Executive Session - Thomas C. Dorr to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development
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
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.