Guided by our 1890 Strategic 
     Plan (copy enclosed), our universities are investing heavily 
     and wisely in:
       Serving as a vital force in the conduct of teaching, 
     research and extension and public service; serving as an 
     adjunct to the American economy; expanding and creating new 
     partnerships with socially and economically distressed 
     communities and government, business and industry; 
     transforming the knowledge we produce into solutions designed 
     to improve the quality of life of farmers and families in 
     rural communities and; providing a seamless network of 
     resources and services to key stakeholders in the food and 
     agricultural enterprise.
       While these achievements are worth noting, the 1890s 
     continue to face nearly insurmountable barriers in accessing 
     the breath of programs administered by USDA. In response, 
     Under Secretary Dorr has been an invaluable resource in 
     helping us build new and complementary relationships within 
     and without USDA. Most recently, he represented the 
     Department at a town hall meeting, ``Small Farmers' Voices,'' 
     sponsored by the Council and held at Alcorn State University.
       More than 200 farmers from the Delta area attended the 
     forum--unabashed and relentless farmers who represent the 
     bottom of America's agriculture industry. In spite of the 
     challenge, Tom was superlative in guiding the farmers through 
     the economic and political realities of the global 
     marketplace and helping them to understand the makeup of 
     programs and the allocation of resources at USDA. He has set 
     the state for sustained dialogue between USDA, the 1890s and 
     farmers in distress. This represents only a snapshot of the 
     many challenges that Under Secretary Dorr has helped us 
     negotiate.
       With your strong leadership and unrelenting support of 
     public servants like Thomas C. Dorr, we are confident that 
     the 1890s will continue to serve as an economic instrument of 
     the state and the nation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Clinton Bristow,
       Chair, Council of 1890 Presidents/Chancellors & President, 
     Alcorn State University.
                                  ____



                              Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,

                                                  October 9, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
         Forestry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: I am writing to you in support of the 
     nomination of Mr. Thomas C. Dorr. I have known Tom for almost 
     seven years and have come to greatly respect and admire his 
     dedication to the development of sound economic and 
     agriculture policies. My initial interactions with Tom 
     occurred during the time he served on the Board of Directors 
     of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. During this time and 
     over the years that have followed, I have observed Tom in 
     numerous settings. These settings have ranged from formal 
     Chicago Fed Board of Directors' meetings, to a variety of 
     less formal settings including celebratory dinners, social 
     functions, and conventions, among others. No matter what the 
     occasion, I can honestly say that I have always found Tom to 
     be the consummate gentleman, a good listener, and someone who 
     always offers comments and suggestions grounded in a solid 
     understanding of the issues.
       I have always found Tom's insights to be extremely valuable 
     in a variety of areas, most notably that related to 
     agricultural and economic policy. However, it would be an 
     oversight not to mention the solid advice and counsel he has 
     provided on issues dealing social problems in general and the 
     impact of technological change on life in rural and 
     agriculture communities, in particular. Tom was one of a 
     handful of people to understand that while the adoption of 
     technological advances in the farm sector would lift 
     productivity to new levels, these same changes could also 
     have adverse implications for the viability of the 
     traditional family farm. In particular, he often expressed 
     concern for the plight of the traditional family farm, an 
     institution facing intense competitive pressures from larger 
     more efficient operators and one typically requiring 
     significant off-farm income just to break even. In the face 
     of these developments, Tom continually raised concern about 
     the lack of a coherent plan for maintaining the viability of 
     the small farm on the one hand and dealing with the social 
     issues likely to result from their potential displacement on 
     the other.
       As I noted above, I admire and respect Tom. I understand 
     that some parties have claimed that Tom is insensitive to 
     issues related to diversity. As an African American that 
     recently sponsored the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's 
     bank-wide diversity program, I can honestly say that I have 
     never felt uncomfortable in Tom's presence. I have never 
     heard him offer disparaging remarks about people of color, 
     the intrinsic value of diversity, or about small farmers for 
     that matter. Based on my years of interacting with Tom, I am 
     certain that he is not racist in any way and would challenge 
     anyone that would claim otherwise.
       Needless to say, I am a big supporter of Tom Dorr. He is 
     bright, articulate, and personable. He accepts critical 
     comments well, is not afraid to speak his mind, and 
     demonstrates rigorous economic thinking at all times. 
     Finally, he has a deep understanding and appreciation of the 
     issues confronting our rural and agriculture communities and 
     I have no doubt that he will serve our country well. I hope 
     that you find my assessment helpful in your deliberations. If 
     I can provide any further information, please feel free to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
     William C. Hunter.
                                  ____



                            National Corn Growers Association,

                                                   March 19, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 
         Committee, Senate Russell, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin: For over forty-five years, the 
     National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) and its affiliated 
     states have represented US corn growers working towards a 
     prosperous rural economy and a successful agricultural 
     industry. With over 31,000 dues-paying corn growers from 48 
     states and representing the interest of more than 300,000 
     farmers who contribute to corn check off programs, NCGA takes 
     seriously its commitment to our membership and our colleagues 
     throughout the agricultural sector.
       Recently, your Committee completed a hearing to review the 
     nomination of Tom Dorr for Under-Secretary for Rural 
     Development. For the past year, the Committee has let the 
     nomination languish, thereby preventing the Department of 
     Agriculture (USDA) from providing needed leadership in rural 
     America. Throughout this process, we have been amazed 
     regarding the controversy surrounding Mr. Dorr's nomination. 
     While good people can disagree about ideology and philosophy, 
     we do not agree holding rural America hostage to ``inside the 
     beltway'' politics.
       Mr. Dorr has devoted himself to the well being of the 
     family farmer and his commitment to domestic agriculture is 
     unparalleled. As a longtime farmer and livestock producer in 
     Northwest Iowa, he is intimately familiar with the challenges 
     facing the agriculture industry in the Midwest and throughout 
     the country. The Department needs a leader like Tom to help 
     breathe life

[[Page 29297]]

     into an agency whose future role will be to positively 
     facilitate change in the farm economy.
       You should know that our association is nonpartisan and 
     does not endorse political candidates. Our Board and 
     membership serve without respect to political affiliation and 
     our policies and priorities have one singular purpose, to do 
     what is best for rural America. We believe the Senate 
     Agriculture Committee should act in a similar manner.
       Mr. Dorr's patience throughout the confirmation process 
     illustrates his commitment to public service and singular 
     desire to help rural America. We respectfully request the 
     Committee complete the nomination process as soon as 
     possible. Not only is it the right thing to do, it is vital 
     to ensure that domestic agriculture has a strong place in the 
     future of this nation.
         Tim Hume, President, Walsh, CO;
         Ron Olson, Waubay, SD;
         Fred Yoder, President-Elect, Plain City, OH;
         Richard Peterson, Mountain Lake, MN;
         Lee Klein, Chairman of the Board, Battle Creek, NE;
         Kyle Phillips, Knoxville, IA;
         Charles Alexander, Stonewall, NC;
         John Tibbits, Minneapolis, KS;
         Leon (Len) Corzine, Assumption; IL;
         Gerald Tumbleson, Sherburn, MN;
         Gregory Guenther, Belleville, IL;
         Dee Vaughan, Dumas, TX;
         William Horan, Rockwell City, IA;
         Ron Woollen, Wilcox, NE;
         Gene Youngquist, Cameron, IL.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Wheat Growers,

                                                   March 14, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and 
         Nutrition, Senate Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: We are writing in support of Tom Dorr 
     to be confirmed as Under Secretary for Rural Development. Mr. 
     Dorr has the vision and experience to help revitalize the 
     rural landscape of America.
       It is our hope that farm-state Senators will support a 
     person for Rural Development Under Secretary whom knows farm 
     issues firsthand and has experienced success in this 
     challenging and competitive environment. Tom Dorr is a true 
     leader that has the talent and tenacity to be successful. 
     National Association of Wheat Growers is confident that Tom 
     will bring solid successful solutions to the challenging 
     economic environment in America.
       Rural America is in real trouble. Foreign Agricultural 
     competition is accelerating at a rapid pace. Foreign 
     producers can grow crops more economically because of fewer 
     regulatory burdens, relative currency values, and a host of 
     other factors. Agriculture needs strong people in senior 
     positions of USDA who will fight for farmers and rural 
     communities, and Tom Dorr is one of those people.
       We encourage you to unite behind Tom Dorr as Under 
     Secretary for Rural Development. He encompasses the 
     creativity that can bring hope in stemming the exodus of 
     people from our rural countryside because of lack of economic 
     opportunity.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Gary Broyles,
     President.
                                  ____

                                           National Rural Electric


                                      Cooperative Association,

                                                     May 20, 2003.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: Thank you for giving me the 
     opportunity to express the concerns of Rural Electric 
     Cooperatives to you and Mr. Dorr, Under Secretary for Rural 
     Development.
       Mr. Dorr's frankness in addressing the issues facing 
     Electric Cooperatives is much appreciated. His willingness to 
     answer questions recently expressed by our membership is most 
     helpful.
       In light of your support and Mr. Dorr's commitment to Rural 
     America, as well as his willingness to work with Rural 
     Electric Cooperatives, we have no reservations regarding Mr. 
     Dorr's confirmation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Glenn English,
                                          Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am hopeful that the Senate will act 
favorably on the nomination. I stand ready to answer any questions 
specifically from any Senators about our findings during the background 
investigations and the hearings that were held on the nomination. I am 
convinced he will do an excellent job.
  Before we reported this nomination, I had an opportunity to discuss 
the performance in office of this nominee with those who had had 
personal contact with him and had observed closely his management of 
this agency. I talked with the head of the State agency in Mississippi, 
for example, Nick Walters, to get his impressions because he had done 
an excellent job in our State of managing the rural development 
program. I have a lot of respect for Nick Walters. He works hard. He is 
a person of great ability, and I have known him a long time. He had 
unqualified support and strong words of endorsement of Mr. Dorr in how 
he had managed this department. He said he was tough minded but fair 
minded, and he did the job in a way that reflected credit on this 
administration.
  I hope the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on the nomination and 
then confirm Mr. Dorr as Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural 
Development.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, to break the impasse here--I never really 
got to communicate to my friend from Iowa--I have maybe about 3 minutes 
of morning business. It would go outside this debate. I do not want to 
be a part of this particular issue. If you don't want me to, that is 
quite all right with me. But I just ask unanimous consent to proceed as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  (The remarks of Mr. Burns are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Iowa seek 
recognition?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes. I would 
appreciate the Chair notifying this Senator when I have consumed 15 
minutes of my allotted 30 minutes.
  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 has continued from Mr. Dorr's 
nomination in a previous Congress to a recess appointment and then to 
his nomination in this Congress.
  I regret very much so many problems have arisen regarding the 
nomination of a fellow Iowan. Just as any of us would feel, it is a 
matter of real pride to me when someone from my State is nominated to a 
high position in the Federal Government, regardless of party. This is 
the first time in my 19 years in the Senate and 10 years in the House 
that I have opposed the nomination of an Iowan to a position in the 
Federal Government. It gives me no pleasure to do this.
  This is not personal. I have no personal acquaintanceship with Mr. 
Dorr. I met him. He came into my office last year. To the best of my 
knowledge, prior to that our paths had not crossed--maybe briefly at 
some point. I have no personal animosity at all toward Mr. Dorr. As I 
said, I don't know him personally. But the record speaks for itself.
  I believe, however, we have a responsibility to review nominees as to 
whether they meet the minimum standards for the job. As a member of the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I have a 
responsibility concerning nominations. We all do. I have worked with 
Chairman Cochran and formerly with Senator Lugar, the former chairman 
and ranking member, to move nominees through the Agriculture Committee 
and to the floor fairly and expeditiously. I have done so both as 
chairman and ranking member, and that has been true of nominees for 
both parties.
  It is important to stress that the Agriculture Committee did not, in 
this the 108th Congress, hold a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Dorr. 
Because of the serious concerns and unanswered questions about this 
nominee, I repeatedly requested that the committee hold such a hearing, 
as did other members of the committee, but that hearing was not held. 
The committee did hold a hearing in the preceding Congress but, as I 
will explain momentarily, that hearing raised a host of issues that 
remain unresolved to this day. The questions have not been cleared up. 
In fact, they have multiplied.
  It was the responsibility, I believe, of the committee to hold a 
hearing on Mr.

[[Page 29298]]

Dorr before it reported the nomination to the full Senate, and the 
unusual circumstances of this nomination added to the importance of 
holding that hearing. 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 waste-water 
facilities, financing decent, affordable housing, and supporting 
electrical power and rural businesses such as cooperatives. They also 
include promoting community development and helping to boost economic 
growth, create jobs, and improve the quality of life in rural America. 
These are the responsibilities of this position.
  Given those responsibilities, one of this nominee's first 
controversies arose from Mr. Dorr's vision of agriculture, reported in 
the New York Times on May 4, 1998. Mr. Dorr proposed replacing the 
present-day version of the family farm with 225,000-acre megafarms, 
consisting of three computer-linked pods. With the average Iowa farm of 
about 350 acres, Mr. Dorr's vision calls for radical changes.
  I ask unanimous consent that that article from the New York Times be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the New York Times, May 4, 1998]

  For Amber Waves of Data; After the Green Revolution Comes Farming's 
                            Geek Revolution

                         (By Barnaby J. Feder)

       Marcus, Iowa.--There is a haunting prescience to the 
     ``Evolution of Agriculture,'' an old chemical company poster 
     on the wall of Tom Dorr's farm office. It ends in 1981 with 
     the invention of a mobile rig to measure electronically the 
     nutritional value of animal feed--the time line's first 
     mention of a computer.
       Seventeen years later, computers have infiltrated every 
     conceivable element of agriculture, influencing what 
     technology-savvy farmers like Mr. Dorr grow, how they grow it 
     and how they market the fruits of their labor.
       The terminal beside Mr. Dorr's desk, for instance, links 
     him to DTN, a nationwide agricultural and weather data 
     network. There is also his personal computer and printer, 
     which is part of a local area network connecting five 
     computers and a server in this small clapboard building. 
     Formerly the home of a tenant worker, the office is now the 
     information hub of 3,800 acres of northwestern Iowa prairie 
     where Mr. Dorr and his 11 full- and part-time employees raise 
     corn, soybeans and hogs, sell seed and run a grain elevator 
     that serves his and neighboring farms.
       With gross revenue of about $2 million in most years, the 
     Dorr operations rank among the 4 percent of the largest 
     commercial farms that account for 50 percent of the nation's 
     agricultural output. Such commercial-scale farmers are 
     usually among those most active in experimenting with new 
     equipment and management techniques.
       To really understand how far things have evolved and get a 
     glimpse of where they might be headed, it helps to stroll 
     past Mr. Dorr's secretary (and her computer), past the 
     bathroom (crowded with three retired computers saved for 
     spare parts), and into the electronics-stuffed lair of 
     Francis Swain, the technology manager.
       Mr. Swain, a tall, 27-year-old son of a used-car dealer 
     whose reddish hair is greased back like a 1950's rock-and-
     roller, describes himself as ``not in love with crops or pigs 
     or cows.'' He represents a new breed of worker, though, whom 
     many big farms will eventually need: an agro-geek with a 
     passion for computers and the information revolution.
       In the increasingly global agricultural market, American 
     farmers will come to rely heavily on technology and 
     information systems to compete with nations that have cheaper 
     land and labor, according to experts like Jess Lowenberg-
     DeBoer, a Purdue University agriculture economist who has 
     studied the adoption of computer-driven farm technology.
       And so Mr. Dorr is doing what thousands of other American 
     farmers are doing: using machinery laden with electronic 
     controls and sensors to achieve pinpoint seed spacing, 
     analyze soils for moisture and nutrients, track weather and 
     manage the rates at which fertilizer and pesticides are 
     applied. He has experimented with global positioning via 
     satellites to track exactly where each machine is as it 
     carries out these functions. And come harvest season, still 
     other devices will calculate crop yields in real time.
        What sets the Dorr operation apart from most, though, is 
     having an employee like Mr. Swain assigned to the task of 
     figuring out how to improve and harness the information flow.
        Each tractor, pig and farm field is, in Mr. Swain's eyes, 
     simply a source of data that can make the farm more 
     profitable if properly analyzed. The questions that captivate 
     him include how much it would cost to track soil conditions 
     more thoroughly, how yield data from a combine might be 
     correlated with weather data or fertilizer records, and how 
     computer simulations of projected crop growth could be used 
     to fine-tune marketing decisions like what portion of the 
     crop to pre-sell before harvest.
        ``My dream is not to farm but to own the information 
     company that farmers hook up to for information on logistics, 
     crop data, whatever,'' Mr. Swain said.
        Mr. Dorr, 51, who began farming with his father and his 
     uncle in the 1970's, has a love of the soil that Mr. Swain 
     lacks. But Mr. Dorr does not let agrarian sentimentality 
     befuddle his business acumen. The family farm he grew up with 
     was part of an agricultural enterprise that besides livestock 
     and crops, included a feed store and turkey hatchery.
        After graduating from Morningside College in Sioux City, 
     Iowa, with a Bachelor of Science in business, Mr. Dorr worked 
     for an educational research company for three years.
        That experience exposed him to computers. While traveling 
     for the research company, Mr. Dorr made side trips to visit 
     farmers who were transforming family farms into far larger 
     commercial operations. When he returned to join the Dorr 
     farm, he was convinced of the need to scrupulously log as 
     much information as possible about operations.
        Mr. Dorr had already invested more than $20,000 in 
     personal computers and farm management software when he hired 
     Mr. Swain in 1990 as office manager and accountant. ``Fran 
     was ill at ease and less qualified on paper than other 
     candidates,'' Mr. Dorr recalled. But Mr. Swain had studied 
     computer science at Nettleton Business College in Sioux 
     Falls, S.D., while completing the college's two-year 
     accounting program and his references raved about his 
     enthusiasm and organizational skills.
        By last year, so much of Mr. Swain's work involved 
     updating and expanding the farm's information technology 
     systems that Mr. Dorr changed his title to technology 
     manager.
        Mr. Swain, who has often urged Mr. Dorr to invest more 
     rapidly in cutting-edge technology, occasionally chafes at 
     more mundane tasks like analyzing past weather data to be 
     sure the strains of corn now going into particular fields are 
     likely to have time to mature before harvest.
        ``His lack of experience in production gets him out into 
     left field sometimes,'' Mr. Dorr said of Mr. Swain's 
     proposals, like his suggestion to set up wireless 
     communications from field equipment to the office so that the 
     costs of pesticides are apportioned to the owners of a rented 
     field as the chemicals are applied. While intriguing, such 
     ideas would typically cost too much or not be reliable enough 
     with current technology, Mr. Dorr said.
        Still. Mr. Dorr gave Mr. Swain his new title to encourage 
     him to continue thinking broadly and to make it clear to 
     skeptical old-time farmhands that Mr. Dorr valued Mr. Swain's 
     work.
        Bob Kranig is a 56-year-old equipment operator and 
     mechanic who, along with Mike Schwarz, a 38-year-old 
     equipment operator for the Dorr farm, has been the main 
     employee coping with the surge in data gathering. ``Mike and 
     I are intimidated to a point by the new technology,'' Mr. 
     Kranig conceded.
        They will have to get over those fears if Mr. Dorr and Mr. 
     Swain are to pursue their vision of a 225,000-acre operation 
     made up of three ``pods,'' each with its own manager but 
     sharing an information system back at farm headquarters. Such 
     an enterprise would be big enough to keep 100-unit trains 
     running to far-away seaports, making the farm likely to 
     receive volume railroad discounts. Such an agricultural 
     factory could also negotiate bargain prices from suppliers 
     and other concessions, like just-in-time delivery.
       To really prosper, though, this type of megafarm would need 
     a 21st-century computer network capable of rapidly 
     integrating information that is piling up in various, 
     incompatible forms--as well as other data that so far go 
     ungathered.
       Such integration may be an uphill battle for years to come. 
     Researchers have raised questions about just how precise soil 
     samplers, yield monitors and other pieces of today's 
     equipment really are. And internet chat sessions, farm 
     conventions, and plain old coffee shop conversations in rural 
     towns are alive these days with earthy gripes about 
     proprietary product that do not interface with each other and 
     new technology that promises more than it can deliver.
       Still, Mr. Dorr clings to his vision of a farm sprawling 
     over thousands of individual fields--many of which might be 
     only partly owned by Mr. Dorr and his relatives, while others 
     could be rented, either for money or for a share of the crop.
       His information system would know what was grown in each 
     field in the past and how much it yielded under different 
     growing conditions. It would also know about crucial 
     characteristics of the field like irrigation, drainage and 
     soil.

[[Page 29299]]

       The system would also have constantly updated information 
     on available labor, machinery and supplies. Operations like 
     storage, marketing and distribution would be tied in, so that 
     the past and the projected profitability of each field would 
     be constantly visible to Mr. Dorr, his employees, landowners 
     and the investors he says would be needed to spread the 
     financial risks of such a big enterprise.
       Assembling this digitally enhanced megafarm would require, 
     by Mr. Dorr's and Mr. Swain's guesstimate, at least a $2 
     million technology investment. Put it all together, though, 
     and one can envision a farm that rearranges planting or 
     harvesting on the fly as weather changes or new sales 
     opportunities arise.
       Without such size and information-management capabilities, 
     Mr. Dorr fears that most farms will end up with as little 
     control over their destiny and profitability as those that 
     today raise chickens under contract to giant producers like 
     Tyson and Perdue. In addition, he says, such size and 
     sophistication will be needed to provide the kind of job 
     opportunities that will keep the best and brightest rural 
     youngsters from moving way.
       So far, Mr. Dorr and Mr. Swain concede, it has been hard to 
     sell their vision, which Mr. Dorr sees as too risky to pursue 
     on his own. Investment bankers have said the project is too 
     small and the business plan too fuzzy to interest them, and 
     other farmers are hanging back.
       Some are merely skeptical. Others are downright hostile to 
     visions like Mr. Dorr's because they see aggressive growth 
     strategies as a threat to the majority of family farms, which 
     are run by part-time farmers who also hold down other jobs. 
     But Mr. Dorr considers such thinking a denial of the 
     inevitable. ``The typical farmer's tendency is to go it alone 
     until it's too late,'' he said.
       Yet even Mr. Swain concedes the risks of racing toward a 
     more computerized future. ``About half of all information 
     technology projects fail,'' he said.
       And he knows full well that the problem is often the 
     unpredictable human element. Noting that he has software on 
     his Gateway 2000 laptop that keeps fitness records and 
     designs workouts for him, he added, ``The flaw is that it 
     doesn't motivate me to exercise.''

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 attacking the ISU extension 
service and harassing the director of the ISU Leopold Center for 
Sustainable Agriculture. Is this really the attitude and the vision for 
agriculture and rural communities the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development ought to bring to the job?
  The person in that position also must be responsive and sensitive to 
the demands of serving America's very diverse 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 that 
Iowa State University Congress; these are Mr. Dorr's own words on the 
record:

       I know this is not at all the correct environment to say 
     this, but I think you ought to perhaps go out and look at 
     what you perceive [are] the three most successful rural 
     economic environments in this state. . . . And you'll notice 
     when you get to looking at them, that they're not 
     particularly diverse, at least not ethnically diverse. 
     They're very diverse in their economic growth, but they have 
     been very focused, have been very non-diverse in their ethnic 
     background and their religious background, and there's 
     something there obviously that has enabled them to succeed 
     and to succeed very well.

  Again, I ask unanimous consent that the transcript of this meeting be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Comments by Tom Dorr; Transcriptions of Iowa Tape

       I've got just a couple of comments, and as one of the few 
     farmers here, I think I'll take an opportunity--I listened to 
     this comment earlier about the ``wow'' statements, that you 
     wanted something to get to the New York Times. I caution you 
     that that happened to me once a couple of years ago when I 
     suggested to me that the appropriate model of a corn soybean 
     farm in Iowa would mesh around 225,000 acre operation in an 
     interview that got the front page of the New York Times 
     business section. It screamed around the world and got back 
     to my hometown, and I am now presently the pariah of Marcus?, 
     so what you wish is what you may get if you're not careful.
       My observation though today, that what you're really about, 
     as precipitated by this gracious gift, is you're really 
     trying to find your souls. Some of you have heard me say that 
     before, and I say that in the context that I as a former 
     member of the board of regents, and one who has always had an 
     abiding interest in education, have felt that to some extent, 
     some of the leadership, myself included, have failed the 
     institutions starting back during the ag crisis of the '80s 
     that particularly that precipitated all of this--in the sense 
     that what actually diverted you from your primary 
     responsibility of teaching and doing research and expected 
     you to develop economic development opportunities that would 
     quickly turn into more growth for the state. And I think that 
     has been a rather misguided approach, not in every case, but 
     I think that that was somewhat of a mistake. And as a result, 
     I think you're really trying to grope with whether or not you 
     are a group of physical scientists or social scientists. In 
     agronomy, I guess I've always assumed that you were physical 
     scientists, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. 
     And I'm not sure--I'm not making judgmental--I'm not sure 
     that's good or bad. You're obviously very very passionate 
     about what you do and so am I. I'm very passionate about what 
     I think we have to be doing in agriculture. My greatest fear 
     in listening to this discussion for the last short day is 
     that, as one of my peers on this panel suggested earlier, 
     when I put it in the context if after 60 years of Triple A or 
     Agriculture Adjustment Act Programs, our farm policy or farm 
     policy governance has literally frozen us in our ability to 
     be creative in our thought processes as it related to 
     production agriculture.
       I caution you in the standpoint that the Iowa agriculture 
     rural landscapes are at great risk. They are truly at great 
     risk of becoming barren economic landscapes. And I say this, 
     and I've mentioned this earlier at least in a couple of the 
     groups, and I don't say this from the standpoint of sounding 
     like sour grapes. That's not what it's intended to, but most 
     of you in this institution through the various programs, 
     whether you're a merit employee P and S or an active (?) 
     admission, your salaries and your retirement programs through 
     TIA CREP will leave most of you much better off than most 
     farmers that you think you're trying to advantage out here in 
     the country at the time you complete 30 years of employment 
     in the institution. And as a result, I think it has to be a 
     paramount focus to a more income growth in the Iowa 
     agriculture sector. Quality is fine--it's a laudable goal, 
     but income growth has to be at the bottom of what you're 
     about. And if it's not, then I think we'll be back here 
     several more times trying to figure out what it is.
       The other thing that's interesting to me, and I know this 
     is not at all the correct environment to say this, but I 
     think you ought to perhaps go out and look at what you 
     perceive the three most successful rural economic 
     environments in this state. And I'm not talking about those 
     associated with metropolitan areas. But I would submit to you 
     that they're probably the three most successful ones. If 
     they're not the three, two of these are the three, and it 
     would be Carroll County, Sioux County, and Lyon County. And 
     you'll notice when you get to looking at them, that they're 
     not particularly diverse, at least not ethnically diverse. 
     They're very diverse in their economic growth, but they have 
     been very focused and have been very non-diverse in their 
     ethnic background and their religious background, and there's 
     something there obviously that has enabled them to succeed 
     and to succeed very well.
       I think we also need to recognize the fact that the change 
     in the hog industry did not occur in a vacuum, and it didn't 
     occur in North Carolina and the South by accident. It 
     occurred because we did not create the opportunities, the 
     investment opportunities and the environment in this state to 
     make it happen. And I submit to you that it would have 
     occurred and it would have occurred with a lot more of our 
     producers being involved in these kinds of enterprises in a 
     much more broad scope had we been more aggressive about 
     determining what was going to make it happen. And I will 
     caution you that this very thing is going to happen in crop 
     production in land management. The tools are in place, you 
     have economists on this staff that understand what I'm 
     talking about, and this will happen. It will evolve into 
     large grain farming operations that if we battle it, if we 
     don't analyze it and facilitate the growth in this, it could 
     be very disheartening.
       I think our goal ought to be to turn the state into a 
     vibrant food producing value-added state, but it will not 
     happen that way within the existing structure of production 
     agriculture. So when we look at who we serve, I think in all 
     honesty that if you truly focus on doing good research, good 
     science driven research, and maintaining high pedagogical 
     standards and teaching students, that you're products and 
     your science, your products in terms of your students and 
     your science will serve you most appropriately wherever they 
     may end up at, and probably in a much finer model than you 
     would perhaps suspect.
       Thank you.

  Mr. HARKIN. Again, should we have as Under Secretary for Rural 
Development someone who lacks the judgment

[[Page 29300]]

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?
  I repeat what Mr. Dorr said:

       I know this is not at all the correct environment to say 
     this.

  Evidently he is saying it is all right to say it, it must be all 
right to believe it, but you just don't say it publicly in a meeting 
such as that. In other words, he is kind of saying be careful of where 
you say it but it is OK to go ahead and believe what he says here, that 
somehow economic progress equates with lack of ethnic and religious 
diversity.
  Let me also point to a memorandum Mr. Dorr sent to me, in October of 
1999, to complain about charges on his telephone bill for the national 
access fee and the Federal universal service fee. The proceeds from 
these relatively modest fees go to help provide telephone service and 
Internet access to rural communities, hospitals, and schools. It just 
strikes me as very odd that Mr. Dorr would have responsibility for 
helping rural communities obtain telecommunications services and 
technology when he was so vehemently opposed to a program that serves 
that very purpose. This is what he said in that letter, in reference to 
the national access fee and the Federal universal service 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'll see an inordinate number of homes surrounded by five 
     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.

  What a slap in the face to poor rural people.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire substance of the letter and a 
memorandum that was sent to me dated 10-8-99 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Memorandum

     Date: 10/8/99
     To: See Distribution List
     From: Thomas C. Dorr
     Re: Telephone and TeleCommunication Taxes
       Attached to this memo-fax is an information insert I 
     received with my recent long distance billing. The total tax 
     for this statement is 14.65%. This is outrageous, especially 
     when you consider that government has had minimal influence 
     on the evolution of the telecommunications technology.
       The monthly National Access Fee per business line of $4.31 
     in conjunction with the 4.5% ``Federal Universal Access Fee'' 
     frequently exceeds the total monthly phone usage charges, 
     which are necessary to have emergency phone lines at our 
     individual farm and hog sites. Those taxes don't include the 
     Federal and State excise and sales taxes.
       These taxes are confiscatory. School and local government 
     systems in Iowa alone have been subsidized so long without 
     commensurate performance expectations that a large number 
     have slipped into a slothful state far exceeding mediocrity. 
     They probably don't receive 30% of these taxes, and they 
     surely don't need them.
       With these kinds of taxation and subsidy games, you 
     collectively are responsible for turning Iowa into a state of 
     peasants totally dependent on your largesse. This is 
     unacceptable.
       I am sure my ranting won't change your approach to 
     maintaining a constituency dependent on government revenue. 
     But should you decide to take a few side trips through the 
     Iowa countryside, you'll see an inordinate number of homes 
     surrounded by five to ten 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.
       I strongly suggest you take time to read Thomas Friedman's 
     new book ``The Lexus and the Olive Tree'', then ask 
     yourselves what really makes sound governance policy. I don't 
     think confiscatory tax initiatives count. It is a cinch we 
     aren't getting wealth in Iowa.
                                  ____


                 Important Information on Service Fees

       Recent regulatory and industry changes will affect two 
     charges on your current invoice. The Federal Communications 
     Commission recently approved larger universal service 
     subsidies for schools and libraries.
       Like other carriers, MCI WorldComSM collects its 
     contributions for the universal service fund by assessing a 
     fee on customer invoices. In order to recover the cost of 
     increased universal service contributions, beginning with 
     this invoice, the monthly Federal Universal Service Fund 
     charge (FUSF) is calculated at 4.5% of regulated interstate 
     and international billing, reflecting an increase of 0.4%.
       Also effective with this invoice, the monthly National 
     Access Fee (NAF) increased to $4.31 per Business Line, $0.48 
     per Business Centrex line, and $21.55 per ISDN PRI or 
     Supertrunk line. The NAF results from monthly per-line 
     charges imposed by many local service providers on long 
     distance carriers for connections to local telephone 
     networks.
       As a valued customer, you will continue to be notified of 
     any future changes that affect what you pay for service.
       Thank you for using the MCI WorldCom program. We appreciate 
     your business and the opportunity to serve you.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Mr. Dorr was given every opportunity but 
could not explain this broad attack against helping rural communities. 
It seems clear that Mr. Dorr was degrading the very people and 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 he is saying that it is 
counterproductive to try to help. He said:

       The more you try to help the more you hinder.

  In testimony before the committee, Mr. Dorr admitted that he had 
gotten federally guaranteed student loans. He admitted that he had 
gotten very generous farm program payments and that these did not seem 
to hinder him at all. But to try to help poor people who live in 
$10,000 homes, that hinders them, you see. Talk about insensitivity.
  This is a letter he sent to me. In that letter, he was complaining 
about the taxation for the Federal universal service fee. Do you know 
what the bill was? It was $4.74. He is saying it is confiscatory. On 
the other page, here is the Federal universal service fee--3 cents out 
of a $21.27 bill, and he is complaining about it. This is someone who 
is going to be the Under Secretary of Rural Development?
  To do any job well, one has to believe in its value. Yet the very 
purposes of USDA's Rural Development programs are an anathema to the 
beliefs and philosophy of Mr. Dorr.
  Lastly, for any nominee the Senate has a responsibility to examine 
their financial backgrounds and dealings. Secretary Veneman put it 
perfectly when she wrote to me:

       Any person who serves this Nation should live by the 
     highest standards.

  Let us see if Mr. Dorr meets this standard.
  Mr. Door was a 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 arrangements.
  This is what it kind of looks like. I will not try to explain it. It 
is very complex and very interlocking. But the operations included land 
in two trusts that were set up in 1977. For a time, Tom Dorr through 
his company, Dorr's Pine Grove Farm, the major company, farmed the land 
held in these trusts under a 50-50 share lease with half of the crop 
proceeds and half of the farm program benefits going to Dorr's Pine 
Grove Farm and half to these trusts. This is what is normally called a 
crop share arrangement.
  Then, beginning in 1988, Mr. Dorr filed documents with the USDA 
stating that his operation had changed. He was no longer farming on a 
crop share basis, but he was going to custom farm, saying that each 
trust had a 100-percent share in the crop proceeds and were entitled to 
receive 100 percent of Federal farm program benefits.
  Tom Dorr, acting through Dorr's Pine Grove Farm, still farmed the 
land as before, but he had claimed and stated and signed his name on a 
document that the arrangement had become a custom farming arrangement.
  This is very important. He knowingly signed that document.
  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. 
Paul Dorr taped at least two conversations with

[[Page 29301]]

his brother, Tom Dorr, that corroborated his suspicions that Tom Dorr 
was engaged in misrepresentation. That tape was made public. Mr. Dorr 
admitted that that was his voice on the tape. Paul Dorr contacted the 
Farm Service Agency and persisted in his request for an investigation.
  Finally, in the spring of 1996, the FSA conducted a review of the 
Melvin G. Dorr Irrevocable Trust. The FSA found that the forms filed 
and signed by Thomas Dorr for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 crop-years 
misrepresented the facts. The trust was required to repay $16,638 to 
the Federal Government.
  Let us fast forward.
  In the fall of 2001, the USDA Office of Inspector General conducted a 
further review of Mr. Dorr's affairs. The Office of Inspector General 
asked the Farm Service Agency to review another trust, the Harold E. 
Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust. Once again, the trust was found to be in 
violation of program rules because of the misrepresentation on forms 
signed by Thomas Dorr. The trust had to pay USDA a total of $17,151.87 
in program benefits and interest for crop-years 1994 and 1995.
  Investigations by the USDA Office of Inspector General and the Farm 
Service Agency determined that for the years examined, the forms signed 
by Tom Dorr misrepresented the trusts' shares in the crop proceeds. FSA 
found that in reality the land in both of these trusts was farmed on a 
50-50 crop share basis and not on a custom farming basis. The trusts 
were, therefore, not eligible for the 100-percent share of program 
benefits because Tom Dorr had misrepresented the actual farming 
arrangement.
  Mr. Dorr would have us believe that either the misrepresentations 
were innocent or that there were no misrepresentations. But the record 
shows that he knowingly carried on a crop share lease arrangement 
between Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Company and each of the trusts even as 
he represented to the Farm Service Agency that it was custom farming 
and not crop share leasing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator's time has 
expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, in the telephone conversations that Paul 
Dorr taped, Tom Dorr admitted that the so-called custom farming 
arrangement was, in fact, a crop share. This is in a telephone 
conversation in which Mr. Dorr said:

       Besides those two machine charges, everything is done on a 
     50-50 normal crop share basis. It always has.

  These are not my words; these are Tom Dorr's own words on tape.
  I ask unanimous consent that the transcript of that tape be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

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 the 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 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 on 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.


[[Page 29302]]

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, again he said on the tape,

       Everything is done on a 50-50 normal crop share basis. It 
     always has.

  He says that to his brother on the tape, but he says to the FSA, to 
the taxpayers of America: No, it is not. I am custom farming.
  What would be the purpose of misrepresenting these arrangements? Mr. 
Dorr's own statements show the motives in this telephone call. As Tom 
Dorr said to his brother, the bogus custom farming arrangements were 
set up to ``avoid the $50,000 payment limitation to Pine Grove Farms.''
  Again, my fellow Senators, these are not my words. These are Tom 
Dorr's own words--his own words. He admits in his own words that he 
misrepresented to the Federal Government his farming arrangements, and 
he did it to get around payment limitations.
  There was the payment limitation connection. A part of the farm 
program payments for land in these two trusts should have been paid 
directly to Dorr's Pine Grove Farm under a normal crop share 
arrangement. But they would have counted against Mr. Dorr's payment 
limitation. But instead, because of Mr. Dorr's misrepresentations, the 
USDA payments that should have gone to him were funneled through the 
trusts and not counted against his payment limitations.
  Indeed, the FSA review of Dorr's Pine Grove Farm Company found that 
Mr. Dorr's misrepresentations `` . . . had the potential to result in 
Pine Grove Farms 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 benefits. 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 due to 
statute of limitations issues. We may hear some claim that the Office 
of Inspector General exonerated Mr. Dorr. That simply is not so. The 
OIG simply closed the case after the U.S. attorney decided it could not 
proceed because the statute of limitations had run.
  Is this the rule by which we say to someone they can now get a 
position in the Federal Government? You tried to cheat the Federal 
Government out of money, you got caught, you had to pay it back, and 
you didn't get prosecuted because the statute of limitations had run. 
That is OK, you can take a position in the Federal Government.
  Based on the seriousness of the violations involved, I believe it was 
the responsibility of the committee to exercise due diligence regarding 
other parts of his complex farming arrangement and to take a look at 
some years that had not been involved in the FSA and OIG 
investigations. Shortly after the March 2002 nomination hearing, 
Senator Mark Dayton sent a letter dated March 21 asking for information 
on the various financial entities from 1988 through 1995, 1988 being 
the year in which he first changed or said he changed his operation. I 
wrote Secretary Venenman on May 17, 2002, and on June 6, 2002, seeking 
a response to the committee's questions.
  We received some responses but critical questions remained unanswered 
and new questions arose. The materials provided in June show that over 
$70,000 in farm program payments had been received by the two trusts 
from 1988 through 1992 under, apparently, the very same type of 
misrepresentation that was found in later years. Each time the USDA 
provided the committee with some of the requested information that 
turned up new problems. Again, we tried to get to the bottom of his 
complex financial dealings. We know the crop shares were misrepresented 
for two of the entities but we did not have sufficient information 
about the others, so the committee requested additional documents from 
USDA. We asked the nominee additional questions. These were reasonable 
requests pertaining to valid questions. Secretary Venenman made clear 
in her letter back to the committee that neither the Department nor the 
nominee would cooperate with or provide any more information to the 
committee.
  I ask consent that a letter from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus 
dated May 22, 2003, strongly opposing this nominee be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                U.S. Congress,

                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 2003.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Agriculture, Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Harkin: On behalf 
     of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, we write to express our 
     continued opposition to the confirmation of Thomas Dorr for 
     Undersecretary of Agriculture for Rural Development. 
     Furthermore, we urge that Mr. Dorr's confirmation process not 
     bypass the required hearings necessary to provide a full 
     accounting of Mr. Dorr's very troubling views on agriculture 
     and his equally upsetting stated views on racial diversity in 
     America.
       This opposition is not arbitrary, but based on reasonable 
     concerns. Our opposition is based on Mr. Dorr's vocal stances 
     on his vision of farming and his resistance to sustainable 
     agriculture. One of the biggest threats to independent 
     producers, farm workers, and rural communities is the growing 
     corporate control of the nation's food production system. 
     Undersecretary Dorr's vision of farming is one of 225,000 
     acre operations--one farm for every 350 square miles. This is 
     656 times the size of the average farm. Such a vision is 
     antithetical to a broader vision of broad-based and equitably 
     distributed growth for all of rural America.
       In addition, in comments made publicly and reported in the 
     Des Moines press, Mr. Dorr believes that diversity of race, 
     ethnicity, and religion detract from economic productivity. 
     He claimed in a meeting in 1999 that three of Iowa's more 
     prosperous counties do well economically because ``they have 
     been very non-diverse in their ethnic background and their 
     religious background.'' These comments are puzzling, and 
     raise concerns about his racial sensitivity.
       The Undersecretary of Rural Development must support a 
     viable and equitable vision for our rural communities. Mr. 
     Dorr's opposition to sustainable agriculture programs, 
     support for corporate control of farms, and his contention 
     that economic prosperity can be contributed to lack of ethnic 
     and religious diversity are the worst possible answers to the 
     economic, social and environmental problems facing farm 
     workers and their communities in rural America. Based on Mr. 
     Dorr's background and his tenure at the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture, it is easy to understand why both civil rights 
     and farmer interest organizations have opposed him, his 
     extreme corporate views and racial insensitivity.
       The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Latinos, farmers, 
     farmworkers, and farmer organizations throughout the country 
     oppose the confirmation of Thomas Dorr. What we need are USDA 
     officials who represent family farmers, farmworkers, and 
     sensible farm policies. Farmers from his own state and from 
     throughout the country oppose his confirmation. This 
     opposition may explain why President Bush found it necessary 
     to initially appoint Undersecretary Dorr through a recess 
     appointment rather than allowing his nomination to move 
     through a transparent and formal process in the US Senate. 
     Last, the appointment of Mr. Dorr does little to improve the 
     image of an agency plagued with civil rights violations and 
     class action lawsuits from minority farmers.
       For all of these reasons, we strongly oppose the 
     confirmation of Mr. Thomas Dorr and strongly urge that his 
     views and tenure at USDA be explored in confirmation 
     hearings.
           Sincerely,
                                The Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

  Mr. HARKIN. I also have a letter from a number of groups dated 
October 8, 2003, representing family farmers and farm workers across 
America opposed to this nominee. I ask it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  October 8, 2003.
       Dear Senator: The undersigned organizations are dedicated 
     to promoting social, environmental and economic justice 
     throughout rural and urban America. We are writing to ask you 
     to vote against the nomination of Thomas Dorr as USDA 
     Undersecretary for Rural Development when it comes to the 
     Senate floor. This nomination, now more than two years old, 
     has received on-going, widespread grassroots opposition.
       In August 2002 President Bush appointed Mr. Dorr to the 
     USDA in order to avoid the certain rejection of this 
     unsuitable nominee by the full Senate. His recess appointment 
     followed the Senate Agriculture Committee's vote of no 
     confidence when they released his nomination without 
     recommendation. Earlier this year, the Senate Agriculture 
     Committee, without a hearing, sent the nomination to the 
     Senate floor.

[[Page 29303]]

       We object to Thomas Dorr's nomination for many reasons. 
     First, Mr. Dorr deliberately misrepresented his farming 
     operations structure to order to cheat the U.S. government 
     and circumvent payment limitations. On the morning of the 
     Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on his nomination in 
     March 2002 the Des Moines Register published excerpts from a 
     taped conversation between Mr. Dorr and his brother. In this 
     conversation, Mr. Dorr stated that he had misrepresented the 
     structure of his farming operations to ``quite frankly avoid 
     minimum payment limitations.'' The U.S. government required 
     he return $17,000 in 1995 after a review of his Iowa farm 
     operation.
       In 2002, in the wake of the Senate Agriculture hearing and 
     further investigation, the Dorr family trust was obligated to 
     repay another $17,000. During the August 2002 Senate 
     Agriculture Committee meeting, Senator Harken raised 
     concerned that according to materials provided in June, two 
     Dorr family trusts received some $65,000 in farm program 
     payments from 1988 through 1993. These payments apparently 
     fall under the very same circumstances that led to the total 
     repayment of $34,000 for 1994 and 1995. Nevertheless, the 
     USDA continues to withhold further records of Mr. Dorr from 
     the Committee and the public.
       Second, Thomas Dorr's vision for increased concentration in 
     U.S. agriculture and the consolidation of many family farms 
     into singular ``megafarms'' is counter to effective rural 
     development and the promotion of family farm and ranch-based 
     agriculture that is at the foundation of healthy rural 
     economies and agriculture communities. He is also on record 
     as strongly opposing sustainable agriculture, including the 
     cutting-edge work of the Leopold Center at Iowa State 
     University.
       Third, Mr. Dorr has made comments tying rural economic 
     development with lack of ethnic and religious diversity. 
     Diversity is increasing in our nation's rural communities, 
     and we are concerned that Mr. Dorr's perspective will prevent 
     him from effectively meeting the needs of minority 
     populations. As Senator Harkin said during the Senate 
     Agriculture Committee Hearing on August 1, how does Mr. 
     Dorr's insensitivity fit the urgent need to reverse the 
     USDA's poor civil rights record?
       Fourth, Mr. Dorr strengthened our opposition to his 
     nomination with his testimony before the Senate Agriculture 
     Committee in March 2002 during which, in a letter to Senator 
     Harkin written by Mr. Dorr himself, he revealed his disdain 
     for rural residents who utilize government programs. In this 
     letter, Mr. Dorr complained about a miniscule tax on his 
     telephone service saying he believed government payments 
     destroyed the initiative of beneficiaries. This seriously 
     calls into question Mr. Dorr's ability to fairly administer 
     programs providing millions of dollars in federal loans and 
     grants to those he is mandated to serve, but about whom he 
     has made antagonizing statements.
       Mr. Dorr's track record in the USDA since his recess 
     appointment has not mitigated our objections. On Friday May 
     16, 2003, Mr. Dorr testified before the Senate Appropriations 
     Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development. As part of 
     the budget request for FY 2004, he stated that he views his 
     agency as the ``venture capitalists'' of rural America, 
     instead of lender of last resort, its primary historical 
     mission.
       It is not in our nation's best interest to have an 
     Undersecretary for Rural Development who has admitted misuse 
     of U.S. government programs, antagonized those he would be 
     charged to serve, and who envisions a structure of 
     agriculture that would further depopulate our rural 
     communities. The Undersecretary for Rural Development should 
     support policies that ensure thriving and viable rural 
     communities and uphold USDA standards. This person should 
     also believe in the government programs he administers.
       The undersigned organizations remain concerned about Mr. 
     Dorr's vision, his current USDA record, and the USDA's 
     failure to respond to pending questions from the Senate 
     Agriculture Committee. We strongly urge you to vote against 
     Mr. Dorr's nomination.

  Mr. HARKIN. I have a letter from the Black Caucus expressing deep 
concern about this nomination and pointing out: Before moving forward 
with the nomination, we urge you to carefully consider the concerns we 
have outlined here, ``only when all parties are satisfied should he be 
given a vote.'' I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the 
Record, along with a letter signed by 44 Senators, dated June 24, 2003, 
to Majority Leader Frist, basically saying they are opposed to going 
ahead with this nomination until one, the nominee furnishes requested 
information, and two, until a hearing under oath is held on Mr. Dorr's 
nomination according to committee rules and normal practice.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 2003.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: We write to express our deep concern about 
     the nomination of Thomas C. Dorr as Under Secretary for Rural 
     Development and member of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     board at the Department of Agriculture. The nomination was 
     reported from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
     Forestry on June 18.
       From the outset, Mr. Dorr has been a highly controversial 
     nominee, due in part to his insensitive and divisive remarks 
     concerning ethnic and religious diversity, his disparaging 
     comments about low income rural Americans and his advocacy of 
     huge mega-farms at the expense of family farms. Accordingly, 
     the Congressional Hispanic Caucus opposes Mr. Dorr's 
     confirmation and the Congressional Black Caucus has expressed 
     ``deep concern'' about the nomination.
       Of critical importance is evidence that Mr. Dorr signed and 
     submitted documents to the Department of Agriculture in which 
     he misrepresented his farming arrangements with two family 
     trusts for the purpose of evading statutory limitations on 
     the amount of farm program payments he could receive. In 
     fact, Mr. Dorr specifically stated in a conversation with his 
     brother that he had set up the arrangements to ``avoid a 
     50,000-dollar payment limitation'' to his own farm 
     corporation. The misrepresentations, made by Mr. Dorr on 
     behalf of the trusts, were a necessary part of his plan to 
     evade payment limitations. When USDA discovered the 
     misrepresentations, it required the trusts to make 
     restitution to the federal government of nearly $34,000. In 
     addition, the evidence showed that USDA had paid out over 
     $70,000 in earlier years in the same manner and under the 
     same arrangements that USDA had found improper and which led 
     to the required $34,000 payment. USDA failed to investigate 
     these payments, but they raised additional doubts about Mr. 
     Dorr's dealings with USDA, including those through other 
     parts of his large and complex farming operations.
       The Agriculture Committee has a responsibility to 
     investigate these matters as part of its examination of the 
     fitness of this nominee to serve. In the previous Congress, 
     the Committee sought unravel the complicated web of Mr. 
     Dorr's financial dealings with USDA. A hearing was held in 
     February of 2002, but it raised more questions than it 
     answered, including disturbing new issues about Mr. Dorr's 
     truthfulness and veracity in sworn testimony to the 
     Committee. The nominee and the administration rebuffed 
     subsequent efforts by the Committee to obtain information 
     that would have addressed these very serious questions 
     pertaining directly to Mr. Dorr's honesty and integrity. 
     Despite these unresolved problems, the nominee received a 
     recess appointment in August of 2002.
       Mr. Dorr was renominated for the position early this year. 
     Despite repeated requests, the current Chairman of the 
     Agriculture Committee has refused to hold a hearing on the 
     serious issues involving Mr. Dorr's nomination, even though 
     this is a new Congress with many new members of the 
     Agriculture Committee, it is a new nomination and there are 
     substantial concerns about Mr. Dorr's performance in his 
     recess appointment. The nominee and the administration 
     continue to stonewall reasonable efforts and requests 
     intended to resolve the very serious unanswered issues about 
     Mr. Dorr's fitness as a nominee for high federal office.
       Indeed, during the June 18 Committee business meeting at 
     which Mr. Dorr's nomination was reported, the Chairman would 
     not even yield to allow the minority to debate the nomination 
     or offer a motion for a hearing--contrary to normal practice 
     and the Chairman's previous commitment on the record that the 
     minority would be allowed to debate the nomination. A request 
     for as little as three minutes to speak was denied.
       Under the circumstances, we are opposed to any action on 
     the Senate floor pertaining to the nomination of Mr. Dorr 
     until such time as 1) the nominee furnishes requested 
     information that would clear up serious questions about his 
     honesty and integrity in financial dealings with USDA and his 
     truthfulness and veracity in sworn testimony to a Senate 
     Committee and 2) a hearing under oath is held on Mr. Dorr's 
     nomination according to Committee rules and normal practice.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2003.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Ranking Member, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 
         Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: At the request of members of the 
     Congressional Black Caucus, I am providing you with a copy of 
     a letter which outlines the reservations many of us have 
     regarding the nomination of Thomas Dorr for the 
     Undersecretary of Rural Development at United States 
     Department of Agriculture.
       Please find the enclosed letter for your information. If 
     additional information is required, please contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                               Bennie G. Thompson,
                                               Member of Congress.

[[Page 29304]]

     
                                  ____
                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 23, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
         Forestry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: We are writing today to register our 
     deep concern regarding the proposed nomination of Tom Dorr 
     for the Undersecretary of Rural Development at the US 
     Department of Agriculture. Recent developments have cast 
     doubt upon the Mr. Dorr's ability to serve all American 
     farmers in a way that is sensitive to their needs and 
     struggles.
       In particular, we are disturbed by recent remarks 
     attributed to Mr. Dorr regarding ethnic diversity and 
     economic development. On May 10, the DesMoines Register 
     quoted Mr. Dorr as saying the following:
       ``This is not at all the correct environment to say this, 
     but I think you ought to perhaps go out and look at what you 
     perceive the three most successful rural economic 
     environments in this state . . . you'll notice when you get 
     to looking at them that they're not particularly diverse, at 
     least not ethnically diverse. . . . There's something there 
     obviously that has enabled them to succeed very well.''
       Given the past record of the United States Department of 
     Agriculture on matters of ethnic diversity and civil rights, 
     we are shocked to learn that the proposed nominee would 
     express the belief that ethnic diversity is an impediment to 
     economic growth. Mr. Dorr's nomination for a position that 
     would require him to work in counties with extensive ethnic 
     diversity makes it difficult for us to understand, much less 
     reconcile ourselves to, such seemingly insensitive 
     statements.
       The Congressional Black Caucus has long worked to 
     ameliorate USDA's historic bias against minority farmers and 
     to improve the capacity of USDA to work with minority and 
     economically disadvantaged farmers. Given the ongoing efforts 
     that many members of this caucus have made in this regard, it 
     is possible, even likely, that to confirm Mr. Dorr as the 
     Undersecretary for Rural Development without a deeper 
     investigation into his sentiments regarding ethnic diversity 
     would send the message that the Administration lacks an 
     adequate commitment to civil rights and minority farmers.
       Additionally, we have reservations about reports that Mr. 
     Dorr has proposed that the future of American farming lies in 
     mega-farms of 225,000 acres. As the American agricultural 
     sector becomes increasingly concentrated and mechanized, 
     small and medium size farms are already finding it difficult 
     to compete with larger and more powerful agricultural 
     operations and interests. In recent decades small farmers, 
     especially minority farmers, have slowly disappeared as our 
     agricultural system has increasingly become dependent upon a 
     small number of large farms.
       As large farms have gained marketshare, there has been no 
     commensurate improvement in the fortunes of small and medium 
     farmers. If they are able to stay in business at all, many of 
     these farmers are forced to fight for an ever dwindling share 
     of the agricultural market. In addition, those who are unable 
     to maintain the economic viability of their farms find 
     themselves faced with limited off-farm employment and 
     educational opportunities.
       Rather than accepting the demise of the small farmer as a 
     historical inevitability, it is critical that the Department 
     of Agriculture seek ways in which to harness new and creative 
     means by which to ensure that farms of all sizes can 
     flourish. The future of rural America need not reside only in 
     ever increasing economies of scale and market concentration. 
     Rural America faces struggles that go considerably beyond the 
     fields. Rather, it faces issues of crumbling infrastructure, 
     lack of planning capacity, outmigration of youth, and a 
     growing digital divide between urban and rural communities. 
     Any policy for rural America which does not recognize the 
     interplay of these many complex and intersecting concerns 
     does rural America injustice.
       As you move forward with the consideration of the 
     nomination of Mr. Dorr for the Undersecretary of Rural 
     Development at USDA, we urge you to carefully consider the 
     concerns that we have enumerated here. In particular, we urge 
     you to delay confirmation until you have an adequate 
     satisfaction that Mr. Dorr has the requisite expertise and 
     sensitivity to enable him to address the broad range of needs 
     and issues facing rural America, particularly issues relating 
     to ethnic diversity and small farms.
           Sincerely,
                                   The Congressional Black Caucus.

  Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am pleased to yield 12 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we have heard about the past and Tom 
Dorr. I will speak about the present and the future because all the 
statements about the past are not in any way reflected in the year and 
a half that he served as Acting Under Secretary.
  Madam President, I rise this morning to support the confirmation of 
Under Secretary Thomas Dorr.
  I know this man. I know what he stands for. I know what he has 
accomplished. Tom Dorr is a fourth generation ``dirt under the 
fingernails'' family farmer. He is a man of vision, a successful farmer 
and business operator. He possesses outstanding financial and business 
expertise. He is a community leader and person of character. He is one 
of the best, in my opinion, thinkers on rural policy issues.
  I respect what he has done with USDA's Rural Development mission 
area. USDA's Rural Development is one of the most vital mission areas 
in the U.S. Government for rural areas of this country, like those of 
my hone State of Iowa.
  Rural America is home to 65 million Americans. USDA's Rural 
Development implements programs that aid in the development of the 
infrastructure, and provide assistance for housing and business 
development opportunities essential to rural America.
  This position requires a leader and manager with vision, foresight, 
and leadership skills. President Bush appointed such a leader over 15 
months ago. President Bush wants Tom Dorr confirmed to that position in 
order that he may continue to provide him guidance.
  Because of his recess appointment, we have a track record by which to 
judge Tom. Tom has served 15 months as the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development. I, as have many of you, have heard from not only Secretary 
Veneman and others at USDA of Mr. Dorr's accomplishments, but also from 
career staff, and groups who originally had concerns. They talk 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 work with him, I take particular note. Let me 
illustrate some of the results that have been brought to my attention.
  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 electrify it over 60 years ago.
  No. 3, in order to facilitate the review and announcement of the $37 
million in value-added development grants, he is using 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 DRA.
  No. 5, he facilitated the development of a memorandum of 
understanding, signed last June 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 the Department to provide greater 
access to housing for all rural Americans, but especially minority 
rural Americans 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 the underhoused throughout rural America.
  No. 8, he has initiated a major outreach program to insure that USDA

[[Page 29305]]

Rural Development programs are more easily made available to all 
qualified individuals, communities and rural regions, and qualified 
organizations.
  Although this is an incomplete list of his accomplishments, it is 
easy to see that Under Secretary Dorr has done a great job in the short 
15 months that he has served at Rural Development. Why folks want to 
let him go now is beyond me.
  I have known Thomas Dorr for many years and expected this kind of 
performance. I have also been very impressed with his ability to 
articulate a vision for rural America, when he appeared before my 
Senate Finance Committee in August, representing President Bush's 
programs.
  In addition, I am not the only person that has been impressed by 
Tom's work at USDA. Listen to these testimonials:

       Secretary Dorr has been an invaluable resource in helping 
     us build new and complementary relationships within and 
     without USDA, the 1890's and farmers in distress.

  That is a quote from Dr. Clinton Bristow, chair of the Council of 
1890 Presidents and president of Alcorn State University.

       Under Secretary Dorr has been the first person in this 
     position in several years to creatively tackle the tough 
     problems facing Multi-Family Housing at USDA Rural 
     Development.

  That is a quote from Dr. Clinton Jones, senior counsel, House 
Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
  Clearly, impartial leaders are impressed with Tom Dorr's job 
performance.
  Tom Dorr has worked as a dedicated public servant for many years in 
our home State. Tom Dorr served on the Iowa Board of Regents for all of 
Iowa's universities. This speaks volumes about Tom's ability and 
character. Tom also served as a member of the Chicago Federal Reserve 
Bank Board of Directors for two complete 3-year terms, the maximum 
allowed. Tom also served as an officer and director of the Iowa and 
National Corn Growers Associations in the beginning stages of the push 
for ethanol and renewable energy.
  Under Secretary Dorr has done an exemplary job at USDA. No one denies 
this. This is no surprise to those of us that know him or have worked 
with him in the past. The only thing that has come as a surprise, 
related to Tom's service, are the rumors that have been generated to 
undermine Tom.
  Due to my great distaste for perpetuating false accusations, I have 
great reluctance even addressing these malicious points, but because of 
the fact that these issues have been raised, I will quickly address 
them.
  The first false accusation: There is an issue with farm program 
payments to a family trust associated with Tom's farming operation. 
Tom's father and uncle each established a trust in the late 1970s to 
insure the family farming operation continued, and more importantly 
that Tom or any of his eight siblings and his uncle's five children 
might also farm if they wished.
  When established, the trusts and the farm operating company were 
consistent with the provision of the farm bill. However, with the 
change of farm bills, there were questions raised whether the 
operations exceeded payment limitations. Rather than incur the legal 
costs to challenge to defend their structure, which would have been 
more costly, the family trust repaid $17,000 and changed their farming 
operations as recommended by the county FSA committee.
  Further, and as a result of his nomination process, a nonpartisan IG 
investigation found that Tom nor any of his family members had done 
anything wrong. This opinion is consistent with the conclusions reached 
during two reviews by USDA under both the Clinton and Bush 
administrations. Tom Dorr has been cleared of any wrongdoing regarding 
farm payments by both Republicans and Democrats.
  Second false accusation: Tom Dorr supports big farms, not family 
farms. I talked with Tom about this accusation because I am adamantly 
opposed to the concentration and consolidation occurring in rural 
America and I wanted to hear his explanation.
  In 1998, Tom Dorr was interviewed by the New York Times and asked to 
provide his vision of efficient farming. With his strong understanding 
of economics, he explained his ideas for the use of new technologies to 
take advantage of input discounts. He also spoke about the ability to 
enhance machinery and logistics savings between family farmers, and to 
improve commodity marketing by establishing technology driven 
arrangements between cooperative groups of family farmers.
  This is certainly not a new concept. This is the principle on which 
cooperatives were based and formed. Tom felt that there were more 
opportunities for cooperative efforts that farmers could take advantage 
of, including more efficient use of expensive harvesting and processing 
equipment. That is exactly the challenge that many new generation 
cooperatives are undertaking. We should appreciate new and bold 
thinking rather than criticize those the suggest new ideas or concepts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I need maybe 2 more minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, before yielding further time, I ask 
unanimous consent that the time for debate prior to the cloture vote be 
extended by 15 minutes, to be equally divided in the usual form. This 
has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Finally, the third, and most egregious, false 
accusation: Tom is a racist.
  This hurts me to even say it. From the projects listed earlier to the 
comments I read you, it is clear that Tom has demonstrated the ability 
as well as understands the importance of working to empower the 
underserved and underutilized minority communities.
  Simply put Tom Dorr is no racist, and anyone who has worked with or 
around him knows that. The comment that has been manipulated to 
generate this accusation, made during a forum at Iowa State University, 
was taken out of context.
  I have not yet met or had any participant of this conference tell me 
that he or she believes Tom's remarks were meant to promote a lack of 
diversity. Quite the contrary, his actions while at USDA have served to 
show anyone who is interested that he is insightful and extremely 
sensitive to the ongoing issues of the minority populations that are 
underhoused, underbanked, and in general, underserved.
  If anyone should question Tom's service at USDA, all you need do is 
visit with former Congresswoman Eva Clayton, Dr. Clinton Bristow, Ralph 
Paige, executive director of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, 
and see what they think of Tom Dorr.
  Tom Dorr is the person for the job. His background, recommendations, 
and now his track record more than provide justification for him to be 
confirmed as the Under Secretary for Rural Development.
  Tom has already suffered a terrible disservice through the political 
witch hunt to which he has been subjected. It would be outrageous if 
rural America were to be deprived of the leadership and talent that 
President Bush has provided for this terribly important position. Rural 
America is regaining its economic, social, and cultural momentum. It 
would be a shame to deprive it of leadership at this critical juncture.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and to 
support the ultimate confirmation of this committed and talented 
leader.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use leader time so as not to 
take from the time that is currently allotted in the debate.
  Let me first begin by saying how much I admire the distinguished 
senior Senator from Iowa. I have applauded him publicly and privately 
for weeks, if not months now, for all of his work on a number of issues 
that I care a great deal about and find myself in the uncomfortable 
position in this case disagreeing with him with regard to this

[[Page 29306]]

nomination. But I admire him for many other reasons.
  I also must say I am very grateful for the effort made by Senator 
Harkin over the course of the last 2 days to educate us all with regard 
to this particular nominee. The concerns he has raised are ones that I 
share.
  This is the first time, he told me last night, in I think he said 29 
years, where he has ever opposed a nominee from Iowa. I know he doesn't 
do it lightly. I know he does it after a great deal of very careful 
thought about this man's qualifications.
  Before I talk about the qualifications of Mr. Dorr, let me say we 
have a lot of good people down at the Department of Agriculture. They 
are Republicans. They are Democrats. They are Independents. They care a 
lot about rural America. They do their best to implement the laws we 
write, to regulate where regulation is required.
  I believe we ought to salute them and thank them for the job they do. 
I am always appreciative of the extraordinary task they have been 
charged with implementing, given how little fanfare and how little 
thanks they oftentimes get. That is especially true for the FSA offices 
in every county in most of our States. So I salute them.
  I am disappointed this matter has reached the Senate floor at all. I 
have two concerns about Mr. Dorr. The first is the one expressed very 
eloquently and powerfully last night. I think it sends all the wrong 
signals when a person who has falsified documents can be confirmed for 
one of the highest positions in the Department of Agriculture. We are 
told he wasn't prosecuted for having falsified documents, but we also 
know the reason he wasn't prosecuted is that the statute of limitations 
had run out. People hadn't fully been apprised of the circumstances 
until it was too late. That is the fact.
  Falsifying documents in this day and age, given all of the 
repercussions legally and ethically in the Department of Agriculture as 
well as throughout the entire Government, ought to be taken very 
seriously. To promote somebody who falsifies documents not only 
destroys the credibility and the essence of our understanding of the 
respect for the rule of law but sends a clear message to others who are 
expected to abide by the law and the regulations of the land.
  Falsifying documents is wrong. There can be no explanation. There can 
be no acceptance. And there ought to be no tolerance. There certainly 
should be no confirmation of someone who has been found in violation of 
the regulations with regard to those documents and the regulations 
provided by the legislation we have passed into law.
  The second is the divisive nature of some of his views. To say that 
those counties succeed in large measure where there is no diversity, 
where there is no ethnic or religious difference, sends again the wrong 
message about the importance of embracing diversity, of embracing the 
kind of differences we find in our country to be a strength rather than 
a weakness.
  I am not sure what he had in mind when he said it. In fact, he even 
recognized, as he was about to say it, that maybe he shouldn't have 
said it. Well, he was right. But, again, whether it was a comment or 
whether it is his philosophical approach, if we are going to discourage 
diversity, discourage ethnicity, discourage religious tolerance, that, 
too, raises grave questions about the eligibility of somebody of this 
stature in the Department of Agriculture or in the Federal Government 
under any circumstances.
  I can't recall the last time I opposed a nominee for the Department 
of Agriculture for anything. In 25 years, I think I have supported 
virtually every nominee, Republican and Democrat.
  I come to the floor, like my colleague Senator Harkin, expressing 
regret that we have to be here at all, expressing regret that this 
nominee has reached this point, expressing regret that a nominee of the 
stature required for this position has falsified documents and used 
rhetoric that goes beyond what I consider to be the acceptable tenor of 
debate and approach with regard to diversity and the acceptance of our 
multiracial and multicultural society today.
  I hope my colleagues will join us in recognition that we can do 
better than this and that we need, at those times when we find somebody 
who is not qualified, to simply say so. It is incumbent upon us to take 
the responsibility to do that. That is our task this morning as we 
vote.
  I urge those who will vote to vote no on cloture.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes, 43 seconds.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me first of all say that while I appreciate the 
comments of the minority leader, I don't believe it is accurate to make 
some of the accusations in terms of destroying records. It is my 
understanding that the Farm Service Agencies have said that after 
examining it, there was no intent to deceive. It was something that was 
done in error and good faith or however you want to characterize it.
  I don't want to see happening here what appears to be happening in a 
similar way to the nominee to be Administrator of the EPA. Certainly 
Mike Leavitt was one of the most qualified individuals, and yet his 
nomination was strung out for days and days and weeks. It ended up at 
56 days. I hope we are not going to get so partisan that this happens 
again in this case.
  I believe Tom Dorr has completely resurfaced USDA Rural Development. 
As Under Secretary, Dorr has set a clear vision for USDA Rural 
Development as a venture capital firm for rural America. The agency 
once was thought of as the lender of last resort, but the mindset has 
been changed to one where employees aggressively seek out investments 
to make in people and in organizations.
  I am really pleased when I see what has happened in the State of 
Oklahoma. We have never had anyone who has performed like Tom Dorr has 
performed there. All I hear from Democrats and Republicans all around 
the State is what a truly great job he has done.
  For example, 3 years ago my State had $29 million in guaranteed 
housing loans but, thanks to Tom Dorr, last year we had $60 million. It 
doubled, to the people who are really deserving of it, and now we have 
more and more Oklahomans who own their own homes rather than rent them.
  In addition, since Tom Dorr has been the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development for the USDA, the amount of business loan programs in my 
State of Oklahoma has doubled. Both housing and loan programs have 
actually doubled in my State.
  I would like also to go back to the people who speak to the real 
people out there, not the politicians, not people who somehow think 
they can have some kind of a gain if they can kill one of the 
President's nominees. Look at the National Corn Growers Association, 
the board of directors stated in a letter to Senator Tom Harkin--this 
is a quote from the National Corn Growers Association; all those 
farmers out there who grow corn belong to this:

       The Department [of Agriculture] needs a leader like Tom 
     Dorr to help breathe life into an agency whose future role 
     will be to positively facilitate change in the farm economy.

  The Wheat Growers Association--my State is a big wheat State, and we 
have an interest in this. You go out and see these people. These people 
are just trying to survive right now, and yet they are just praising 
the work of Tom Dorr.
  The Wheat Growers said in a letter to Tom Harkin:

       We encourage you to unite behind Tom Dorr as Under 
     Secretary of Rural Development. He encompasses the creativity 
     that can bring hope in stemming the exodus of people from our 
     rural countrysides because of lack of economic opportunity.

  That is all we are trying to do in Oklahoma is survive. Our farmers 
are trying to survive out there.

[[Page 29307]]

  This is Terry Barr from the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, 
the co-ops--I don't know what we would have done--who said:

       We understand the Senate may soon consider the nomination 
     of Thomas Dorr as Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural 
     Development. . . .
       Rural development and related programs carried out by the 
     United States Department of Agriculture are of vital 
     importance to farmers and their cooperatives. These include 
     programs aimed at encouraging and promoting the ability of 
     farmers to join together in cooperative efforts to improve 
     their income from the marketplace.

  Again, this is the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives:

       Mr. Dorr, we believe, has demonstrated that he has the 
     background, experience and understanding necessary for 
     success in this important position of leadership.
       We urge the Senate to confirm his nomination.

  So you hear from all the users out there and from the farmers--those 
individuals out there who are trying to survive.
  Also, keep in mind one other thing. Thomas Dorr came from a small 
farmer community. He understands how they think. I think it is critical 
that we confirm him as soon as possible.
   To reiterate, on March 22, 2001, President Bush announced his 
intention to nominate Tom Dorr of Marcus, IA, to serve as Under 
Secretary of Rural Development for USDA. Two and a half years later, 
his nomination is still pending.
   This is obstruction. Thomas Dorr is not the only nominee being 
blocked for confirmation. As chairman of the EPW Committee, I dealt 
with this same problem--obstruction--with the nomination of Governor 
Mike Leavitt to be administrator of the EPA.
   This is about politics, not nominees. Thomas Dorr is more than 
qualified to hold the position of Under Secretary for Rural Development 
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I don't think anyone has 
questioned that the motivation for these delays was partisan 
presidential politics.
  Apparently nominations are no longer about a nominee's qualifications 
and support, but simply about partisan politics.
  Americans expect and want the Senate confirmation process to be 
thoughtful and thorough, but they certainly don't think it should drag 
on year after year.
   Tom Dorr has completely resurfaced USDA Rural Development. As Under 
Secretary, Dorr has set a clear vision for USDA Rural Development as 
the venture capital firm for rural America. The agency was once thought 
of as the lender of last resort, but the mindset has been changed to 
one where employees aggressively seek out investments to make in people 
and organizations that will fulfill the mission.
   Under Secretary Dorr ran his farm and business from a small town so 
he understands well the needs of rural America, including the need for 
technology to allow these communities to compete. He believes that 
broadband is as meaningful to rural America today as rural 
electrification was in the mid-20th century. He led the effort to 
complete the rulemaking process and begin accepting applications for 
the new broadband program. Through his efforts, $1.5 billion is 
available this year to help build rural technology infrastructure.
   The list of improvements that increased economic opportunity and 
improved the quality of life in rural America that were spearheaded by 
Tom Dorr is endless.
   He has tackled the very complicated and difficult problems involved 
in the Multi Family Housing Program, that, according to the one 
congressional staffer, ``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.
   In addition, he is a proponent of renewable energy, which led to 
millions of dollars in grants to develop renewable energy sources; he 
has greatly boosted the morale of USDA Rural Development employees; has 
greatly aided in the development of community water/wastewater 
infrastructure--and the list goes on and on.
   For my State of Oklahoma, the strong leadership at the top of Thomas 
Dorr has resulted in an increase of millions of dollars in rural 
development.
   For example, 3 years ago my State had $29 million in guaranteed 
housing loans, but thanks to Tom Dorr, this last year Oklahoma had $60 
million in guaranteed housing loans. That represents an increase of $31 
million worth of Oklahomans that now own their homes rather than 
renting them.
   In addition, since Thomas Dorr has been the Under Secretary of Rural 
Development of the USA, the State of Oklahoma's amount of business loan 
programs has doubled from $15 million to $30 million.
   Tom Dorr has gained support from a spectrum of organizations and 
individuals: The National Corn Growers Association Board of Directors 
stated in a letter to Senator Tom Harkin: ``The Department [of 
Agriculture] needs a leader like Tom Dorr to help breathe life into an 
agency whose future role will be to positively facilitate change in the 
farm economy.''
   In another letter to Tom Harkin, the President of the National 
Association of Wheat Growers stated: ``We encourage you to unite behind 
Tom Dorr as Under Secretary for Rural Development. He encompasses the 
creativity that can bring hope in stemming the exodus of people from 
our rural countryside because of lack of economic opportunity.''
   However, surprisingly enough, Tom Harkin is one of the main reasons 
Tom Dorr's application is still pending today.
   In a letter to Senator Blanche Lincoln, the USDA Assistant Secretary 
for Civil Rights points out that Tom Dorr is a leader in the 
advancement of civil rights: ``I have no vested interest in seeing 
individuals advance in this administration who I fear will hamper the 
progress of civil rights within the USDA. Mr. Dorr is not such an 
individual. If confirmed, I believe that Mr. Dorr would continue to 
work with me to advance civil rights at USDA.''
   It is obvious that Tom Dorr is the most qualified person for the 
position of Under Secretary of Rural Development for the USDA. He has 
completely turned around the USDA office of Rural Development, and has 
clearly gained praise from all sorts of individuals, agencies, and 
organizations. Do not let this man fall victim to partisan politics.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I rise today in support of Tom Dorr and 
to urge my colleagues to vote for cloture.
  As chairman and one-time ranking member of the Agriculture 
Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, I 
have had the opportunity to work with Tom Dorr from the time he was 
nominated in April 2001, and I have had the pleasure of working with 
him for the past year in his capacity as Under Secretary of Rural 
Development.
  I would like to share with my distinguished colleagues some of the 
comments that I have received from people in Idaho about Tom Dorr's 
efforts: ``He has a real passion for rural America,'' ``He has vision 
and courage,'' ``It would be a real loss if he is not confirmed,'' 
``there is confidence in his clear vision for how Rural Development can 
help rural America''. ``He is providing real leadership, and has the 
trust of everyone that works here.''
  Mr. President, Tom Dorr has what we look for in our Under 
Secretaries, vision and leadership. He is making real changes at USDA 
that will benefit the rural citizens of my State and the country.
  One of my priorities has been to help bring and build jobs in Idaho, 
particularly in rural Idaho. Tom Dorr shares those priorities and is 
working to build on USDA Rural Development's capacity as a jobs 
creation agency.
  He recognizes that building the infrastructure to attract and develop 
long-term growth is vital to the well-being of the communities.
  Many of us choose to live in rural America for its values, community, 
and character. We need to work to ensure that those who wish to live in

[[Page 29308]]

rural America can. The jobs need to be there and the infrastructure 
needs to be there. Tom Dorr recognizes that.
  In 2001 when Tom was first nominated for this position, and in 2002 
when the Senate first began to consider his nomination, I was convinced 
that he was qualified to lead the agency.
  Since the President appointed him during the August recess last year, 
he has proved that he is qualified to lead the agency.
  To those who would argue that the Senate needs more deliberation, I 
say that the Senate has deliberated long enough.
  Tom Dorr was first nominated in April 2001. A hearing was held in 
March 2002, after three previously scheduled hearings were cancelled. 
Prior to the committee reporting out his nomination, he answered 
hundreds of questions from Committee Members. In fact, the committee's 
ranking member requested more than 1,000 documents or pieces of 
information.
  When the committee considered his nomination this year, it reported 
him out by a vote of 14 to 7. Did we report him out in one day, no. At 
the confirmation hearing, the ranking member was given the opportunity 
to expound on why he opposed the nominee, and he did so until the 
committee no longer had a quorum.
  Madam President, Tom Dorr has been available for questioning and 
we've had the opportunity for oversight since his nomination in 2001 
and his appointment in 2002.
  Throughout this process, some have sought not to deliberate on his 
nomination, but to delay it in the hopes it might whither on the vine.
  I ask my colleagues for an up or down vote on his nomination. He 
deserves it. And, I believe, the country deserves his leadership.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, today I am voting against ending the 
debate on the nominations of Thomas C. Dorr to serve as the Under 
Secretary for Rural Development at the Department of Agriculture and 
also as a member of the Commodity Credit Corporation because I believe 
it is premature for this body to be voting on the appropriateness of 
Mr. Dorr to assume these positions. This is an unusual step for me, 
but, then again, this is a very unusual situation.
  I have long recognized that a President should generally be entitled 
to have executive branch agencies run by the people he chooses. While 
his selections should be given considerable deference, the President's 
power of appointment is limited by the duty of the Senate to provide 
``advice and consent.'' Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have 
supported countless nominees for Cabinet and other high-level 
positions, including many with whom I have disagreed on certain 
policies, but I have also cast my vote against confirmation when I have 
become convinced that the nominee is not suitable to fill the role. In 
this instance, I do not believe the Senate has all the facts that are 
necessary to make an informed judgment.
  During this confirmation process, serious questions were raised about 
misrepresentations made by Mr. Dorr to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture regarding his farming arrangements with two family trusts 
in an effort to secure farm program payments, and the subsequent 
restitution made to the Federal Government of nearly $34,000. Rather 
than resolving these questions, last year's hearing on this nomination 
held by the Senate Agriculture Committee raised additional and 
disturbing questions, and the nominee thereafter failed to supply 
documents that might remove the cloud over this matter. That is why 
last June, I joined many of my colleagues in the Senate in urging the 
majority leader to withhold further Senate action on these nominations 
until the nominee furnished the requested information to clarify the 
important questions raised about his integrity in financial dealings 
with USDA and his truthfulness and veracity in sworn testimony before 
the Senate committee. I am disappointed that, rather than helping to 
secure a resolution of these serious issues, the majority leader has 
chosen to move these nominations forward. As such, I am left with no 
recourse other than to oppose cloture on these nominations.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination 
of Thomas C. Dorr as Under Secretary for Rural Development and as 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 I know 
that 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.
  So, although I may disagree with Mr. Dorr's views on agriculture 
issues, I am not prepared at this point to oppose Mr. Dorr's nomination 
on those grounds. However, those are not the only grounds to oppose the 
nomination. 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 abuse of the Government's farm programs.
  Furthermore, Mr. Dorr has not yet provided information to the Senate 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry that has been 
requested of him. This information would clarify questions about his 
honesty and integrity in financial dealings with the Department of 
Agriculture as well as in sworn testimony to the Committee. I am 
concerned that Agriculture Committee rules and practice were apparently 
not followed with respect to the nomination hearing of Mr. Dorr. I am 
not alone in expressing these sentiments--I joined with forty-two of my 
colleagues, led by the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, in 
conveying these concerns to the majority leader.
  The Senate should not be forced to vote on a nomination before we 
have all of the information that we feel is needed to make an informed 
decision. There may be good explanations for Mr. Dorr's testimony and 
answers, but the Senate does not have them yet. And we should get them 
before we vote on the nomination. I will therefore vote no on cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am pleased to present to the Senate 
the President's nomination of Thomas Dorr to serve as the Under 
Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development and to be a Member of 
the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation. The 
President appointed Mr. Dorr to the position of Under Secretary of 
Agriculture and Rural Development during Senate recess on August 9, 
2002.
  Following the August recess of 2001, the nominations were resubmitted 
by the President, and received in the Senate on September 4, 2001.
  The President then resubmitted the nominations to the Senate on 
September 30, 2002; again the nominations were not acted upon and 
consequently returned to the President on November 20, 2002.

[[Page 29309]]

  Following the adjournment of the 107th Congress, the President once 
again resubmitted Mr. Dorr's nominations on January 9, 2003 for 
consideration during the 108th Congress.
  Obviously, the President believes Mr. Dorr to be qualified for this 
post, and Mr. Dorr's record during the appointment to the position 
certainly supports the President's confidence in him. While serving in 
the position of Undersecretary of Agriculture for Rural Development, 
Mr. Dorr has performed his duties in a way that has reflected credit on 
the Administration of President Bush. He deserves to be confirmed.
  Specifically, Mr. Dorr has helped expedite the release of $762 
million to help reduce the backlog of community water and wastewater 
infrastructure applications.
  Mr. Dorr led the effort to complete the rulemaking process and begin 
accepting applications for the new program to provide broadband 
Internet access to rural communities.
  He has utilized private sector resources to help expedite the review 
and announcement of $37 million in Value Added Agriculture Product 
Market Development Grants.
  Mr. Dorr has been instrumental in facilitating the pending agreement 
between the Small Business Administration and USDA Rural Development on 
the new Rural Business Investment Program created in the Farm Bill.
  Under his stewardship, more rural families own homes where they live 
in safety and comfort: Mr. Dorr has worked with Congress to convert $11 
million in carryover housing funds to support $900 million in new 
funding for guaranteed loans--creating an additional 12,000 
homeownership opportunities.
  He worked to help the families of economically distressed areas in 
the Southwest colonias through a formal agreement with the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development.
  He has insisted on fairness to improve accountability and performance 
on minority homeownership loans by working with the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Housing Authority and 
Veterans Affairs in development of consolidated minority tracking 
reports.
  Madam President, the committee has received numerous letters 
supporting this nomination.
  For the benefit of Senators and for their information, I am going to 
point out a few things contained in the letters that I think are 
particularly persuasive and support this nomination.
  This is a letter that is signed by 14 different agricultural 
commodity groups and organizations, and by the American Farm Bureau 
Federation:

       Mr. Dorr has proven that he has the skill and experience 
     necessary to lead USDA's rural development efforts.

  Another letter, written by a constituent from my State, a copy of 
which was given to all members of our committee, written by Dr. Clinton 
Bristow, the president of Alcorn State University at Lorman, MS. He 
wrote in his capacity as chair of the Council of 1890 Presidents and 
Chancellors. In his letter supporting this nomination he said:

       Secretary Dorr has been an invaluable resource in helping 
     us build new and complementary relationships within and 
     without USDA. . . .
       Most recently, he represented the department at a town hall 
     meeting for small farmers voices, sponsored by the council 
     and held at Alcorn State University. More than 200 farmers 
     from the delta area attended the forum--unabashed and 
     relentless farmers who represent the bottom of America's 
     agricultural industry.
       In spite of the challenge, Tom was superlative in guiding 
     the farmers through the economic and political realities of 
     the global marketplace and helping them to understand the 
     makeup of programs and the allocation of resources at USDA. 
     He has set stage for sustained dialog between USDA, the 
     1890s, and farmers in distress. This represents only a 
     snapshot of the many challenges that Under Secretary Dorr has 
     helped us negotiate.

  Madam President, another letter from William C. Hunter, senior vice 
president and director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of 
Chicago. He says:

       As an African American, I can honestly say that I have 
     never felt uncomfortable in Tom's presence. I have never 
     heard him offer disparaging remarks about people of color, 
     the intrinsic value of diversity, or about small farmers, for 
     that matter. He is bright, articulate and personable. He 
     accepts critical comments well and is not afraid to speak his 
     mind and demonstrates rigorous economic thinking at all 
     times.
       Finally, he has a deep understanding and appreciation of 
     issues confronting our rural and agriculture communities.

  I have additional letters by the National Corn Growers, National 
Association of Wheat Growers, and finally this letter from the National 
Rural Electric Cooperative Association:

       Mr. Dorr's frankness in addressing the issues facing 
     electric cooperatives is much appreciated. We have no 
     reservations regarding Mr. Dorr's confirmation.

  That is signed by Glenn English, chief executive officer.
  There are additional comments that we gleaned from newspapers, 
including an editorial supporting the nomination by the Des Moines 
Register editorial board. There are numerous other editorial comments 
in support of the nomination. Here is one entitled ``Informed Iowans 
should support Tom Dorr'' from the Sioux City Journal. There is an 
opinion piece in that newspaper, also. Here is something from the World 
Perspectives newsletter strongly supporting the confirmation of Tom 
Dorr. Here is another from the Webster Agricultural Letter, which is an 
interesting discussion of the political confrontation that is reflected 
in this nomination in opposition to it. Also, here is a copy of the 
National Review Online, with a description of the controversy over the 
Dorr nomination but coming down in support of his confirmation.
  I ask unanimous consent copies of these editorials and newsletters be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the DesMoinesRegister.com, June 3, 2002]

                   Editorial: Make a Decision on Dorr

       Every shred of evidence of alleged wrongdoing by USDA 
     nominee Thomas Dorr has been pursued. To the point of tedium. 
     It is time to move on: Senator Tom Harkin should quit holding 
     Dorr hostage.
       Dorr is a Marcus, Ia., farmer and agribusinessman who was 
     appointed months ago by President Bush to be U.S. 
     undersecretary of agriculture for rural development. Harkin 
     is chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which must 
     decide whether to send Dorr's nomination to the full Senate 
     for a confirmation vote.
       Questions have been raised about Dorr's fitness for the 
     job. Some of those questions are matters of philosophy that, 
     like it or not, should be of no concern to the Senate. On 
     appointments within the executive branch, the president 
     should have wide discretion in staffing his administration 
     with people of his choosing, even if that means confirming 
     individuals some senators find distasteful.
       Some questions--namely whether Dorr broke any rules when 
     receiving federal farm payments--are relevant, but they seem 
     to have been answered now that the USDA's inspector general 
     has closed the books on its inquiry after finding 
     insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges.
       Harkin may have good reason to persist in raising questions 
     about whether Dorr properly followed the rules in receiving 
     crop-subsidy payments: Just because there's insufficient 
     evidence to warrant a criminal investigation does not mean 
     Dorr's skirts are clean. Harkin should not, however, use that 
     as an excuse to hold the Dorr nomination in limbo.
       That is what the Republicans did to Clinton administration 
     nominees for everything from surgeon general to the federal 
     courts. It was wrong when the Republicans ran the Senate; and 
     it is wrong now that the Democrats are in control.
       Harkin owes it to Dorr and to the White House to move 
     forward. Give Dorr another opportunity at another hearing to 
     answer any and all questions, and then vote his confirmation 
     up or down.
       By delaying so long, Harkin gives credence to critics who 
     say he's only playing political games.
                                  ____


              [From the Sioux City Journal, July 10, 2001]

                Informed Iowans should support Tom Dorr

                           (By Donald Etler)

       Algona, Iowa.--A recent Associated Press article described 
     a petition fronted by the National Farm Action Campaign, 
     NFAC, and signed by representatives of 161 organizations 
     calling for the rejection of Iowa businessman and farmer Tom 
     Dorr in consideration of his nomination for USDA 
     undersecretary for rural development. It is unfortunate that 
     Dorr cannot respond in deference to the request of the White 
     House. But, does anyone really believe the claim of the NFAC 
     that Tom Dorr advocates one farmer for

[[Page 29310]]

     every 350 square miles or that he thinks 500 of every 501 
     farmers should go out of business?
       I have dealt with Tom Dorr on both professional and 
     personal levels. This man does not deserve the distorted, 
     severe attacks upon his beliefs and character. I believe I 
     know Tom well enough to be correct in believing that his work 
     ethic, business sense, tenacity and moral foundation would 
     serve rural America, and rural Iowa, quite well.
       Those who choose to distort Dorr's words regarding farm 
     program policies must be doing so solely for political 
     reasons because as undersecretary for rural development Mr. 
     Dorr's responsibilities would not be in areas that deal with 
     USDA commodity programs or environmental regulations which 
     most directly impact independent farmers. Political reasons 
     probably explain why a website has been set up where with the 
     click of a button a letter to the editor opposing Dorr can be 
     downloaded. Seeing this reminds me of the old West lynch 
     mobs.
       The undersecretary for rural development is primarily 
     responsible for policies affecting infrastructure and 
     commerce in rural communities. Ninety percent of rural 
     America's jobs are found in those communities and not on the 
     farms. Most of our farmers now have off-farm jobs. As our 
     rural communities struggle to survive with an aging and 
     shrinking population, with the exit of businesses to larger 
     regional communities, and with the retirement of up to 25 
     percent of surrounding cropland under existing farm programs, 
     rural communities should be demanding that federal rural 
     development policies to be retooled and redirected to reverse 
     the long decline. In opposing Dorr, the NFAC empowers 
     entrenched bureaucrats to continue failed programs to our 
     continued harm.
       Do the members of those groups that oppose Dorr's 
     nomination truly want to hold the status quo which, in the 
     case of the USDA rural public policy, has been ineffectual if 
     not harmful for rural communities across the country? I 
     believe Tom Dorr will tackle failed and misguided rural 
     development programs from a new perspective. He will demand 
     accountability of the entrenched bureaucracy and he will 
     bring the new ideas and vision that are so sorely needed.
       In the interests of the multitude of Iowa's struggling 
     rural communities, informed Iowans would be well served to 
     support the nomination of one of our own.
                                  ____


             [From World Perspectives, Inc., Mar. 6, 2002]

                   Apollo 13 and the Tom Dorr Hearing

                          (By Emily S. French)

       If you're Tom Dorr, the nominee for Undersecretary for 
     Rural Development at USDA, you know you're having a bad day 
     when the Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) says, 
     ``to quote Apollo 13--Houston we've got a problem,'' just 
     prior to a two hour recess during your confirmation hearing. 
     That is what happened today.
       Already a controversial federal nominee, Dorr came under 
     additional fire as the Des Moines Register ran an article 
     today, citing a recorded phone conversation in which Dorr 
     allegedly said that government officials might ``raise hell'' 
     if they audited his participation in federal farm subsidy 
     programs. The tape was sent anonymously to the Des Moines 
     Register last month; five people familiar with Dorr, 
     according to the paper, identified his voice in what was 
     represented as a 1995 phone conversation. The Register made 
     no comments on how or why the tape was made. Surprisingly, no 
     one defending Dorr referred to the . . .
       The Controversy: The Iowa Farm Service Agency (FSA) 
     reviewed one of the many trusts belonging to various members 
     of the Dorr clan during 1995. During the taped conversations 
     between, allegedly, Tom Dorr and his brother Paul Dorr, Tom 
     Dorr said that the two trusts--the Belva Dorr Trust and the 
     Harold Dorr Trust--are operated with the ASCS (now known as 
     the FSA), to ``quite frankly avoid'' minimum payment 
     limitations.
       The Ruling: The state FSA office concluded that the farm 
     wasn't properly structured within the family trust. But that 
     there was no scheme on the part of the family to defraud the 
     government. A repayment of $17,000 was ordered and made.
       The Politics: The division of corporations, family farms or 
     individuals who receive payments from the federal government 
     under the Farm Bill program are allowed. There is nothing 
     illegal with setting up a corporation, a limited partnership, 
     a trust or an individual to receive payments from the federal 
     government under this program and registering these entities 
     with the FSA. The 1996 Farm Bill allows this under its 
     ``three entity rule'' whereby one person is eligible for 
     payments on up to three farm entities. The payment limit on 
     the number 2 and 3 entities is half the amount on the first 
     farm. It looks like this is what Dorr was doing, which is not 
     surprising for any individual or company to look at all 
     opportunities to legally maximize their operation's 
     profitability, would be against any economic rationale.
       The Senate farm bill changes this rule. In fact, Dorr 
     supporter, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) is the author of 
     the provision that tightens down payment caps. But it seems 
     that Chairman Harkin, who didn't have such a provision in the 
     bill he brought to the Senate floor, is ready to try Dorr for 
     what he did in 1995, under rules that aren't even in effect 
     yet in 2002.
       This controversy has largely replaced the flap over 
     statements Dorr made about ethnic and religious diversity in 
     Iowa. In case clients missed that one--Dorr pointed out that 
     there wasn't a lot of diversity in Iowa, and specifically in 
     a couple counties that were growing economically anyway. And 
     he did so in response to a question, stating fact. But Dorr's 
     opponents have used this as a means of labeling him racist--
     an effective and particularly damning charge that is hard to 
     shake. It seems, however, that payment limits, racial 
     insensitivities, etc. are just side issues to the real reason 
     why so many people in ag and farm policy so stridently oppose 
     Dorr. He's a guy who openly talks about agriculture as a 
     business that needs to be shaken up, revitalized, 
     restructured, in order to re-capture its place in the U.S. 
     and world economy.
       WPI Analysis: This analysis is perhaps a bit more personal 
     than usual, but it goes to a broader point about the economic 
     future of agriculture. I will start by stating that until 
     this morning, I had never met Tom Dorr (though several of my 
     colleagues at WPI do know him). I knew of the controversy 
     surrounding his appointment, but had not heard Mr. Dorr speak 
     for himself. Instead, I had relied on translation of what his 
     foes or friends say he said. Moreover, I should state that I 
     grew up on a farm in Northern Idaho. There were 12 people in 
     my high school class. I went on to attend a land-grant 
     university. I am a product of rural America, a fact that 
     defines me as a human being. I understand all the emotions of 
     how ``special'' rural America and the ag economy are. But 
     while I am extremely passionate about production 
     agriculture--and the way of life that accompanies it--I chose 
     to leave farming as a career. And, subsequently, I left rural 
     America for better opportunities. I didn't want my future to 
     be based on a farming operation that made a 5-6 percent 
     return of investment in a ``good'' year. Tom Dorr is a guy 
     who spent most of his career on the farm trying to wring out 
     better returns and did a good job of it. Now he wants to come 
     to Washington and take a job to try to change, for the 
     better, economic opportunities in rural America.
       After listening to comments from various Senators on the 
     Senate Ag Committee, I can only shake my head in finally 
     realizing why the farm bill has an additional $73 billion 
     over 10 years in payments of one kind or another. I would 
     challenge those ``decision makers'' over the idea that 
     infusing cash and protecting the small family farm is somehow 
     saving rural America or promoting rural development. It would 
     seem all that it is doing is making more people reliant on 
     the government and, in fact, rather than promoting 
     development that spending probably hinders progress. All that 
     federal spending buys more of is the status quo; there is no 
     need to change, diversity or become more efficient.
       It's clear to me after hearing him today, Tom Dorr feels 
     the same way--that policies need to be changed. That--not any 
     alleged payment scandal or racial insensitivities--is why so 
     many policy makers oppose him, including one of his own home 
     state Senators, Chairman Harkin. When asked by Harkin to 
     clarify his ideas, Mr. Dorr summarized technology as the one 
     thing that would give farmers the ability to access world 
     markets, access information and, as a result, expand farm 
     gate margins. That doesn't sound controversial. If a producer 
     were able to expand margins and become more efficient, 
     perhaps there would be less reliance on the government for 
     bloated farm bill budgets? It's only controversial if you are 
     used to being the ones that get credit doe providing those 
     budgets.
       If the USDA and the Bush Administration wants a person that 
     understands rural development and understands the way of life 
     in rural America, then it not be a person that has `dirt 
     under their fingers' as Senator Lugar said numerous times 
     during the hearing this morning. Tom Dorr is such a person. 
     His vision for farming, is one based on basic economics. 
     Perhaps it is a little Darwinistic ``survival of the 
     fittest'' approach, but the real irony is, as Undersecretary 
     for Rural Development he wouldn't be in charge of farm 
     programs or policy. No matter, there are still many Senators 
     who think his views on farm policy disqualify him from having 
     a job in Washington.
       In closing, it is with amazement and frustration that I 
     note: only Senator Thomas of Wyoming asked Mr. Dorr about his 
     vision for rural development. And this was after almost two 
     and half hours of testimony and questions. A sad state of 
     affairs indeed as Washington, USDA, and rural development 
     needs more ``out of the box'' thinkers whom challenge the 
     status quo.
                                  ____


         [From the Webster Agricultural Letter, June 15, 2001]

       Dear Subscriber:
       Killing the messenger? Can the Senate reject a nominee for 
     stating the obvious? . . . A federal judge will hear a 
     challenge to a state amendment restricting corporate 
     agriculture . . . View from the country: the disconnect 
     between farm policy and farm reality . . . Partisan divisions 
     are put aside as

[[Page 29311]]

     a House committee approves USDA appropriations . . . Why 
     don't higher prices help farmers? . . . Economics trumps 
     politics in a milk price decision.

        Dorr Confirmation Becomes a Test of Political Influence

       Rarely does the Senate reject a nominee for a USDA sub-
     Cabinet post for expressing an opinion, let alone for telling 
     a truth. Only three times in three decades have we seen even 
     minimal pressure to block a nominee. Only one succeeded: the 
     late Kathleen Lawrence asked her nomination by withdrawn in 
     the face of bipartisan an opposition (see The Agricultural 
     Credit Letter, 3/20/87 P6). Family farm advocates failed to 
     stop Bank of American executive Robert W. Long from becoming 
     assistant secretary for research in 1973. A farm women's 
     group persuaded only a minority of Senate Agriculture 
     Committee remembers to oppose Carol Tucker Foreman as 
     assistant secretary for food and consumer services in 1977.
       But those are the exceptions. By and large, senators 
     believe presidents are entitled to their choices, absent 
     overriding scandal or ideological aberration. Neither of 
     those factors applies in the matter instant, the nomination 
     of Iowa farmer Thomas C. Dorr to be under secretary of 
     agriculture for rural development. Trouble for Dorr arises 
     from two directions: family farm advocates who challenge his 
     vision of agriculture and minority groups who feel his 
     remarks about diversity raise questions about his commitment 
     to protecting civil rights.
       ``The level and intensity of opposition to Dorr is 
     unprecedented, testimony to today's issue-intensity politics 
     and the near-instant organizing proficiency of interest 
     groups. Opponents claim more than 160 organizations have 
     joined the campaign. Most appear to have little more than a 
     letterhead and some Willie Nelson money but some have real 
     members or deep foundation pockets. Among those: American 
     Corn Growers Association, Environmental Working Group, 
     Federalism of Southern Cooperatives, Institute for 
     Agriculture and Trade Policy and National Farmers 
     Organization.''
       The critics engage in political hyperbole, reading too much 
     into Dorr's impolitic style of provocative comment. A more 
     balanced appraisal sees him merely stating the obvious--even 
     foresight--in describing the industrialization of agriculture 
     or in asking why three Iowa counties with little ethnic and 
     religious diversity succeeded with economic development. 
     Assuming he can take the heat and Secretary of Agriculture 
     Ann M. Veneman and the White House stand fast (so far no 
     evidence to the contrary) Dorr should make a persuasive case 
     at a conformation hearing. He might adapt a line from 
     Purdue's Mike Boehlje: ``I'm not saying I like what I'm 
     saying: I'm saying `this is'.'' Scheduling a hearing depends 
     on when the Senate agrees on rules to organize committees. 
     Whether he's confirmed will test whether the political clout 
     of his critics equals their formidable skill at using the 
     news media.
       Despite higher payments and marketing loan gains under the 
     Senate bill in the first two years, the House version would 
     favor the major program crops--by an average of $206 million 
     a year over five years or $799 million a year over a decade. 
     Soybeans would gain more under the Senate bill while corn, 
     wheat, cotton and rice would gain more under the House.
       ``FAPRI estimates the Senate bill would result in slightly 
     more acreage planted to major crops than the House bill, with 
     the largest increases for wheat and feed grains. The Senate's 
     payment limitations could have proportionally larger effects 
     on cotton and rice producers than on producers of other 
     crops. Senate dairy provisions would mean slightly higher 
     average returns (14 cents per cwt.) to milk producers in 
     2002-06 than the House, with a greater boost in returns to 
     farmers in the Northeast than in the rest of the country.''
       FAPRI calculates a chance of about one in three that either 
     would cause the United States to exceed World Trade 
     Organization limits on amber box subsidies but the 
     probability would decline in later years. Federal spending on 
     commodity and conservation programs over the next 10 years 
     would increase by $59.8 billion for the House bill and by 
     $63.5 billion for the Senate bill. The Senate bill would 
     result in higher government costs in 2002 and 2003 while the 
     House bill would mean more spending in seven of the next 
     eight years.

  Killing the Messenger? Visionary's Foes Hope To Extinguish a Vision

       After persistent, mostly hostile questioning in a Senate 
     Agriculture Committee hearing Wednesday, prospects for 
     confirmation of Iowa farmer Thomas C. Dorr as under secretary 
     of agriculture for rural development nominee are up in the 
     air. But committee approval may not be as doomed as some 
     think--USDA and White House lobbyists need to convince only 
     one Democrat to join what likely will be 10 solid Republican 
     votes to move the nomination to the floor, where a single 
     opponent could, using a Senate prerogative, delay a vote 
     indefinitely.
       Given the first opportunity since his nomination last April 
     to rebut allegations, Dorr clearly won the day on the merits. 
     But he did not appear to convince Democrats who disagree with 
     both his political philosophy and his clear vision of what is 
     happening in agriculture. He was able to put to rest 
     allegations that he advocated large-scale agriculture, 
     opposed ethnic and religious diversity and was antagonistic 
     to ``sustainable'' and organic agriculture and the 
     agricultural extension. He also satisfied any impartial 
     observer that he did not improperly farm the farm program, 
     noting he repaid USDA $17,000 in program payments in the 
     early 1990s--the result of a difference of opinion 
     interpreting rules governing participation.
       ``To Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the hearing had 
     earmarks of a `political lynching' with the `opposition 
     fomented from inside the beltway here in Washington, D.C.' 
     Opposing witnesses appeared to make little headway with 
     allegations he was a cheerleader for industrial-scale 
     agriculture and antagonistic to racial and religious 
     diversity. But skeptical Democrats were more receptive to 
     recent revelations of his participation in farm programs and 
     his philosophy about the federal rural development programs 
     he would administer. To Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Dorr's 
     philosophy appeared `antithetical to rural America.'''
       Dorr's difficulty stems from an uncanny perception of the 
     forces shaping agriculture and his willingness to describe 
     them in blunt terms--attributes rarely found in public 
     service. ``He has simply stated the obvious,'' says 
     University of Maryland agriculture dean Thomas A. Fretz, who 
     was associate dean at Iowa State when Dorr was a member of 
     the state board of regents. ``What Tom Dorr brings is `out of 
     the box' thinking that challenges bureaucratic normalcy.'' 
     Dorr's widely quoted comment that some ethnically homogeneous 
     Iowa counties were successful with economic development, 
     Fretz added, ``simply stated the reality.''
       One of the strongest testimonials came from Varel Bailey, 
     Anita, Iowa farmer and former National Corn Growers 
     Association president who worked with Dorr in modernizing an 
     antiquated NCGA in the late 1970s. ``He is very aware of the 
     plight of rural America,'' Bailey said of Dorr. ``He has 
     lived and farmed through the economic, social and political 
     decline. The difference between Tom and most other people is 
     that he steps up and tries to help.''
                                  ____


            [From the National Review Online, June 1, 2001]

                              Dorr-versity

                            (By Roger Clegg)

       Once upon a time, if you read the words ``diversity'' and 
     ``farming'' in the same sentence, you could be pretty sure 
     that the article would be about crop rotation.
       Those days, of course, are long gone. See the word 
     ``diversity'' now, in any context, and you know it's going to 
     be another article about melanin content and national origin.
       On Wednesday this week, the New York Times and Washington 
     Post both reported that the Bush administration's nominee to 
     head the Agriculture Department's rural-development programs, 
     Thomas C. Dorr, was under fire for comments that the 
     Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, and Black Farmers 
     Association fear may show him to be anti-diversity. On 
     December 11, 1999, Dorr was videotaped at a meeting at which 
     the economic successes of three Iowa counties--populated 
     largely by descendants of Dutch Protestant and German 
     Catholic settlers--were being discussed. Said Mr. Dorr: ``And 
     you'll notice when you get to looking at them that they're 
     not particularly diverse. At least not, uh, ethnically 
     diverse. They're very diverse in their economic growth, but 
     they're very focused, uh, have been very non-diverse in their 
     ethnic background and their religious background, and there's 
     something there that has enabled them to succeed and succeed 
     very well.''
       The quoted statement underscores, in an unintentionally 
     amusing way, that some kinds of diversity are politically 
     correct and relevant but some aren't. It is at least a little 
     odd that Dutch Protestants and German Catholics are now 
     thrown together and considered to be just a bunch of white 
     Christian dudes. Wasn't there some recent unpleasantness when 
     the Dutch and Germans were shooting at each other with guns, 
     and some less recent unpleasantness when Protestants and 
     Catholics in Europe were shooting at each other with bows and 
     arrows? No matter: Now they're all just ``white,'' unless 
     they're lesbians--no more diverse than those other white 
     guys, Israelis and Palestinians.
       Likewise, Americans with ancestors from Cuba, Mexico, 
     Puerto Rico, and Brazil may have absolutely nothing in common 
     when it comes to income, religion, language, politics, or 
     culture, but they're all ``Hispanic'' because those ancestors 
     come from countries that centuries ago were settled--probably 
     a politically incorrect concept--by people who came from 
     somewhere on the Iberian peninsula. Makes them all the same. 
     Ditto for Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and 
     Pakistanis--they may have hated each other for centuries, but 
     in this country, by God, they're all ``Asians and Pacific 
     Islanders'' as far as government bureaucracies, university 
     admission officials, and the civil-rights establishment are 
     concerned.
       The Bush administration has announced that Mr. Dorr has its 
     ``full support,'' and an unnamed source there said that 
     Dorr's words have been taken out of context, since he had

[[Page 29312]]

     simply been pointing out a demographic fact, not suggesting a 
     causal relationship. How, it is quite possible that the words 
     were taken out of context, as I'll discuss in a moment, but 
     the words quoted from the videotape seem to make it pretty 
     clear that he was in fact suggesting a causal relationship.
       I haven't seen the videotape, but it wouldn't surprise me 
     if Mr. Dorr brought up the lack of diversity in these three 
     successful counties because, earlier in the discussion, 
     someone had been talking about how diversity was essential 
     for economic success--a common, if false, platitude these 
     days, especially in academic settings (the meeting was of the 
     Iowa State University board of regents). Oh yeah, says Dorr, 
     well looky here: Economic success and no diversity in sight. 
     So there.
       Satisfying as it may have been, in making this observation 
     Mr. Dorr touched the third rail of American politics. 
     Elizabeth Salinas Newby, administrator of the Iowa Division 
     of Latino Affairs, has retorted: ``It sounds like he's trying 
     to say diversity isn't important for growth. It is exactly 
     diversity that has helped this state grow.''
       So who's right: Dorr, if in fact he was saying that lack of 
     diversity can breed economic success, or Salinas Newby, who 
     says that, to the contrary, diversity helps in succeeding 
     economically? The answer is, to some extent both are right, 
     but mostly both are wrong.
       There may be some situations where diversity can help an 
     enterprise. In a sales operation, for instance, it may make 
     it marginally more likely that companies will develop 
     insights into how best to market products to some demographic 
     groups--although, I hasten to add, it might not: Non-
     Hispanics can learn how to market to Hispanics, and there are 
     as many differences among Hispanics as there are 
     similarities.
       There are, conversely, probably some situations where a 
     lack of diversity can help. Having a common heritage and set 
     of values, customs, and manners can foster greater trust, 
     better morale, and closer teamwork. It also cuts down on 
     interracial and interethnic conflict, as well as other 
     potential distractions. This point should be borne in mind by 
     those who rely on pseudo-studies to support diversity through 
     affirmative action. If these studies, and the benefits from 
     diversity they purport to find, are viewed as sufficient to 
     justify racial and ethnic preferences favoring 
     ``underrepresented'' groups, then it follows that similar 
     studies about the costs of diversity will be sufficient to 
     justify racial and ethnic discrimination against those 
     groups.
       But in the vast majority of economic enterprises, diversity 
     or lack of diversity is either completely irrelevant, cuts in 
     both directions, or makes only a marginal difference. Any 
     advantages or disadvantages will be completely swamped by 
     factors having nothing to do with skin color or ancestry, 
     like talent, intelligence, education, and willingness to work 
     hard.
       Whether one succeeds or fails as a farmer in Iowa will be 
     influenced much more by the weather than the color of one's 
     neighbor. What one learns and achieves, as a student at Iowa 
     State will hinge on one's talent and teachers, not the 
     distant ancestry of the other kids in the lecture hall. But 
     no matter how the debate over Mr. Dorr's nomination plays 
     out, one doubts that anyone involved will fail to genuflect 
     before the altar of diversity.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 13 minutes 40 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I salute my colleague, Senator Harkin, 
for his outstanding principles and his considerable fortitude. This is 
not a pleasant task, and I know it is one that has been very difficult 
for my friend and colleague, my neighbor to the south, who at the time 
of this coming forward was the chairman of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee.
  Contrary to what some are perhaps alluding to, and what others 
observing this may suspect, this is not planned or contrived on 
anybody's part. In fact, it was the day of the Senate Agriculture 
confirmation hearing last year, Senator Harkin chairing--and I served 
as a member--the very day of the hearing, the largest circulation paper 
in Iowa, highly respected for its integrity and its veracity, ran a 
major investigative story about Mr. Dorr and set forth many of the 
references that Senator Harkin has just made, and others as well, 
detailing and making the charge and the case that Mr. Dorr had cheated 
the Federal farm programs; that he had misrepresented partnerships of 
which he was managing trustee; that he had misrepresented payments for 
what services they were being provided; and that he had falsified 
claims that he had signed as the managing trustee in order to get paid 
more public money from these Federal farm programs than he was legally 
entitled. It is not just for 1 year but for several years, not just one 
falsification but repetitive falsifications which resulted in 
determined overpayments of $17,000 for 3 years for one partnership. He 
himself testified before the committee that there were seven 
partnerships and there was a period of 7 to 8 years where these kinds 
of arrangements existed--those records, as others have said, not being 
available for examination.
  Who brought these charges forward? Mr. Dorr's brother, also a partner 
in these family-owned trusts and farms, farming operations. He provided 
a tape recording of a telephone conversation to support these 
contentions he was making, and so we have on transcript Mr. Thomas 
Dorr's own words, his own statements about these matters.
  At the end of that process of reviewing all of the information, I 
came to the conclusion, regretfully so, that Mr. Dorr does not meet the 
minimum requirements of honesty and integrity for the position he has 
now been recessed appointed to and is being considered for by this body 
today, and that his attitudes and his ideologies concerning the rural 
Americans he is supposed to serve make him an unacceptable choice for 
the Rural Development Under Secretary. I say that regretfully.
  I served as State auditor for Minnesota for 4 years. I had the 
responsibility of upholding the public trust and oversight for the 
proper expenditure of State and local funds. I took very seriously the 
responsibility to approach these matters objectively, knowing I was 
going to be accused of being partisan, unprincipled, and unfair. I 
always tried to get the facts, set forth the facts, determine what the 
facts were, and let the facts make the determination one way or 
another.
  I regret some of the assertions that this is a witch hunt or that it 
is unsubstantiated, and I refer to the Farm Service Agency's own 
letter, based on reviews both in 1996 and in 2001, which concluded that 
the arrangement between Mr. Dorr's Pine Grove Farms and each of these 
trusts--quoting FSA--was a crop share arrangement, not the custom 
farming arrangement it was represented to be.
  It was on that basis that the trusts were required to pay some 
$17,000 in farm program payments they had improperly received for those 
years, but that did not occur until 2001 and in fact they were not even 
repaid until the summer of 2002, after Mr. Dorr had been nominated for 
this high office.
  In fact, I have a letter from the USDA to Mr. Dorr dated June 5, 
2002. Mr. Dorr, in his own comments to his brother, according to the 
transcript, admitted that what he had charged for a custom fee is not a 
custom fee, ``it is actually crop rental income to me. That is my share 
of the income.'' Asked why he was following these procedures, he said 
it was to avoid a $50,000 payment limitation to Pine Grove Farms.
  At another point the transcript says: Mr. Dorr, I, we filed away the 
farm, the trust land--both the Melvin Dorr trust and the Harold Dorr 
trust are operated with ASCS--to quite frankly avoid payment and 
limitations. Okay?
  Now, we can all decide what to do with these facts, but I regret, for 
those who do not want to face them and claim they do not exist, we have 
a standard for this high office. Farmers in Minnesota, as do other 
farmers in this country, apply to this office for program funding. They 
deserve someone who can administer the programs faithfully because they 
have practiced them honestly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time is remaining on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 7 minutes on the minority side and 5 
minutes on the majority side.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield myself about 4 minutes right 
now.
  There have been some statements made regarding the fact that the 
Office of Inspector General has somehow exonerated Mr. Dorr; that it 
found no

[[Page 29313]]

wrongdoing. That is just simply not the case at all. Federal law 
provides criminal penalties for knowingly making false statements for 
the purpose of obtaining farm program payments. The USDA Office of 
Inspector General looked at all of this and they referred it. The OIG 
found enough concerns about Mr. Dorr's dealings with the USDA Farm 
Service Agency to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the 
Northern District of Iowa.
  As I said before, the U.S. attorney declined to proceed because the 
statute of limitations had run. So attempts by the administration to 
characterize this as an exoneration are simply wrong. Procedural 
technicalities do not equate to no wrongdoing.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the 
Northern District of Iowa dated February 2, 2002, be printed in the 
Record.

                                   U.S. Department of Justice,

                                                 February 7, 2002.
     S/A Dallas L. Hayden,
     U.S. Department of Agriculture,
     Great Plains Region,
     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 limitations issues.
           Sincerely,
     Charles W. Larson, Sr.,
       United States Attorney.
     By: Judith A. Whetstine,
       Assistant United States Attorney.

  Mr. HARKIN. This is a letter to Dallas Hayden. I do not know who 
Dallas Hayden is. It says, regarding Thomas C. Dorr, Marcus, IA:

       Dear Mr. Hayden: After reviewing the investigative report 
     dated September 26, 2001, regarding the above subject [that 
     is Thomas Dorr] and our telephone discussion of this date, we 
     are declining criminal prosecution and any affirmative civil 
     enforcement due to statute of limitations issues. Sincerely, 
     Charles W. Larson, Sr., United States Attorney.

  So to characterize this as being an exoneration--he was exonerated 
because he beat the rap. He escaped the statute of limitations. That is 
hardly being exonerated.
  Again, look at what he said with his own words, saying he had set 
this up to get around the payment limitation. These are Mr. Dorr's own 
words.
  We know crop shares are misrepresented for two of the entities in 
this complex web he has woven for himself. We do not know about the 
rest, and that is what we did not have sufficient information about--
about the other corporations, partnerships, and individuals involved.
  So the committee requested additional documents. We asked for 
additional documents and we asked the nominee additional questions. I 
believe these were reasonable requests pertaining to valid questions.
  Secretary Veneman made clear in her letter back to the committee that 
neither the Department nor the nominee would cooperate with or provide 
any more information to the committee.
  Almost without exception, nominees seek to clear up and resolve any 
questions about the propriety of their financial dealings most 
certainly when they involve the Federal Government. In this case, Mr. 
Dorr refused to provide information and answer questions. Instead, he 
and the administration decided to stonewall and withhold critical 
information. That is why 44 Senators said we do not want to take action 
until the nominee furnishes the requested information and, two, a 
hearing under oath is held on Mr. Dorr's nomination according to 
committee rules and normal practice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. How much time remains on both sides of the issue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes on the majority side and 3 
minutes on the minority side.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we have just heard that Mr. Dorr 
escaped prosecution because of the statute of limitations. That is to 
assume guilt. There were not charges filed, and I think it is wrong for 
us to assume anybody is guilty, under our system of law that a person 
is innocent until proven guilty.
  I wish to go to some records from people who live within no more than 
25 miles of this operation and explain what authorities for the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture had to say about this, and I will enter these 
two letters in the Record. One is January 8, 1997, from Michael 
Houston, county executive director of the Farm Service Administration. 
It says:

       The Cherokee County Committee met on December 19, 1996, and 
     determined that M.G. Dorr Irrevocable Trust had a shares 
     violation for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995; that is the 
     Trust's total contributions to the farming operation were not 
     commensurate with the claimed shares for the crop years 1993, 
     1994 and 1995.
       The County Committee [meaning the county committee of the 
     Farm Service Agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture] 
     determined a refund will be required but there was no 
     criminal intent.

  Then, on February 4, 2002, we have this letter signed by the same 
Michael Houston. It is entitled ``End of Year Review, 1994-1995.''

       The Cherokee County Committee reviewed the End of Year 
     Review, in particular the worksheet number 9.5, pages 1 and 
     2--attached. The County Committee determined that there was 
     no evidence of receiving benefits indirectly or directly that 
     would exceed the maximum payment limitations. The County 
     Committee also agrees that there was no evidence that the 
     Dorr's Pine Grove Farm nor Tom Dorr participated in a scheme 
     or device to evade the maximum payment limitations 
     regulations.
       The End of Year Review for the year 2000 concluded that the 
     Dorr's Pine Grove Farms had no deficiencies.

  I ask unanimous consent to have those printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                                          Farm Service Agency,

                                    Cherokee, IA, January 8, 1997.
     Paul R. Dorr,
     Ocheyedan, IA.
       Dear Sir: The Cherokee County Committee met on December 19, 
     1996 and determined that M. G. Dorr Irrevocable Trust had a 
     shares violation for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995; that is 
     the Trust's total contributions to the farming operation were 
     not commensurate with the claimed shares for the crop years 
     1993, 1994, and 1995.
       The County Committee determined a refund will be required 
     but there was no criminal intent.
           Sincerely.
                                               Michael W. Houston,
     County Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                 February 4, 2002.
     Dorr's Pine Grove Farms,
     Marcus, IA.
       Dear Mr. Dorr: The Cherokee County Committee reviewed the 
     End of Year Review, in particular the worksheet #9 5 pages 1 
     & 2 (attached). The County Committee determined that there 
     was no evidence of receiving benefits indirectly or directly 
     that would exceed the maximum payment limitation. The County 
     Committee also agrees there was no evidence that Dorr's Pine 
     Grove Farm nor Tom Dorr participated in a scheme or device to 
     evade the maximum payment limitation regulations.
       The End of Year Review for the year 2000 concluded that the 
     Dorr's Pine Grove Farms had no deficiencies.
       Any questions please call (712) 225-5717. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael W. Houston,
                                        County Executive Director,
                                       Cherokee County FSA Office.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. But I think I want to go to the bigger picture in 
ending my justification for this confirmation. That goes back to all 
that we heard during the year 2001, when this nomination was presented 
to the Senate, going into the year 2002. There were a lot of 
organizations that testified against his nomination. There were a lot 
of accusations made. There was a lot of discussion. There were a lot of 
newspaper articles.
  This may not be a sound way to make a judgment about whether 
something is right or wrong, but if I hear from the grassroots of Iowa 
right away about a nomination, I take that much more seriously. But 
most of the accusations against Tom Dorr came after there were articles 
in the New York Times and the Washington Post, and

[[Page 29314]]

then interest in this nomination in the Iowa newspapers came about the 
same time, and the accusations that were put in place.
  Then I heard something. Obviously, when you hear from your 
constituents against a nominee you want to take that into 
consideration. So then nothing happened to this nomination until the 
President has pushed it, during the new Congress. In the meantime, 
then, Secretary Dorr has been in a position for well over a year. 
During that 1 year, none of the people or organizations that came out 
so strongly against Tom Dorr in the previous Congress has raised 
complaints about his doing the job that he is doing. It tells me, then, 
we ought to look at on-the-job performance as criteria for this person 
moving forward with this nomination.
  That is what I ask my colleagues to do as they consider it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. And how much on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just have 3 minutes left? I will try to sum up here.
  Madam President, as I said in the beginning I don't take any pleasure 
in what we are doing this morning and the position I am taking. In my 
29 years here, 10 in the House and 19 in the Senate, I have never 
opposed an Iowan for a position in the Federal Government--under the 
Reagan administration, Ford, Carter, any of them. It does not give me a 
great deal of pleasure to oppose this one.
  I think the record is clear. The record is clear that this 
individual, in his own words, said he misrepresented to the Federal 
Government what he was doing in order to avoid payment limitations.
  These are not my words. These are his own words on tape. It is his 
own words when he denigrated racial diversity, ethnic diversity, 
religious diversity, in saying counties in Iowa which were very 
successful--were most successful--lacked diversity, and there is 
something there that caused that because they didn't have racial, 
ethnic, or religious diversity. Those were his own words.
  It was Mr. Dorr's own words when he said you drive around Iowa and 
you see a $10,000 house and you see 10 cars, he said, which confirms my 
``10 cars-$10,000 home theory,'' denigrating poor people.
  Sure they may have a lot of cars around because they can't afford a 
new one. They take parts off of one or another, we know that.
  He said the more you help the more you hinder. But then he didn't 
mind taking Government money. He didn't mind taking student loans when 
he was a student. He didn't mind taking Federal payments for his farm. 
That didn't seem to hinder him any.
  Last, on the OIG, I have to say again, the Office of Inspector 
General referred this to the U.S. attorney for prosecution. The U.S. 
attorney did not prosecute because the statute of limitations had run, 
that is all. They didn't say he was guilty or not, but that is not an 
exoneration either.
  But on the matter of racial diversity, there was some mention about 
whether Ralph Paige supports Mr. Dorr. I previously put in the Record a 
letter opposing Mr. Dorr's nomination signed by the Federation of 
Southern Cooperatives, which is Mr. Paige's operation.
  One of my friends in Iowa said if you can't get along with your 
neighbors, you probably can't get along with too many other people. 
This is in the record, in the newspaper, his neighbors talking about 
him. Verdell Johnson a Republican, a former neighbor who lives in a 
nearby Cleghorn, said:

       He would be very counter to rural development, unless you 
     would consider that rural development is one farmer in every 
     county.

  Marvin Pick, whose farm is next to one of Dorr's farms said: ``Who 
are his friends? I don't think he's got any.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, until we get the documents for which we 
have asked, and until such time as we have him under oath to answer 
questions about these dealings, I do not think the Senate should invoke 
cloture and proceed with a vote until such time as we get that 
documentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the standing rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive 
     Calendar No. 237, the nomination of Thomas Dorr to be Under 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development.
         Bill Frist, Thad Cochran, Saxby Chambliss, Rick Santorum, 
           Norm Coleman, Craig Thomas, Jeff Sessions, Pat Roberts, 
           Kay Bailey Hutchison, George Voinovich, Chuck Grassley, 
           Wayne Allard, Michael Enzi, Elizabeth Dole, John 
           Sununu, Sam Brownback, John Warner.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call 
is raised.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate debate on Executive 
Calendar No. 237, the nomination of Thomas C. Dorr to be Under 
Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development shall be brought to a 
close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Enzi). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 454 Ex.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 57, the nays are 39. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, what is the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has suggested the absence of a 
quorum.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest there is a quorum present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection, then?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object.

[[Page 29315]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive 
     Calendar No. 238, the nomination of Thomas C. Dorr, of Iowa, 
     to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation.
         Bill Frist, Thad Cochran, Norm Coleman, Charles Grassley, 
           Wayne Allard, Jim Bunning, Conrad Burns, Mitch 
           McConnell, John Cornyn, Lamar Alexander, Larry Craig, 
           Richard G. Lugar, Peter Fitzgerald, George Allen, Don 
           Nickles, John Ensign, James Inhofe.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
Executive Calendar No. 238, the nomination of Thomas C. Dorr, of Iowa, 
to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation, shall be brought a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 455 Ex.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on this vote 
and the previous vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay both motions on the table.
  The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.

                          ____________________