S. Hrg.109–274

NOMINATION OF HON. THOMAS C. DORR, TO BE

UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR

RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO A MEMBER

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION

HEARING

øBEFORE THE¿

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 27, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

NOMINATION OF HON. THOMAS C. DORR, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATIONOF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THEFOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO A MEMBER

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–839 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–274

NOMINATION OF HON. THOMAS C. DORR, TO

BE UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR

RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO A MEMBER

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 27, 2005

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

STEVEN MEEKS, Majority Legislative Director 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Nomination of Hon. Thomas C. Dorr to be Under Secretary of Agriculture 

for Rural Development and to be a Mmember of the Board of Directors 

of the Commodity Credit Corporation ................................................................ 01

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from Georgia, Chairman, Committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ............................................................. 01

Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Ranking Member, Committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ............................................................. 02

WITNESSES 

Dorr, Hon. Thomas C., of Iowa, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for 

Rural Development, and to be a member of the Board of Directors of 

The Commodity Credit Corporation ................................................................... 08

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ..................... 04

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Coleman, Hon. Norm ........................................................................................ 40

Farm Payment Scenario Table ........................................................................ 207

Forms (CCC-477) of Mr. Dorr .......................................................................... 196

FSA Statistics ................................................................................................... 194

Letter from Steven Phillips and James Little ................................................ 325

Letters submitted by Senator Harkin ............................................................. 261

Letters of Support for Mr. Dorr ....................................................................... 49–50

Letters submitted by the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses ...... 41–47

Neil Harl, Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor ................................. 204

OIG Report ........................................................................................................ 303

Recorded Transcript of Mr. Dorr ..................................................................... 201

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Cochran, Hon. Thad ......................................................................................... 272

Dorr, Hon. Thomas (Biographical Information)(Dorr Nomination

Hearing, March 6, 2002, can be viewed in the committee file) ................. 282

Support and Opposition Letters ...................................................................... 324–357

Talent, Hon. James .......................................................................................... 274

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Harkin, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................ 360

Coleman, Hon. Norm ........................................................................................ 366

(1)

NOMINATION OF HON. THOMAS C. DORR TO 

BE UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO BE A 

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 

THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2005, 

U.S. SENATE,, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:37 a.m., in room 

328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Saxby Chambliss, 

[Chairman of the Committee], presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Chambliss, Coleman, Crapo, Grassley, Harkin, Nelson and Salazar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM GEORGIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order and we are 

pleased to be here this morning to welcome the President’s choice 

for Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development, Mr. 

Thomas Dorr of Iowa. 

Mr. Dorr, welcome to the committee this morning. 

This will be the second hearing for Mr. Dorr. The first hearing 

occurred on March 6, 2002, and everybody should have a copy of 

the transcript of that hearing before them, as well as the subsequent questions proposed by members of the committee and the answers thereto. 

I believe Mr. Dorr is well-qualified for the position that he is 

being nominated for by the President. The rural development mission for the Department of Agriculture is extremely important. My 

colleagues and I have highlighted the need to provide new economic opportunities for farmers and ranchers across the United 

States. Rural America has been at a crossroads for some time. The 

old ways of doing business in farm country are not quite applicable 

to the information age and modern agricultural markets. 

Having practiced law in South Georgia for over 26 years, I am 

intimately familiar with the challenges facing farmers and ranchers every day. We need leadership at the Department that can 

bring real-world experience to Government programs. Mr. Dorr is 

a powerful thinker and he has already demonstrated his ability to 

bring sound and well-established business principles to USDA. 

2

Mr. Dorr, I believe you have been at USDA now for the last 30 

months, both as a recess appointee and most recently as an adviser 

to the Secretary. 

The position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development has been vacant for some time. It is simply unacceptable in 

my view to let such a critical mission area remain open while Congress and this committee spend time on past issues that will have 

little or no relevance to the duties of the position. In the meantime, 

housing, business, telecommunications and utilities programs are 

without consistent and determined leadership. 

I believe the President has made a fine choice in Mr. Dorr. This 

committee has already held an exhaustive hearing in March of 

2002, and the witness has spent more than 4 hours testifying and 

additional hours answering written questions. We know more 

about Thomas Dorr now than probably any nominee that has come 

before this committee. I believe we should move forward and confirm Mr. Dorr. 

Since working at the Department Mr. Dorr has been a leader at 

rural development and an important adviser to Secretaries 

Veneman and Johanns. In his time at USDA Mr. Dorr has focused 

on outcomes rather than outputs, improved outreach and employee 

customer service, and enhanced the business practices of the cooperative programs. Mr. Dorr understands the needs of rural America 

because he is from rural America. 

We must complete this process expeditiously. Senators must and 

should be heard regarding their concerns, and substantive information should be brought before the committee for consideration. 

I look forward to the proceedings and will look upon any new information with interest. 

Having said that, I also believe that the job Mr. Dorr has done 

at the Department since being nominated by the President 4 years 

ago is certainly more important than events from 10 years ago that 

have been thoroughly investigated, not only by this committee but 

by the USDA Inspector General. 

Mr. Dorr, welcome again to the committee. We look forward to 

your testimony. 

I would now like to ask my good friend, the distinguished ranking Democratic member of the committee, Senator Harkin, if he 

has any opening remarks? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF IOWA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON 

AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to thank you for holding this hearing today, and thank you for the 

courtesies that you have shown not only to me but to our side of 

the aisle. 

This hearing fulfills our committee responsibility to review nominees carefully. It is no secret that I have major concerns about this 

nominee, and I intend to inquire into these matters at this hearing. 

You are correct, we had an extensive hearing record in March of 

2002. However, there had been subsequent letters and findings and 

things that have not been put in the record which I will put in the 

record during this hearing today. 

3

Mr. Chairman, I regret very much that so many problems have 

arisen regarding the nomination of a fellow Iowan. This is not a 

joyful thing for me to do, especially when it is a fellow Iowan and 

especially when I know that my colleague, Senator Grassley, is a 

strong supporter of this nominee, and I assume a friend of this 

nominee, and Senator Grassley knows I have the highest esteem 

and friendship toward him, and so this is not something that I take 

any joy in doing. However, I feel that we do have a responsibility 

to inquire into some of these matters, and I will explain that further as we go along. Just as it would be for anyone, it is a matter 

of real pride for me when anyone from my State has been nominated to a high position in our Federal Government. Regardless of 

party, in the 20 years that I have been in the Senate I have never 

opposed an Iowan who has been nominated to serve in any administration here in Washington. This is the first one. 

The Under Secretary for Rural Development is critically important, as you said, Mr. Chairman, to family size farms and ranches 

and to smaller communities all across America. The responsibilities 

include helping build water and wastewater facilities, financing decent affordable housing—I will repeat that—financing decent affordable housing, supporting electric power and rural businesses 

such as cooperatives. They also include promoting community development, helping to boost economic growth and create jobs and 

improve the quality of life in rural America. 

Therefore, I am concerned about Mr. Dorr’s comments regarding 

his vision of agriculture with 225,000–acre mega-farms consisting 

of three computer-linked pods, or criticizing the failure of Iowa to 

move aggressively toward very large, vertically integrated hog production facilities. These are on the record and we will get into 

those also. 

Mr. Dorr made questionable comments about ethnic diversity 

that have yet to be fully explained. The person in the position of 

Under Secretary for Rural Development must also be responsive 

and sensitive to the demands of serving America’s very diverse 

rural citizens and communities. That requirement for the job cannot be over-emphasized in a department that has been plagued 

with civil rights abuses of both employees and clients. I am troubled that the nominee misrepresented the farming relationship between Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm Company and two family trusts, 

and that, at least to this Senator’s observation, he has been unwilling to fully explain this complicated farming arrangement. 

As Secretary Veneman wrote to me in 2002, quote, ‘‘Any person 

who serves this Nation should live by the highest of standards,’’ 

end quote. That is why I am concerned about Mr. Dorr’s financial 

dealings with USDA. 

I guess bottom line my concern is that what kind of signal does 

this send to farmers and ranchers, people in rural America who 

may partake of the many varied programs that the Department of 

Agriculture has, whether it is deficiency payment programs or any 

of the myriad of rural development programs? What does it say to 

them if someone misrepresented their farming operation in order 

to avoid payment limitations? What does it say to them if this person is then elevated to one of the highest positions in our Department of Agriculture, someone whose family had to pay back almost 

4

$34,000 in deficiency payments? As I said, basically, I guess that 

is my bottom line concern, what signal does that send? 

As I said earlier, I intend to inquire into those areas that have 

concerned me. Perhaps today Mr. Dorr will be able to enlighten me 

and the rest of the committee about his vision, his tolerance and 

his integrity. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Harkin. 

Now I will turn to Senator Grassley for an introduction of Mr. 

Dorr. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. I had the privilege of introducing Tom, and 

I am very glad to do that, and particularly want to thank him for 

his willingness to serve the people of this country again, particularly considering the controversy that evolved during his first nomination. 

Thank you, Tom, for your continued willingness to do good for 

our country. 

Tom is a fourth generation dirt-under-the-fingernails family 

farmer. He has also been a small businessman and understands 

the demands and challenges of doing business in rural America. He 

has been a community leader, as evidenced by being chairman of 

the board of the Heartland Care Center, a cooperative care center 

there in Marcus. Tom was instrumental in starting the Iowa Corn 

Grower’s Association, moving to leadership roles in the National 

Corn Grower’s Association. Tom served on the board of the Chicago 

Federal Reserve, and has also served on the board governing our 

three State universities, the Board of Regents of the State of Iowa, 

one of the most prestigious jobs in our State and one where Senator Harkin’s wife has now been appointed to a very hard job to 

do, very little reward for it, but a great opportunity to make a difference to the people of our State. 

I also want to thank Tom for his deference to me on our disagreement in this nomination and the respectful way in which he has 

responded to our differences, or at least not make a big deal out 

of our differences. Thank you, Tom. 

Now, Tom Dorr’s leadership ability has been demonstrated and 

utilized to the benefit of his community and our State time and 

time again. A family man, married to Ann for 35 years, son and 

married daughter and granddaughter living in Iowa. He has the 

same desire we do as Senators, to improve the economy of rural 

America so his family can have all the benefits of the quality of life 

that rural America brings. 

Tom has the financial expertise and business savvy required to 

run an organization as large as the complicated USDA Rural Development. This agency is basically a large bank, after all, with 

loan portfolio of $90 billion. That is as big as Wells Fargo, Chase 

Manhattan and bigger than most banks in America. This agency 

has 7,000 employees located in 800 offices. Not just any person can 

move from the farm to take over an organization of this size, but 

Tom Dorr did run this organization for 6 months, from August 

2002 until December 2003. From the stack of letters that I have 

5

received, he did it very well. He did it so well that Secretary 

Veneman retained him as Senior Adviser when his recess term expired, and assigned him additional duties in other areas. 

Because of his recess appointment we have a unique opportunity 

to examine his track record. He served 15 months Under Secretary 

of Rural Development. I have heard from many people at USDA 

about his accomplishments. This was not only Secretary Veneman, 

but also 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 the comments like this from peers and those who work for him, we should 

all take particular note. 

Let me describe a few 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, 

and he did that in just 3 months. 

No. 2. He led the effort to complete the rulemaking process and 

order $1–1/2 billion of broadband program could begin taking applications this year. He believes that if Americans are to live locally 

and compete globally, that it is imperative to wire the country for 

technology access as it was to electrify it 60 years ago. 

No. 3. In order to facilitate, review an announcement of $37 million of value-added development grants, he is using private sector 

resources to expedite the process. 

Four. In order to deliver financial grants authorized by the Delta 

Regional Authority, he helped develop and get signed a memorandum of understanding between Rural Development and Delta 

Regional Authority. This will Rural Development to assist in delivering joint projects at no added cost to Delta Regional. 

Five. He facilitated the developments of a memorandum of understanding signed by Secretary Veneman and Secretary Martinez, 

between Department of Agriculture and HUD, that focused on better serving housing and infrastructure needs. 

Six. 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 will allow the Department to provide 

greater access to housing for all rural America, but especially minority rural Americans in the fulfillment of the President’s housing 

initiative. 

He has initiated a review of multi-family housing programs. This 

has included the hiring of an outside contractor to conduct comprehensive property assessments to evaluate the physical condition 

marketing positions and operational status of more than 17,000 

properties USDA has financed, while determining how best to meet 

the needs of low-income citizens in rural America. 

He has initiated a major outreach program to ensure USDA 

Rural Development programs are more easily made available to all 

qualified individuals, communities and codified organizations. This 

marketing and branding initiative has also played an important 

role in changing the attitude of employees to concentrate on customer service and proactive outreach with emphasis upon reaching 

out to minorities. 

6

Although this is an incomplete list of accomplishments, it is easy 

to set that Mr. Dorr did a great job in the short 15 months he 

served Rural Development. Clearly on paper Tom did a great job. 

Let me read a few comments from folks who worked with Tom. 

First, Mortgage Bankers Association. Quote, ‘‘We support Mr. 

Dorr’s nomination as Under Secretary of Rural Development because we have found him to be an engaged leader with true commitment to housing and community development needs in rural 

America.’’ This organization certainly is able to recognize if anyone 

has the ability to understand the financial issues and have the skill 

needed to run this agency. 

The next quote is from the Council of Affordable Rural Housing. 

Quote, ‘‘On behalf of our members throughout the country we’re 

writing you today in support of the nomination of Thomas C. Dorr 

to be Under Secretary. There is a need for strong leadership and 

determination to forge long-term solutions preserving this important investment in rural America.’’ That is Robert Rice, Council of 

Affordable Rural Housing. 

I have many more letters, probably 50 or more from organizations all across the country asking us to confirm Mr. Dorr. In addition, I have a letter signed by many of the leading national agricultural organizations such as the Corn Growers and American Farm 

Bureau. 

There is another issue that I feel compelled to address, and this 

is during the 2002 hearing and in the floor debate in the Senate. 

Concerns were expressed regarding Tom’s position on minority 

issues. I would like to reference letters for the record this morning 

that would alleviate lingering concerns. I have several letters from 

minority organization leaders expressing their support for Tom 

Dorr’s confirmation. 

The first letter is from the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, 

and you would recall that they had a representative testify against 

Mr. Dorr in the 2002 hearing. Quote, ‘‘I am personally endorsing 

Tom Dorr’s nomination because of his deep interest in rural development. He has made several visits to the communities when in 

the Federation’s network, and has a great understanding of the 

needs of rural poor communities. He is a man for the job.’’ Ralph 

Paige, Executive Director. 

Another letter to quote from, this is from the Northeast Louisiana Black Farmers and Landowners Association, Dexter Davis, 

President. ‘‘Mr. Dorr has made great accomplishments in the position and has earned the trust from rural Americans to carry out 

his mission.’’

From Calvin King, President and CEO of Arkansas Land and 

Farm Development Corporation, quote, ‘‘I met Tom Dorr in Washington, DC when he was serving as the Acting Under Secretary 

and was impressed with his patience for small farmers. Quite 

frankly, when I first met Tom I was not expecting him to be particularly supportive of our needs, but over the years we have 

worked together, have found him to be a great ally and tireless 

fighter for the causes that we both support.’’

From Fernando Burkette, Black Farmers and Agricultural Association, Arkansas Chapter. Quote, ‘‘We hold Mr. Dorr as a valuable 

asset to our organization and his future. He is one of the individVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:13 Mar 01, 2006 Jkt 020839 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20839.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
7

uals who has played a major role in bridging the gap between the 

small limited resource and minority producers for our organization 

and the USDA.’’

I have many more others that I could read, but you get the point. 

Thankfully, these organizations were very concerned to come forward after they had a chance to get to know and work with Tom. 

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I want to also read portions of a letter to Mr. Dorr by Dr. Dennis Keeney, former head of 

the Leopold Center at Iowa State University. Many of you will recall that Dr. Keeney was asked to testify against Mr. Dorr in 2002. 

Quote: ‘‘I write to apologize for appearing at your hearing in 2002. 

It was something I should have said no to right off, but did not. 

Then it drug on and I had to go through with the appearance or 

lose face. That still did not make it right. It was during the reading 

of this book, The Natural Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton, 

that I realized that I had become part of a mud-slinging character 

assassination. This is not the type of legacy that I would like to 

leave. You have been misunderstood and made a poster child for 

big agriculture. I am sure that that has not particularly bothered 

you, but I have not been proud of my little part in painting that 

picture.’’ Dr. Dennis Keeney, Emeritus Professor, Iowa State. I 

thank Dr. Keeney for sharing his letter. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask that this committee set 

aside the politics of the past and concentrate on the real issues affecting rural America and that Tom Dorr would be confirmed for 

this important job. We have neglected our duty of going 4 years 

without having a confirmed Under Secretary. To think that while 

all this debate was going on in the Senate we have had four different individuals serving in the Under Secretary position. None of 

them were confirmed by the Senate. This is not a good way to run 

a business or a large complicated agency as important to the States 

as the U.S. Department of Rural Development. 

Tom has been under the microscope since his original nomination, and everyone who has looked in the lens has offered praise 

for his work and accomplishments. Thankfully, we do not need to 

speculate about whether Tom would do a good job or not. Tom has 

already demonstrated how he can do it and what he has done, and 

will likely continue to do the same great job as a confirmed Under 

Secretary. How often do we actually get to judge a nominee by 

their proficiency in the job? Tom is a sure thing. Rural America is 

regaining its economic, social and cultural momentum. It would be 

a shame to deprive it of the leadership that he can give at this critical juncture. 

We have a unique second chance here today, Mr. Chairman. I 

hope that we will set aside our differences, do what is best for our 

rural citizens, our State and our country. it is an honor for me to 

introduce Mr. Dorr to you as the new chairman of the committee, 

Senator Chambliss. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Grassley. 

Mr. Dorr, it goes without saying that to be introduced by one of 

the more respected members not just of this committee but of the 

U.S. Senate says an awful lot about you and your appointment to 

this position. 

8

Let me say, before we turn to Mr. Dorr, that we have received 

a letter dated April 26, 2005, and let me just read this letter. It 

says, ‘‘As Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus, we write with concern to the nomination of Mr. Thomas Dorr for Under Secretary of Agriculture for 

Rural Development. Attached please find copies of letters sent last 

year by members of each caucus. The concerns raised in these letters are yet to be adequately addressed. We ask that these issues 

be raised and probed prior to confirmation of Mr. Dorr.’’

We are going to put this letter with the attached letters in the 

record unless there is objection. Hearing none, they will be so put 

in the record. 

[The letters sent last year by members of the Congressional 

Black and Congressional Hispanic Caucus can be found in the appendix on page 41.] 

The CHAIRMAN. In addition we have received letters from 85 organizations, farm organizations around the country and 14 individuals supporting the nomination of Mr. Dorr. Likewise, we will put 

this list of the 85 organizations along with their letters, and the 

14 letters from individuals supporting Mr. Dorr in the record unless there is objection. Hearing none, they will be so put in the 

record. 

[The letters from 85 organizations and 14 individuals supporting 

Mr. Dorr can be found in the appendix on page 49.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dorr, would you please stand and raise your 

right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you are about to 

present is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so 

help you God? 

Mr. DORR. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me ask you the mandatory question before we turn to you for your testimony. Do you agree that 

if confirmed you will appear before any duly constituted committee 

of Congress if asked? 

Mr. DORR. Yes, I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dorr, thank you very much again for being 

here today. We look forward to your testimony and you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS C. DORR, OF IOWA, TO BE 

UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION 

Mr. DORR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Chambliss, Senator Harkin, members of the committee, I thank you for this opportunity to again come before you. Senator Grassley, I am most appreciative of your kind and gracious introduction. I am deeply honored by the nomination of the President to serve as the Under Secretary for Rural Development. 

I have tremendous respect for the mission of Rural Development 

and deep admiration for its employees. It is with a great deal of 

humility that I appear before you today in this confirmation process. I would like to take just a brief moment to introduce my wife 

of nearly 34 years, Ann, right behind me. Our daughter Allison 

Kleis, her husband Karlton, our granddaughter Emerson, as well 

9

as our son Andrew, all of Des Moines, were unable to be with us. 

My father is deceased and although my 83–year-old mother Margaret Dorr would like to have been here, her health precludes that. 

However, my parents, my wife, and children’s guidance, support 

and love has truly been instrumental in my desire to both continue 

to serve rural America and to be with you here today. 

Since May of 2001, I have been honored to serve as a consultant 

and Senior Advisor to Secretary Veneman and now Secretary 

Johanns. President Bush appointed me to serve as Under Secretary 

for Rural Development from August of 2002 through early December of 2003, and I deeply appreciate this decision to nominate me 

once again for this important position. I take the confidence that 

he has shown in me with the utmost seriousness. Prior to serving 

at the Department of Agriculture I was a full-time farmer and 

businessman from Marcus, located in Northwest Iowa. 

My great-grandfather, a German immigrant, was the first homesteader in Amherst Township in Cherokee County. A single large 

tree marks the spot near the creek where he built his first sod 

home. When I visit that tree I am continually reminded of how 

much agriculture has changed. Farming is the first and noblest of 

professions, but it is one that is constantly changing. You are constantly reminded that many forces in farming are outside of your 

control and this uncertainty has made it necessary for farmers to 

develop relationships with their families and neighbors in order to 

weather these many challenges. 

My father was an early innovator who tried to find new ways to 

manage risk through diversification. He was interested in valueadded concepts before they were described as such. He and my 

uncle owned and operated grain elevators and feed mills. They also 

had hatcheries, grow-out facilities, and even a poultry processing 

plant that allowed them to slaughter and ship frozen turkeys 

throughout the country. Yet, because of the ever-changing economic 

landscape, in many cases they were forced to liquidate these businesses during the 1950’s and the early 1960’s. 

I am the eldest son in a family of 9 children. My father and I 

were especially close, so upon my return to the farm in 1971, my 

dad and my uncle entrusted me to oversee the farming operation. 

They placed some of their land in trusts in order to provide for both 

my mother and aunt, as well as pay college expenses for the children of both families. This was a tremendous responsibility, and 

one that has not been without its challenges, but it has not been 

easy to fulfill the parents’ wishes while also trying to respond to 

the needs of 8 brothers, sisters—8 loving brothers and sisters and 

5 cousins. 

In my statement to this committee 3 years ago I took the time 

to outline my background in farming and involvement in a variety 

of public service venues. Today though I’d like to share with you 

more about my passion for rural America and what I have learned 

during my tenure at USDA. 

First, during the period in which I served as Under Secretary, I 

was blessed to lead a talented and dedicated staff of professionals 

located at not just USDA’s Rural Development headquarters here 

in Washington, DC, but in our service center in St. Louis and in 

10

our 47 State offices and subsequently 800 local offices located 

across the country. 

It was gratifying, it was truly gratifying to watch these energetic 

and committed people work together as a team. We made great 

progress in expanding our outreach to qualified individuals and 

communities, making them aware of, and assisting them with our 

many USDA Rural Development programs. We put a special emphasis on minority outreach, and we began to tackle some very serious program issues that were there when we arrived. 

Our overriding goal during my time leading USDA Rural Development was to be the ADVOCATE for rural America, and we took 

that objective very, very seriously. I witnessed many examples of 

leadership and creativity from our team and our constituents as 

well, who worked with individual communities, which often helped 

facilitate and bring together a multitude of multiple funding 

sources such as Federal, State, nonprofit, local and private. 

I would like this morning just to share briefly with you two examples of the many that I witnessed in person of the successes that 

we encountered at Rural Development. 

The first is the Guadalupe Garcia family, who were part of a selfhelp housing program in Anthony, New Mexico, which is a small 

Colonias community just outside El Paso, Texas. Mr. Garcia is a 

machine operator with Tyson Foods. He and his wife I believe had 

two children. I happened to be fortunate to be there when they 

moved into their new home for the first time, a home with running 

water and central air and heating. It was truly a very emotional 

event, not just for them, but for all of us who were able to be there. 

However, the unique aspect of this program is that it was a collaborative effort between the community, between USDA Rural Development, the financial institution and the Garcias and a number 

of others involved in that self-help project. The remarkable thing 

was that a minimum of Federal investment was required, although 

there was plenty of sweat equity provided on the part of the Garcias. The result was a safe secure house, a stronger family that ultimately becomes part of a very viable rural community. 

The second example, although a bit more traditional, is equally 

unique, and that was my ability to attend the grand opening of 

something called Meadow Brook Farms, which was a producerowned and value-added cooperative that was involved in pork 

slaughter—it is involved in pork slaughtering and process in 

Rantoul, Illinois. 

Starting back in 1998, James Burke, now the CEO of the company, and Melvin Weck, who is the Executive Vice President of 

their IT operation and is also a lifelong farmer of the area, were 

part of a uniquely organized producer cooperative that worked with 

local government, bankers and the State and national USDA Rural 

Development staff, amongst others, to put together this project. 

The effort has resulted in a facility that in 2004, its first year of 

operation, processed nearly 690,000 hogs, utilizing a state-of-theart animal ID and tracking system developed by these producers. 

The 200 producer members have a better market for their quality 

hogs, are building equity in the new venture, and have created over 

300 new jobs in the rural community. 

11

These two examples demonstrate the great work this Agency can 

accomplish with the support from the administration and Congress, 

plus that of a motivated and well-trained staff working in conjunction with the local communities all across rural America. 

We are entering an exciting time in rural America. In my view 

many—in many areas the out migration trends are in fact being reversed. We are seeing more young people staying in their hometowns to raise their families and care for aging parents, and 

boomers are moving back to smaller towns for the quality of life. 

We are also seeing significant gains in value-added agriculture, 

allowing smaller operations and co-ops to successfully compete in 

niche and emerging markets. This development has not only raised 

income for area farmers but also for many local investors. At the 

same time it has created new jobs in these communities and provided additional incentives for young people to not just stay but 

frequently move back to rural America. 

There are plenty of exciting—there are plenty of other exciting 

developments on the horizon for rural America. The list is virtually 

endless, limited only by our creativity and our dedication to developing significant new income sources for America’s farmers, ranchers and local business people, which ultimately provide jobs and a 

better quality of life for those who choose to live in our rural communities. 

I understand fully how important USDA Rural Development programs are to the citizens in your States. This wonderful Agency 

has the tools to impact so many lives in a positive way at a very 

low cost to the taxpayer. 

If confirmed, I pledge to work tirelessly with you to make the vision of rural rejuvenation a reality. In that I suspect I will be, second only to Secretary Johanns, the most energetic champion at 

USDA for the future of rural communities. 

I thank you for holding this hearing and your consideration of 

my nomination, and I look forward to answering any questions you 

may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Dorr. 

Let me start out this morning by asking you a question that I 

do not expect you to give me a detailed answer on relative to your 

farming operation. During the past 4 years and in the 2002 hearing, much has been made of your farming operation and your farm 

structure. I expect you to be thoroughly examined about some aspects of those today. I think it would be helpful if we just go back 

to the basics, and let you have the opportunity to explain, as you 

have somewhat alluded to in your statement, as to how your farming operation was structured. How your operation related to the 

family trust that will be referred to later in the questioning. 

Mr. DORR. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. When I moved back 

to the family operation in 1971 it was composed of something in 

the neighborhood of 1,000 or 1,100 acres along with some grain operations as well. They were owned and operated jointly by my father and uncle. 

From that point on I was engaged in the business, starting as 

an employee, as a hand, ultimately evolving into more of a manager, and finally the full-time operator/manger of the operation, 

taking care of all of the essence of all the business opportunities. 

12

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dorr, what timeframe are we talking about 

here? 

Mr. DORR. This evolved from 19—that evolution was from 1971 

through say 1975 to 1978. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Mr. DORR. In late 1976 my father and my uncle, in their concern 

to maintain the integrity of the family farm, embarked on a series 

of estate planning initiatives, and the outgrowth of that was the 

formation of two family trusts that have been discussed extensively 

in 2002 and since. These two family trusts were designed as generation-skipping trusts to maintain the integrity of the family operation for anyone who cared to stay and operate the family farm. 

Those were the only two trusts outside of others that evolved 

from the process of probating the estate that were involved and 

that were developed. There were a couple of other family corporations that had been there for a number of years, and we grew the 

farm then from the early 1970’s to around 2,200 acres of family 

owned property by the time I left in 2001, and we were renting and 

custom-farming other properties as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. To your knowledge did the FSA, or what I guess 

then was ASCS maybe, USDA Inspector General’s Office, or any 

other agency of the Federal Government ever accuse you of deliberately or knowingly falsifying documents or providing misleading 

information to the Federal Government, particularly to FSA? 

Mr. DORR. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. USDA Rural Development has a staff of more than 7,000. It has a $90 billion loan portfolio. As you have stated, 

it is the advocate for rural America. It is the venture capitalist, and 

it builds the infrastructure for businesses, hospitals, communities 

and families. It is a crucial mission at USDA. In your opinion what 

makes you qualified to be Under Secretary for Rural Development? 

Mr. DORR. Senator, I left home in 1964, went to college, worked 

for a large corporation for about 3 years and returned to the family 

farm I believe in, as I said earlier, in 1971. 

That experience in working on that farm, that grain company, 

growing up with it, working with a number of associates led me to 

then ultimately get involved because of my interest in the entirety 

of the rural community, and quite frankly, with a lot of urging 

from my parents, who believed strongly that we needed to give 

back to our communities, to get involved with a number of things 

that migrated from the county level, County Board of Review, all 

the way up to the Iowa Corn Growers, to the National Corn Growers. 

These iterations of experiences gave me a fairly significant insight I believe into what I felt were a number of the unexplored 

opportunities that could positively impact rural America. With that 

insight and those opportunities and those experiences over about 

30 years, I felt that I had the qualities and the qualifications to facilitate the President’s agenda serving in this position. 

The CHAIRMAN. For nearly 70 years Rural Development and its 

predecessor agencies have been providing assistance to rural America. In each succeeding farm bill we provide additional resources 

and emphasis on Rural Development. Clearly it is an important 

mission area at USDA. What is your vision for Rural Development 

13

over the next few years, and if confirmed, what will you do to make 

that vision a reality? 

Mr. DORR. That is a terrific question and I appreciate it. The opportunity in rural America to increase—the vision at Rural Development is very simple, and this was enunciated shortly after I became the Under Secretary, and that was to increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of life for all rural Americans. 

There has been a significant transition taking place throughout 

rural America that makes these opportunities possible. We can improve the quality of life because Rural Development essentially is 

what amounts to a venture capital bank for all of rural America. When I got there they had a loan portfolio of about $60 billion. Today it’s $90 billion. The thing though that makes this all more 

likely to happen is that first of all we have some significant people 

in this organization. We have people of great caliber and integrity, 

and the interesting thing about it is that these are people that are 

State and local driven. They understand what’s going on at the 

local level, so what happens is we drive ideas from the bottom up. 

Second, the programs at Rural Development run the gamut from 

the traditional REC, rural water and waste programs to the very 

unique new IT. We have information technology systems, venture 

capital, renewable energy. There are a whole array of opportunities 

that this rural resource base and the people in it have an opportunity to participate in with great economic opportunity. 

Finally, we have developed an outreach program that was designed to make certain that we reached out and identified those 

who really were qualified for our programs, both as individuals and 

communities, CBOs and others, that were not accessing them at 

the time, and this outreach program did a couple of things. It increased our understanding of our system. It made us more available, and it clearly energized those who were benefiting from us. 

Finally, tying all that together, what I found was that if we paid 

close attention to the President’s management agenda, really zeroed in on performance budget integration, we could develop systems to very quickly respond to the changes that were taking place 

in rural America as they accommodated these programs. There is 

a great deal of opportunity out there. I’ve probably gone on a little 

bit long. These programs give us a great deal of flexibility. 

The CHAIRMAN. That obviously comes from your heart too, Mr. 

Dorr, which is great to hear. Without question it can be said that 

when you look across America farming is farming irrespective of 

what part of the country you come from. Clearly there are differences in the methods of farming, there are different crops grown 

in different areas of the country. You come from the midwest part 

of the Country where you grow a lot of soybeans and corn. Senator 

Coleman comes from an area where there is a lot of dairy, a lot 

of wheat grown. Senator Salazar comes from an area where a lot 

of wheat, maybe a lot of livestock is produced. I come from an area 

where there’s a lot of row crops and a lot of vegetables grown. 

Clearly there are a lot of differences there that somebody at USDA 

has to look at from the aspect that farming is farming irrespective 

of what part of the country that it is located. 

Assuming you are confirmed in this position, are you going to be 

looking at farming as farming all across America, not with respect 

14

to your personal interest relative to any particular crop, or any particular section of the country? Are you willing to treat all farmers, 

all agri-business people and the implementation of Rural Development provisions of the Farm bill fairly and equally? 

Mr. DORR. Senator, absolutely, and my record of the 15 or 16 

months I served as Under Secretary would more than justify that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator COLEMAN. [Off microphone]—without objection. I fully 

support this nomination. I have heard from all my ag groups and 

rural advocates and they support it, and I just wanted that to be 

on the record before I leave. 

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, without objection, Senator Coleman. 

We are going to proceed a little bit differently. Senator Harkin 

and I have agreed that he will have an extensive opportunity to examine Mr. Dorr, and that being the case, rather than giving Senator Harkin 5 minutes, 10 minutes, whatever he might want to 

start with, he is in agreement to allowing other Senators to ask 

questions, since you may have to be somewhere else today. 

We will move to Senator Salazar first for any questions that you 

might have. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman amendment Ranking Member Harkin, and thank you for your leadership 

on agricultural issues and the leadership of this committee. 

I also want to say to you, Mr. Dorr, thank you for your service 

to our country and for coming before this committee this morning. 

I must say that it is a mark of tenacity to come back because you 

feel so passionately about the job and for rural America, and for 

that, I acknowledge and laud you for those efforts. 

You and I had a good meeting last week. I very much appreciated the conversation that we had where you stated some of the 

things that you have talked about this morning, the importance of 

rural America and getting a revitalized rural America. We also 

spoke about my own maiden speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, 

where I talked about the forgotten America. 

I am open to the possibility of voting for you as this nomination 

moves forward. I do however want to go through this process and 

to hear the concerns that Senator Harkin and others have stated, 

and to also study the responses that you have. 

Let me just say at the outset that I asked for a letter from you 

that would articulate your vision and your program for what you 

wanted to accomplish in rural America in this position that you 

have been nominated for. I was disappointed that I did not get that 

letter on Monday. My staff called on Monday and again yesterday, 

and I still have not received that letter. The one thing that I will 

ask of you, Mr. Dorr, is that as we work together on this mutual 

agenda of rural America, I want to have the kind of relationship 

with you where if I request something, I want some response. At 

the end of the day this is a joint undertaking between the Executive and the legislative branches of Government. I would appreciate 

getting the letter that I requested by the end of the day today. 

Let me also say that I have read some of the materials, I am not 

as versed as the people who have been on this committee before 

and who have gone through these hearings in the past. I am cerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:13 Mar 01, 2006 Jkt 020839 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20839.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
15

tain that Senator Harkin, in his hour of inquiry will touch base on 

many questions. 

There is one question in particular though that I want to ask. 

That is a question relating to the comments that were made on diversity in a speech that you gave. This is from a speech that I 

know has been talked about—I have a copy of the transcription—

in which you apparently were talking to a group of farmers. 

The comment that I have here is from when you made the statement that there are, I quote, ‘‘...if they’re not the three then two 

of these are the three—and would be Carroll County, Sioux County 

and Lyon County. You will notice when you get to looking at them 

that they are not particularly diverse, at least not ethnically diverse. They are very diverse in their economic growth, but they 

have been very focused, very nondiverse in their ethnic background 

and their religious background.’’ ‘‘There’s obviously something 

there that has enabled them to succeed and to succeed very well.’’

I know very well, having been involved as a prosecutor, having 

worked on a lot of issues, and having been in the public world, that 

sometimes statements are taken out of context. I have not read the 

letters that Senator Chambliss spoke about from the Congressional 

Hispanic Caucus or the Congressional Black Caucus, but I would 

like you to talk to us about your own views of diversity and your 

own views of inclusion of people from all backgrounds in the things 

that you do and how you will proceed on that issue in the future, 

looking ahead, for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the position that you have been nominated for. 

Mr. DORR. Sure. First of all, let me simply say that I do believe 

the letter was delivered if not on Monday, yesterday. I apologize if 

it wasn’t there on Monday, but I believe the letter was delivered 

yesterday. 

Second, those comments that you referred to were not with a 

group of farmers. It was actually a the university event that I was 

asked to be at, and review a proposal relative to a grant of money 

that had been given to the Agronomy Department of Iowa State 

University. 

Third, as you’ve clearly enunciated, they were in my view taken 

out of context. Probably it’s important to reflect as much as anything on the opportunities that I’ve had to work with a number of 

minority organizations, sustainable small farm groups and others 

since I’ve been here serving at USDA’s Rural Development. No. 1, 

that I related very well. I have a—contrary to what perhaps the 

public perception may be, a very, very big heart when it comes to 

working with people who have frequently been less fortunate or 

had less opportunity than I have. I have been a very blessed guy. 

I know that. I’ve been a very fortunate fellow to have a loving family by and large and many opportunities. 

One of the things that I’ve encountered at Rural Development is 

there are a lot of old ongoing issues that everyone is struggling 

with, very honestly so. One of the things that I found, as an example, and as a result of attending a listening session at Alcorn State 

University, this wasn’t where it first came up but it was where a 

lot of these things galvanized, is the access to credit issues and a 

number of other things that make it difficult for many in the minority community to actually aggregate equity. 

16

One of the problems is that there are very few African-American 

appraisers or title company owners or surveyors or others who are 

able to actively work with members in their community that they 

trust. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me if I may, because I do not want to take 

up more time here than—my red light is already on and the chairman is being very indulgent in my time here. 

Let me put a more focal point on my question. For me this America of ours has been very much an America in progress, from the 

Civil War, to the 13th and 14th Amendments, to Brown v. the 

Board of Education and to getting where we are today. We are not 

a perfect country, but we certainly are a country that has made 

tremendous progress. I want you to specifically answer this question for me. Take the African-American farming community, describe to me in a couple of minutes what your agenda would do to 

make sure that the African-American farming community receives 

the benefits of the work that you would be doing at USDA? Focus 

it on African-Americans. 

Mr. DORR. We would work within the framework of the National 

Centers of Excellence, the 1890’s Institutions and the other organizations that work with USDA to make sure that we do a good job 

of making certain they have the tools to participate in the American dream, that they have the ability to leverage their equity resources and other things that they utilize to grow and build their 

communities, their families, their farms, and build and own their 

own homes. 

Senator SALAZAR. Now, spin that out a little bit in terms of the 

specific action items that you would take as the Under Secretary 

of Agriculture to accomplish that vision. You started by saying access to capital——

Mr. DORR. Access to capital. We have to do a better job of facilitating the development and training of folks within those communities who have the ability to be surveyors, be people that the community trust and can work with so that they can build equity. We’ll 

have to look at all of the programs that we have available and 

make sure that they are as friendly and user friendly as possible 

within that community. 

Rural Development does not directly participate in farm program 

activities at USDA, but in the context of our community development programs and other things, we will make sure that they function and function well within those communities. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me ask you with respect to staff and diversity of staff within USDA. What kinds of efforts would you undertake to ensure that there is diversity within the staff? Is that an 

important issue to you? Is it something that you would aggressively 

undertake? Also what have you done in the 3 years that you have 

served there as Senior Advisor to achieve diversity? 

Mr. DORR. Diversity has always been a top agenda item within 

the Department. I’ve worked very, very closely with the Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights, Vernon Parker, and a number of others 

on these issues. I see no reason why we wouldn’t continue to do 

that. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Dorr, for your responses. 

17

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. President Bush has nominated you to be 

Under Secretary for this Agency three different times. During your 

time as nominee you have endured intense public scrutiny of your 

farming operation and statements about you as a private citizen. 

Yet you sit before us again today responding openly and honestly 

to every question that is asked of you. Personally I have no doubts 

that you are the right person for the position, and I applaud President Bush for his persistence in continuing to nominate you. After 

all this, I am compelled to ask why do you want to be in this position? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DORR. I’ve even asked myself that sometimes. 

I deliberated that at length, Senator. I deliberated at length with 

my wife and my family. As I said in my comment to Senator 

Salazar earlier, I’ve been a very blessed guy, had a terrific, terrific 

father and mother, terrific wife, and I’ve had a number of terrific 

experiences, and the thing that I know more than anything else is 

that rural America has had some difficulties. Rural America’s been 

in a real funk since the late 1970’s and emerged into the ag crisis 

of the 1980’s. In the late 1990’s and the early—in the early 2000’s 

and on through the 2000’s it became abundantly clear that with 

the advent of technology, of bandwidth access, access to knowledge 

and information and capital, it was creating an untold number of 

new and undeveloped opportunities for those who live there, and 

quite frankly, in many cases, for people who I had run into, who 

were moving back into these areas. 

In my view, particularly after driving to work every day in this 

moving parking lot in Washington, DC, it’s clear to me that rural 

America and this evolving environment in which we have access to 

technology, when we have energy problems, we have access to renewable energy opportunities, and a whole host of things that only 

rural America truly has the ability to provide. It’s too great an opportunity to pass up and not try to make sure that many of my fellow citizens in rural America can participate in this economic 

growth and activity. It’s that simple. There’s a lot of, a lot of hope 

out there and I want to be part of it. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Let me ask you about a specific program and 

a specific problem. I need to compliment Senator Harkin for bringing this to my attention last night at a rural development conference or capitalization conference that he and I hosted. Senator 

Harkin mentioned that the Department has been slow allocating 

the $2 billion available for broadband and that there is still approximately one and six-tenths billion dollars at USDA. Could you 

please tell me what you would do as Under Secretary to ensure 

that this program is developed and managed to its full potential? 

I guess I would add to that, because Congress made a decision this 

money ought to be spent, and presumably it is not being spent. I 

rely upon Senator Harkin for that judgment, not my own. What 

would you do to get that money out? 

Mr. DORR. Well, that’s a good question. The 2002 Farm Bill was 

passed in June of—or May 1902, signed into law by the President 

May 1902. There was a very significant effort placed early on to 

conduct a field hearing to find out what sorts of things needed to 

18

be addressed in the deployment of those funds and that technology 

and making access to that new program. 

It’s a unique program, and quite honestly, there have been a 

number of things that have occurred the last year that I frankly 

have not been involved in, not serving as the Under Secretary, not 

having any decisionmaking authority with regard to that. The 

thing that is important to remember in the broadband program is 

that it is unique, traditionally the rural utility system and the 

rural telecom programs were largely loans made to sole providers 

in rural areas on long-term assets, and those loans—there was a 

process developed and they understood those clearly. The technology involved in deploying broadband to do a couple of things, 

No. 1, get the money out quickly, and No. 2, make sure you don’t 

make bad loans, and then ultimately have to deploy those resources on assets that frequently have life spans of only 5 years or 

on out to 30 years is a complex new way in which you have to deal 

with this matter. 

If I am confirmed and had the ability to get engaged in this, I 

would frankly go to the outside, seek some outside expertise to help 

us get a better handle on how to analyze these loans so that we 

could deploy them in a more rapid and more effective and efficient 

manner, and yet maintain the integrity of the program. 

Senator GRASSLEY. You are saying that if Congress makes a decision that this money ought to be spent, the only thing for not 

spending it would be to make sure that the loan was a wise loan. 

There is no philosophical opposition you have in this area of this 

money being used for this purpose. 

Mr. DORR. None whatsoever. I’m probably as sold on technology 

as anyone. 

Senator GRASSLEY. My last question then. The work of the Rural 

Housing Service is particularly important to me because I have 

seen the impact that single-family, multi-family and community facilities can have on individuals and communities in Iowa, as you 

know, Tom. One of my concerns has been the lack of solid information regarding multi-family housing portfolio. For many years it 

was clear that RHS was flying blind when it comes to portfolio. 

They could not tell us what types of housing were in the portfolio, 

and they could not verify the condition of the properties. 

As Under Secretary you initiated a comprehensive property assessment to determine what needs to be done to maintain that 

portfolio and to protect the low-income tenants who live in those 

properties. From all accounts, this process has been successful, and 

an excellent example of your leadership. Could you tell us some detail as to how this all came about? 

Mr. DORR. I will try to keep this brief. It was probably one of the 

most significant, the multi-family housing and rental assistance 

and farm labor housing programs, probably some of the most complex and significant issues that we had to deal with. I believe rental assistance is perhaps the largest line item budget item in the entirety of the USDA budget, as I’ve been informed. 

The bottom line was that there had been a myriad of statutory 

and regulatory changes over a period of 20 years. Rental assistance 

was growing quite rapidly, and a couple of things were clear. No. 

19

1, there was discussion about whether or not we need to save the 

program, and No. 2, how we were going to finance it. 

After getting together with a number of the best and brightest 

in our multi-family group and organization throughout Rural Development, by bringing in some statewide leaders, I determined, in 

conjunction with task force that had helped me collect this information, that the best thing we could do was to go out and bring in 

two of the best multi-family housing consultants we could find, and 

we were able to do that. 

In the course of that I gave them two charges—this was when 

I was serving as the Under Secretary—No. 1, find out whether or 

not we really need this program. I wanted to dispel that myth if 

there is a myth involved. No. 2, provide us with some answers in 

terms of how we revitalize the portfolio, how we go about revitalizing it in a cost effective manner. 

Out of that evolved a comprehensive property assessment. The 

comprehensive property assessment showed that of the 455,000 

units, there were 750,000 residents, that’s less than three-tenths of 

1 percent of the population. 75—the average income of the residents was $7,500. It was clear that we needed the properties. The 

properties had an average age of 26 years. On top of that we were 

having escalating rental assistance projects. We think—I believe, 

and I’m not sure where the Under Secretary, the Acting Under Secretary is relative to the decision, but we think we’ve identified a 

solution to essentially revitalize a $50 billion replacement cost portfolio for something less than $2 billion over a period of about 6, 7 

years. 

If that is what they ultimate decide to do at the Under Secretary’s Office, we’ve done a remarkable job of revitalizing a portfolio and making—most importantly, protecting the tenants, and 

making available housing for those who can least afford it in rural 

America. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I will do is I 

will just defer to the Ranking Member at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dorr, we appreciate having you here and we appreciate all 

of the good work that you do. 

Energy costs have a big impact on our economy, and you and I 

visited about this personally, but as you know, one of the provisions in the energy bill that is very important to me is the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Grant 

Program. This program holds a tremendous potential to stimulate 

development of our farm energy sources. It also presents an opportunity to address environmental concerns, and in Idaho we are very 

excited about the potential in this program to help develop anaerobic digesters. Do you agree that this program can help develop energy sources, and also address environmental concerns at the same 

time? If so, would you commit to work with me to help find ways 

to address the anaerobic digester issue? 

Mr. DORR. I would. I agree with your interpretation. I would be 

delighted to work with you. 

20

Senator CRAPO. What are your thoughts about the implementation of this program, the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy 

Efficiency Improvements Grant Program? 

Mr. DORR. Like all of these new and innovative programs, they’re 

somewhat complex, but the Department has done a good job of 

working with a multitude of agencies, and will continue to do that, 

and as a result can make these very effective programs over the 

long term. 

Senator CRAPO. If you are confirmed, one of the things I want to 

do is be as effective as possible in leveraging resources, and it 

seems to me that this grant program is one of those. I guess I am 

basically just alerting you that I want to work closely with you on 

that and try to leverage resources to the maximum extent possible. 

One other question: many of us on this panel have recognized the 

importance of value-added agriculture, and we included the Valueadded Grant Program in the 2002 Farm Bill, which is another program which I strongly support. In your opening statement you 

mentioned that value-added agriculture will become an even more 

important part of the rejuvenation of rural America, and I would 

just like to ask you if you would expand on that a little bit. 

Mr. DORR. Well, very quickly, the evolution of ethanol has shown 

that research and technology can do some amazing things with the 

natural resource base that we have in this country, and clearly as 

we grapple with the energy issues and other things, and we begin 

to look more deeply into this, it’s very evident that technology has 

grown by leaps and bounds. Renewable bio-based energies, biodiesel, wind energy and a number of these offer three or four great 

opportunities for rural America to leverage their asset base, increase economic activity, improve the quality of life, build jobs, 

build equity, and it’s clearly something, that if confirmed, I will 

continue to look at, and look at in a very—I would look at in a very 

aggressive manner. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. That is all the questions 

I wanted to ask of you. Before I yield my time back, I just wanted 

to take this opportunity once again to thank you for the great service that you have already provided at the Department, and to tell 

you that you have a tremendous amount of support here in the 

Senate, and I look forward to working with you after you are confirmed. 

Mr. DORR. Thank you very much. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Crapo. 

We will now turn to Senator Harkin for questions. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dorr, I just wanted to start off by referring to the question 

that was asked by Senator Salazar regarding diversity. Your response to his question regarding the statement you made at Iowa 

State University was that it was taken out of context. 

Mr. DORR. That’s correct. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, I watched the tape. I watched the tape of 

that whole thing. A person right before you—no, it was not the one 

right before you, it was like maybe two before you, preceding the 

person that spoke before you—said something about diversity and 

had talked about the importance and the value to rural commuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:13 Mar 01, 2006 Jkt 020839 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20839.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
21

nities of supporting diversity. Your statement in that—when you 

made that statement about diversity, you seemed to be responding 

directly to this. A lot of times we look at patterns, Mr. Dorr. You 

just say you were taken out of context. What is the context? 

First of all, as a member of the Board of Regents there was a 

big issue in Iowa about naming Iowa State University Stadium 

after Jack Trice. He was an African-American football player, and 

they wanted to name the stadium after him; students wanted to 

name the stadium after Jack Trice. There was a lot of heated debate about this at that time. It was finally decided to name the stadium after him. The Board of Regents voted on that. You voted 

against naming the stadium after Jack Trice. 

Then we have the statement at Iowa State that Mr. Salazar—I 

am not going to read it again, it is in the record—when you said 

that there is something in these three counties that enable them 

to succeed. It may be their economic diversity but not their ethnic 

diversity. There is something there to that. 

Last, you wrote a letter to me, and I am going to have more to 

say about this letter, but you wrote a letter to me on October 8th, 

1999, in which you talked about a number of different things, but 

you said, ‘‘I’m sure my ranting won’t change your approach to 

maintaining a constituency dependent on government revenue.’’ I 

am reading your own words. ‘‘But should you decide to take a few 

side trips through the Iowa countryside, you will see an inordinate 

number of homes surrounded by 5 to 10 cars. The homes generally 

have a value of less than $10,000. This just confirms my 10–car, 

$10,000 home theory. The more you try to help, the more you 

hinder. The results are everywhere.’’

Now, Mr. Dorr, when you take all of those, you see a pattern and 

so I am not certain that it was taken out of context. People grow 

and develop and they change their minds about things. Certainly 

my own thinking on race relations and minorities has developed a 

lot since my upbringing in a small town in rural Iowa. I guess I 

was hoping to hear you say that perhaps your thinking had evolved 

and that perhaps those statements may have reflected an earlier 

mindset, but now maybe that mindset has changed. All I heard was 

it was just taken out of context. 

Do you still maintain that all of the things I have said were just 

taken out of context? 

Mr. DORR. Senator, we’ve gone through this at length earlier, 

much of this is in the record. The record that I’ve established and 

the opportunities that I’ve had to work within the minority community serving at Rural Development, and quite honestly prior to that 

in Iowa in a smaller way, and one must recognize that, as you’ve 

already indicated, Iowa has a very small minority population. I was 

quietly and privately before the events at Iowa State University 

and actually after that, attempting to find out why we were having 

difficulty placing slaughter plants in Iowa because of fears that 

they would be staffed by large numbers of hispanics. 

I worked privately with a number of folks trying to figure out 

ways to help establish hispanic banks so the hispanic community 

would feel more comfortable in originating homeownership loans 

and increasing their ability to participate in the American dream. 

22

My record at Rural Development, in working with a number of 

minority community and minority initiatives is well known. I don’t 

know that I have to defend myself relative to my attitude toward 

race relations or my sensitivities toward minorities. I agree, when 

you grow up in a basically lily white State like Iowa you do evolve 

and change over a period of time. I was raised in a family, and 

quite frankly was taught generally speaking to be sensitive to everyone in every situation, and that’s the way I’ve raised my family, 

that’s the way I’ve tried to live my life. Again, I don’t believe that 

those remarks at Iowa State University adequately reflect what 

was the context of that particular situation. 

Senator HARKIN. Nor the comments you made in your letter to 

me about the $10,000 home and the 10–car—you said ‘‘reflects my 

theory.’’ I asked you at the hearing 3 years ago about that, and I 

have examined the record on that, and I cannot find anything that 

really tells me what that theory is. ‘‘This just confirms my 10–car, 

$10,000 home theory.’’ I read the record—I am sure you have too—

and I said at the time, a lot of times poor people have a lot of cars 

around. I asked that question once, he says, ‘‘Well, I’ve got a lot 

of cars because I’ve got to junk one to get the other one running.’’ 

They do not have good cars. 

I am just wondering about the sensitivity to that in terms of the 

letter that you sent to me in 1999, and so I just ask, do you see 

how someone could interpret your remarks as insensitive? Do you 

have any comprehension that somebody might see this as being insensitive? 

Mr. DORR. Senator, the remarks are the remarks. I’m not an insensitive person. 

Senator HARKIN. My question was not whether you were sensitive. Could you see that someone might interpret your remarks 

and this pattern as being insensitive? 

Mr. DORR. I believe my actions have actually—my actions have 

spoke very well of my sensitivity. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, we can beat that one around. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions of Mr. Dorr that I 

would like to ask, and I hope the answers will not be too long and 

involved. 

Mr. Dorr, I wrote to you last Friday indicating that I would be 

referring to the record of the March 6, 2002 hearing, and that I 

would ask whether any part of that record ought to be clarified, 

corrected or completed. Do you have a response to that? 

Mr. DORR. My response is, Senator, that I believe the record 

clearly reflects the hearing and the questions that were sent to me 

and which I responded to. The record, frankly, is a record. I realize 

that perhaps you or maybe some of your colleagues feel that it was 

not complete, but frankly, that is the information that I had available and I believe that is—the record reflects the hearing. 

Senator HARKIN. It is your position as you appear before this 

committee today that the record of March 6, 2002, there is nothing 

that needs to be corrected, nothing that needs to be clarified, or 

nothing that needs to be completed? 

Mr. DORR. Not that I’m aware of, no. 

Senator HARKIN. Did you have a chance to go over that record? 

Mr. DORR. Yes, I did. 

23

Senator HARKIN. Well, let us start with what is established in 

the record, and then I have some matters that I hope we can clear 

up. 

At page 53 of the record—and if you have that record in front 

of you, you can refer to it. On page 53 of the record, Senator Dayton stated that the Farm Service Agency found that the Melvin G. 

Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust was in violation of the shares agreement in 1993, 1994 and 1995, and as a result, $17,000 was paid 

from that trust to FSA, and you said, ‘‘That is correct.’’ Now I believe the actual figure was $16,638. Is all of that correct? 

Mr. DORR. I believe so. 

Senator HARKIN. You believe so. On page 54 you stated that 

there was an arrangement between the Melvin G. Dorr Irrevocable 

Family Trust and Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm, of which you were the 

CEO and sole stockholder along with your wife. Is that correct? 

Mr. DORR. Correct. 

Senator HARKIN. On page 56 you stated that the arrangement 

was that the Melvin Dorr Trust paid Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm for 

machinery, management and marketing services. Is that correct? 

Mr. DORR. Correct. 

Senator HARKIN. On page 54 you state that you had the power 

of attorney to sign for this Melvin G. Dorr Trust at the FSA Office, 

and you did sign for that trust either as trustee or with the power 

of attorney. Is that correct? 

Mr. DORR. That’s correct. 

Senator HARKIN. Again on page 55 you state that the Melvin 

Dorr Trust was, quote, ‘‘set up as an operating entity entitled to 

receive 100 percent of the benefits from the various farm program 

payments,’’ end quote. You signed USDA papers to do that, is that 

correct? 

Mr. DORR. Correct. 

Senator HARKIN. Now, if this Melvin Dorr Trust was receiving 

100 percent of the payments, as you signed the trust up for the 

farm program, that would be appropriate if the trust was the operator and was hiring custom farming done. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. DORR. Correct. 

Senator HARKIN. Indeed, going to page 60 of the record, there is 

a discussion of signing papers at the ASCS or FSA office. You said, 

quote, ‘‘On the M.G. Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust, I did, but I 

am—’’ and then Senator Dayton interrupted you and said, ‘‘You 

signed the documents?’’ Mr. Dorr. ‘‘That is right.’’ Senator Dayton. 

‘‘Representing it as a custom fee arrangement?’’ Mr. Dorr. ‘‘That is 

right.’’

Just to recap, Mr. Dorr, you signed papers at FSA that the Melvin G. Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust was the operator, and basically so that USDA would believe that there was a custom farming 

arrangement. Is that correct? 

Mr. DORR. That is correct. 

Senator HARKIN. More specifically, on page 56 Senator Dayton 

said this: ‘‘It was my understanding that ASCS, when they came 

in and did an evaluation determined that the reason the trust owed 

the $17,000 back’’—well, it was slightly less than 17,000—‘‘was because the trust had represented this arrangement as a custom fee 

24

arrangement, and in fact it was not, it was a crop share arrangement.’’ End quote, that was Senator Dayton. 

You did not disagree with that statement. Is that not in fact a 

correct statement of USDA’s conclusion about what the actual arrangement was between the Melvin Dorr Trust and Pine Grove 

Farm? Again, I am not asking what you believe, Mr. Dorr, but that 

is what USDA determined, that in fact it was a crop share arrangement. Is that correct? 

Mr. DORR. Senator, the Melvin Dorr Trust was signed up—the 

Melvin Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust was signed up as an owner/

operator. Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm Company provided custom farming services, management services, and stewardship services and 

marketing services as well, which they were reimbursed for. That 

was part of this record. 

The end of year review determined that they thought it was 

something other than that. The trustees, of whom I was one, yes, 

I was given the power of attorney to sign up for farm programs at 

the FSA, but the trustees requested a meeting with the End-ofYear Review Committee after they made their decision and were 

denied. 

In the context of working with legal counsel, he advised us that 

if we appealed this decision we could likely overturn the decision, 

but in all likelihood it would cost us about two times as much 

money or maybe even more, and to repay. He suggested that we 

just go ahead and pay back the fees and ask them how they wanted us to operate the farm if this wasn’t appropriate, which is exactly what we did. That’s what I stated back in March of 2002. 

That’s what the case was. 

Senator HARKIN. Now, obviously, we have other documents that 

came to our attention after that hearing, and we were unable to 

present these at the very brief and cursory hearing that we had in 

2003, if I am not mistaken, 2003. In fact—and I would ask that the 

copy of a letter from Steven Phillips, the Iowa State FSA Office to 

James Little, Administrator of FSA, dated June 25th, 2002 be 

made a part of the record. 

Well, I will ask it when the chairman comes back. 

Senator CRAPO [presiding]. I will step in and assume the role, 

and without objection that will be so ordered. 

[The letter from Steven Phillips, the Iowa State FSA Office to 

James Little, Administrator of FSA, dated June 25, 2002 can be 

found in the appendix on page 325.] 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to have to have that because I want to correctly point out 

and ask if this is correct. First I will interject here that you said 

the end of the review—your End-of-Year Review Committee determined that that was not a custom farming arrangement. 

Mr. DORR. They determined that there was an inappropriate division of——

Senator HARKIN. Shares. 

Mr. DORR. Shares. 

Senator HARKIN. Exactly. That is because that was not a crop 

share arrangement—it was not a custom farm arrangement. Is it 

not true, Mr. Dorr, that there are three separate times that either 

the Department of Agriculture of the Office of Inspector General 

25

determined that this was a crop share arrangement and not a custom farm arrangement? No. 1, the End-of-Year Review Committee, 

second an investigation by the Office of Inspector General of the 

Department of agriculture, and third a special team from FSA was 

sent to investigate this. All three determined the same thing, so it 

was not just the End-of-Year Review Committee that determined 

that there was a shares violation based upon the fact that the arrangement that was stipulated was not in fact a custom farming 

arrangement, but was a crop share arrangement. That is what they 

determined. I am not asking what you believe, but this is what 

three separate entities said. 

Mr. DORR. Obviously we disagreed with them. 

Senator HARKIN. You do not disagree that three separate entities 

found that? 

Mr. DORR. I do not know about the other two entities. 

Senator HARKIN. Well——

Mr. DORR. I know that the OIG did an investigation. I don’t 

know—frankly, that they addressed the inappropriate division of 

shares. I didn’t—I’m not cognizant that that was the issue. 

Senator HARKIN. Yes, they did. There was also a special team 

from FSA sent out to investigate this. Now, again, I will have those 

put in the record. I just want to make it clear that it was not just 

the End-of-the-Year Review Committee. 

Mr. DORR. I would also add that the county committee, Senator, 

early on made a determination that there was not an issue here 

too. 

Senator HARKIN. The county committee decided that there was 

not a shares violation. 

Mr. DORR. That’s correct. 

Senator HARKIN. Did they have all the appropriate documentation in their hands at that time by which they needed to make that 

decision? 

Mr. DORR. I don’t know. They had all the documentation that 

they had requested. 

Senator HARKIN. A lot of this came to light later on after the 

county had made their decision. I don’t know if the county ever 

went back and reviewed it. I don’t think so. 

I am told, Mr. Dorr, that the State FSA Committee did, in fact, 

go back to the county committee and ask them to reexamine it, and 

that the county committee did, in fact, find a shares violation. Is 

that correct? I am told by my counsel that that is correct. Again, 

the county committee did not initially found a shares violation, but 

when they went back and investigated it later on, after they had 

the documentation that they needed, they did find a shares violation. 

Mr. DORR. OK. If the end-of-year review committee recommendations went to the county and the county concurred, then, yes, they 

did. 

Senator HARKIN. Correct me if I am wrong. Mr. Dorr, did you 

just say that the trustees requested to meet with the county committee and were not allowed? 

Mr. DORR. No. I said that the trustees requested a meeting with 

the end-of-year review committee to review their decision, and that 

was not allowed. 

26

Senator HARKIN. Well, Mr. Dorr, I am a little confused here because I have some minutes here of a meeting that took place at 9 

a.m., December 5, 1996. 

[Pause.] 

Senator HARKIN. You did meet with the county committee. 

Mr. DORR. That’s correct. 

Senator HARKIN. At the end of the year. 

Mr. DORR. I shouldn’t say that’s correct. This is 9, going on 10 

years ago, so I don’t frankly have a document listing all those 

meetings, nor do I have that available. 

Senator HARKIN. It looks as though you did have a chance to 

meet with the county committee, but whether you met with the 

end-of-year review committee I cannot determine that. I don’t know 

that. 

I ask that copies of all three of those—the end-of-year review 

committee, the investigation by the OIG, and the special team from 

the FSA—all be included in the record, and Senator Crapo acting 

for you said that that would be OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Senator HARKIN. Now, let’s turn to the Harold E. Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust. I ask you to look at a document that was attached to a letter from Secretary Veneman. 

Senator SALAZAR. Can I have 1 minute? I have another meeting 

that I have to run to. 

Senator HARKIN. I would be glad to yield. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Salazar. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dorr, I very much appreciated the response that you sent to 

me concerning the letter that I wanted from you outlining six different areas under which you wanted to work on an agenda on 

rural development. I am going to formally request of you that you 

get to me something that elaborates on each of the six points that 

you set forth in that letter. What I am looking for, prior to making 

my decision on how to move forward with this vote, is an action 

plan under each of the six subjects that you discuss in your letter. 

Will you agree to do that for me? 

Mr. DORR. We will take a look at that, and we will do the best 

we can, yes, Senator. 

Senator SALAZAR. OK. I am telling you, Mr. Dorr, what I really 

want here is a specific set of an action plan that you intend to implement over the next 4 years while you serve in this position, if 

confirmed. That will be very important to me as I move forward in 

my deliberation on this decision. 

Mr. DORR. Senator, I am not trying to be evasive. I will do the 

best I can in all of those, yes. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Dorr, you have a copy of a letter and attachments that were 

sent to me on June 27, 2002, stamp dated that time, signed by Ann 

Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, with attachments thereto. I 

asked my staff to give that to you. 

Mr. DORR. I have it. 

27

Senator HARKIN. I would ask you to look at it. Isn’t it true that 

the Harold E. Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust had to repay 

$17,151.87 because they were also found to have a shares violation 

for the 1994 and 1995 crop years? 

Mr. DORR. I’m not privy to the specific details of that, but generally speaking that’s correct. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, that was stated in the letter back here 

from Michael Houston, County Executive Director, to the Harold E. 

Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust, c/o Donald J. Dorr, stating that the 

county committee had determined that the trust owed $17,151.87 

plus interest as applicable. Again, they found that they had a 

shares violation for 1994 and 1995 crop years. 

At the top of page 59, again, referring back to the record of 2002, 

following a reference to the repayment by the Melvin Dorr Family 

Trust, Senator Dayton asked you this: 

‘‘You have described here having a similar arrangement with the 

Harold Dorr Trust?’’

You said, ‘‘That is correct.’’

Just a few lines later, again Senator Dayton, referring to the 

Harold Dorr Trust, said, ‘‘It was the same arrangement as with the 

other trust.’’

You said, ‘‘It was the same arrangement with the other trust, 

and the reason these were set up was because my uncle, shortly 

before his death, asked me to do that.’’

Now, this is all in the record, and again, I ask you: Is this record 

correct? 

Mr. DORR. As far as I know, yes. 

Senator HARKIN. Both the Melvin Dorr and the Harold Dorr Irrevocable Family Trusts had the same arrangement with Pine 

Grove Farm, your company. Is that correct? 

Mr. DORR. Both trusts were set up as owner-operators at the 

FSA office. Both engaged Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm and Tom Dorr 

to provide custom farming services, marketing services, management and land stewardship services, which we were reimbursed for 

by those trusts, that was the arrangement. 

Senator HARKIN. That is how you filed it at the county office? 

Mr. DORR. We filed the trusts. I filed the Melvin G. Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust. The Harold Dorr Family Trust filed theirs. I 

believe my aunt made the original filing back in 1988 or 1989 as 

owner-operators, yes. 

Senator HARKIN. As for your signing papers as the ASCS office 

or FSA on behalf of the Harold Dorr Trust, on page 48 of the 

record, you said, ‘‘I believe the record shows that I had power of 

attorney for the various family entities with regard to filing papers 

at the ASCS or now the FSA office.’’ You had the power of attorney 

signing all this? 

Mr. DORR. I had the power of attorney to sign these myriad of 

forms at the FSA or ASCS office at the time, yes. I did not—I believe, the record shows that, too, that I did not file any of the forms 

for the Harold Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust indicating that it was 

an owner-operator. I believe that was done by my Aunt Belva that 

was the trustee. 

Senator HARKIN. Was that done by Donald Dorr? 

28

Mr. DORR. I believe that was done back in 1988 or 1989 by my 

Aunt Belva Dorr. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, I have here a copy of a CCC–477, which 

indicates that all of the shares go to the trust. I see that. The signature is Harold E. Dorr Irrev.—I-r-r-e-v.—Family Trust, and it’s 

signed by Thomas Dorr. 

Mr. DORR. That was what form? 

Senator HARKIN. POA—that’s the Form CCC–477, which I understand is the form that you sign up intending to participate in 

the——

Mr. DORR. That’s correct. 

Senator HARKIN [continuing]. Program, in the program. 

Mr. DORR. That’s correct. 

Senator HARKIN. This was——

Mr. DORR. I don’t believe that’s the form that indicates that it’s 

an owner-operator. 

Senator HARKIN. Here is 1995 and here is 1994 and here is 1993, 

and all three are signed by you, power of attorney. POA, I assume 

that’s what that stands for. 

Mr. DORR. Correct. 

Senator HARKIN. What it says is that a 100 percent share, all, 

every one of them, and you signed it. 

Mr. DORR. On the Form 477s? 

Senator HARKIN. Yes. 

Mr. DORR. Yes. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, this is the form on which you attest as to 

where the percent shares go, and it says all, and it’s to the Harold 

E. Dorr Trust, not the Melvin Dorr Trust. 

Mr. DORR. Yes. 

[Pause.] 

Senator HARKIN. Yes, my counsel tells me that is right, that the 

years I just mentioned and the documents I have here, the copies 

of the CCC–477s for 1993, 1994, and 1995, were for the same years 

where you claimed that it was operated as a custom farming operation. Is that right? 

Mr. DORR. Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm was hired by those trusts—

that trust to do the custom farming, to do the marketing, land 

stewardship, land management for the trusts, and they were compensated accordingly. 

Senator HARKIN. OK. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that a copy of 

these be made part of the record in their entirety. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to identify exactly what they are? 

Senator HARKIN. Yes, these are copies of three forms, CCC–477s 

for the Department of Agriculture. I will go through them seriatim 

here. The first one I guess I would identify as being 1993, and I 

don’t know if the codes mean anything or not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just some general description so we can 

make——

Senator HARKIN. OK. These are CCC–477 forms signed by Mr. 

Dorr, one for 1993, one for 1994, and one for 1995. 

The CHAIRMAN. They will be entered without objection. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The forms CCC–477, signed by Mr. Dorr, for the years 1993, 

1994, and 1995 can be found in the appendix on page 196.] 

29

Senator HARKIN. OK. Now we have established clearly that trail, 

that, in fact, when you signed those documents, you signed it as 

a custom farming arrangement. Now, there was some discussion 

about whether you signed those, but it is, in fact, that you did sign 

those papers, indicating 100–percent share of the payments and 

that it is a custom farming arrangement. I just want to make sure 

that so far we agree on that, that you signed those papers indicating that it was a custom farming arrangement, that all shares 

should go to the trust, Harold E. Dorr Trust. 

Mr. DORR. I signed those forms indicating that the Harold Dorr 

Trust—Harold Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust was the owner and 

the operator. They were free to go out and hire whoever they wanted to do the farming operations. 

Senator HARKIN. There is a block on there that says percent 

shares, and you said all, and you signed to that. 

Mr. DORR. I said that all the shares of the farm program payments would go to the Harold E. Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust as 

directed by the trustees of that trust to do so. 

Senator HARKIN. Exactly. Again, Mr. Dorr, the repayment from 

the Harold Dorr Trust to USDA was because USDA found a shares 

violation based on their determination that it was not custom farming but instead it was, they concluded, a crop share arrangement. 

Again, I am not asking what you believe. I am asking what 

USDA found. Is that correct, that they found this not to be a custom farming but a crop share arrangement? 

Mr. DORR. Apparently so. 

Senator HARKIN. Now, I just want to review briefly the history 

of the arrangements between Dorr’s Pine Grove Farms and the two 

trusts—the Melvin G. Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust and the Harold E. Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust. Can we have that chart here 

again? 

Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of the committee just a second to put a chart up. 

This may look familiar, Mr. Dorr. We had this in 1992—I am 

sorry, in 2002. Of all the different entities and arrangements that 

you had from crop year 1988 to 1992. 

Let’s do a little bit of a history here. On page 65 of this record—

and I want to look at that now myself. On page 65 of the record—

I am referring now to the record of the hearing of 2002. You testified that until 1988, I am sorry, or 1989, Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm 

had a crop share arrangement with these two family trusts. Again, 

it seems here that you were not certain which year it changed. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. DORR. Yes, it was 1988 or 1989. 

Senator HARKIN. Prior to that, you testified that it was a crop 

share arrangement. 

Mr. DORR. That’s correct. 

Senator HARKIN. Again, on page 65, Mr. Dorr, you said, ‘‘I do not 

know what year exactly it was, Senator, whether it was 1989 or 

1988. I cannot remember for sure what year it was.’’

‘‘The Chairman. This is the same operation’’—‘‘the same operation’’—‘‘that you had from 1989 to 1995, but during that period of 

time you called it custom farming for those years.’’

‘‘Mr. Dorr. That is correct.’’

30

‘‘The Chairman. Before, it was crop share; after that, it was custom farming, and yet nothing else had changed?’’

I wanted to find this exact quote here. You said, ‘‘Correct, 

[except that] my uncle [had] approached me.’’

It certainly appears that nothing changed, even according to your 

own testimony, except how you characterized the arrangement to 

the USDA office and the paperwork that you or perhaps your aunt 

had on occasion signed at USDA. It looks like whatever was being 

done before 1988 or 1989 continued on, the same arrangement continued on, nothing changed, except how you presented that to the 

local county office. 

Now, again, to shed some further light on the history of these arrangements, I want to direct your attention to this document provided to the committee as an attachment to a letter from Secretary 

Veneman dated June 27, 2002, which I referred to earlier. This 

document contains information on payments and shares for years 

from 1988 through 1993 for both the Melvin G. Dorr and Harold 

E. Dorr Trusts. 

Now, that would be back here on—there’s a page that has Harold 

Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust and then at the bottom it has Melvin G. Dorr Irrevocable Family Trust. 

I want you to look at the figures for the years that were not involved in the audits that resulted in repayments to USDA; that is, 

for the Melvin G. Dorr Trust, that would be 1988, 1989, 1990, 

1991. For the Harold Dorr Trust, that would be 1988 to 1993—I 

am sorry. The first one would be 1988 to 1992. That is the Melvin 

Dorr Trust. The Harold Dorr Trust was 1988 to 1993. 

Now, what these figures on this page is that in 1988 through 

1993 the Melvin Dorr Trust had a 100–percent CCC–477 share, 

and for 1990 through 1993 the Harold Dorr Trust had a 100–percent CCC–477 share; and that for all 5 years, the trusts were 

signed up to receive 100 percent of the Farm Program payments. 

That is what this shows. Is that correct? 

Mr. DORR. Apparently. 

Senator HARKIN. The document shows that for the years 1988 

through 1992, the Melvin Dorr Trust received USDA payments of 

$35,377. Further, for the years 1988 through 1993, the Harold Dorr 

Trust received at least $35,025 in USDA payments. 

Now, it had to be more than that since the payment information 

for 1988 and 1989 is not available, as this thing shows. Again, I 

hope—do you agree on those figures? 

Mr. DORR. I have no records to know whether or not those figures are correct, but if you have them from the FSA office——

Senator HARKIN. This is from the FSA office. 

Mr. DORR. That’s the best that I have access to. 

Senator HARKIN. I have asked for this to be put in the record. 

I already asked for this to be put in the record. 

Again, apart from the money that was paid to USDA by these 

trusts, there is an additional amount in excess of $70,000 in earlier 

years that was received under the same facts and circumstances 

that led USDA to require repayment of amounts received in 1993, 

1994, and 1995. Now, again, this is before any penalties or interest. 

That $70,000 was not looked into, nor was it repaid. It seems clear 

that it stands on exactly the same basis as the money that the 

31

trusts were required to pay back to USDA. Again, the reason they 

had to pay that money back was that the nature of the farming arrangements was not truly represented to USDA. You, Mr. Dorr, 

were the person principally involved in making these representations and signing these representations to the USDA. 

Mr. Chairman, I am pointing out and the reason for this whole 

line of questioning was to point out that through all these years, 

prior to 1988 up to 1995, that the farming operations between Pine 

Grove Farms, Inc., of which Mr. Tom Dorr was the sole stockholder, shareholder, I guess along with his wife, the arrangement 

that Pine Grove Farms had with these trusts remained the same. 

By his own testimony, Mr. Dorr said that nothing changed except 

how it was represented to USDA. If it was a crop share basis before, it has never been fully explained, Mr. Dorr, why it was not 

a crop share arrangement afterward because you testified that it 

was the same basic operation. The only thing that changed is what 

you said to USDA. If it was crop share before, why wasn’t it crop 

share after that? 

Mr. DORR. As I’ve indicated, Senator, those decisions were made 

17 years ago. They were made at aging parents and aging aunts 

and uncles. They were made for legitimate management reasons. 

We did not agree with the end-of-year review. It was interesting to 

me that once the Melvin G. Dorr end-of-year review was done, they 

never did an end-of-year review on the Harold Dorr Irrevocable 

Family Trust until I became nominated. 

We don’t agree with the ruling. We think that the management 

fees, the marketing fees, the stewardship fees that were paid were 

appropriate. That’s what the arrangement was. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have asked myself—and 

this has gone back to the first times of this hearing when all this 

came out—why was all this done? Mr. Dorr by his own words recorded on a conversation with his brother that has been extensively 

viewed—or listened to, himself said why it was done, not for aging 

aunts and uncles or anything like that, but, Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to request that the 7 minutes of that tape be played for this 

committee to hear. 

The CHAIRMAN. As per our previous agreement, the CD of this 

recording will be played. I assume you have some mechanism 

to——

Senator HARKIN. Well, I asked the staff. I don’t know this stuff. 

[CD played.] 

Senator HARKIN. Mr. Chairman, the transcript of this tape was 

not put in the record previously yet. I would ask that the transcript 

be made a part of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The transcript of Mr. Dorr’s recorded conversation with his 

brother can be found in the appendix on page 201.] 

Senator HARKIN. Well, there you have it. Mr. Dorr, you did that, 

as you said by your own words. By your own words. You say some 

interesting things: first, it has always been done that way; and 

then, second, that you say that you have done this to avoid the 

minimum payment limitation. Is that not correct? 

Mr. DORR. I believe I also indicated that it was appropriate to 

do that when we did it. 

32

Senator HARKIN. Wait a minute. It was appropriate to file—to 

change the filing of your operation from crop share to custom farming in order to avoid minimum—in order to avoid the payment limitations. You say that that was correct, that was OK to do that? 

Mr. DORR. I believe that everything we registered with the FSA 

office at the time we did it was legal and appropriate, yes. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, Mr. Dorr, this is what is really baffling 

here in that you have said on the record that it was custom farming, and yet here in this phone conversation, you say it was a crop 

share basis and it sells all the crop and it reimburses us with a 

50/50 split basis. 

Now, either what you said on the tape is wrong or what you filed 

with USDA is wrong. They both cannot be right. USDA did not say 

it was correct. That is why they asked the trusts to pay the money 

back. They did not find it appropriate. You say it is appropriate. 

USDA did not say it was appropriate when they revisited it. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, that is really the essence of that. I have one 

other letter that I wanted to include in the record, and that was 

the letter—do you have that letter? Where is it? 

I asked Professor Neil Harl at Iowa State University, who knows 

a lot about farming arrangements and trusts, and is a recognized 

expert—he is the Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor in Agriculture at Iowa State—to look at all of these arrangements. That 

letter is dated July 29, 2002, and I would ask that that letter be 

made a part of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The letter dated July 29, 2002 of the Charles F. Curtis 

Distinguised Professor in Agriculture at Iowa State, can be found 

in the appendix on page 204.] 

Senator HARKIN. Again, Mr. Chairman, I really thank you for 

your indulgence in this matter. This is something that has bothered me for a long time and continues to bother me. I hope I will 

be done here very shortly and we will be out of here. 

The deficiency payments varied each year. When the producer 

signs up for the Farm Program in the spring on those forms, the 

477 forms, the producer does not know the final deficiency payment 

rate. Mr. Dorr could not have predicted what the deficiency payment would be in future years, but he certainly could have known 

that in the case of low corn prices, his Pine Grove Farm could exceed the payment limitation if the payments went to Pine Grove 

Farm, as they should, under a crop share arrangement. 

USDA found that the farming arrangement between the two 

trusts and Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm was not truly represented to 

USDA. It was represented as custom farming. USDA concluded it 

was a crop share lease. 

Now, again, Mr. Dorr has said he disagrees with USDA’s finding, 

but Mr. Dorr signed the papers to the effect that it was custom 

farming, but on this telephone conversation openly says, ‘‘I get a 

crop share on this arrangement.’’ Both cannot stand individually. 

What would the motivation be for that change, that change that 

happened in 1988 or 1989 when, by his own words, Mr. Dorr says 

nothing changed in the farming operation. He went down to the 

ASCS office and changed the way that it was represented. 

33

Well, what is the motivation? We heard the tape. Calling is custom farming moved USDA payments to the trust that should have 

gone to Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm in a crop share which USDA found 

was the really true arrangement here. Mr. Dorr said in his response to a question from Senator Conrad, page 393—this was a 

written question submitted by Senator Conrad. Mr. Dorr said that 

there was no exceeding of payment limitations in any of the years, 

even if the payments to the trusts and Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm are 

all combined. That is not the point. The issue is whether misrepresenting the actual farming operation had to do with evading the 

potential to exceed payment limitations. 

If we use Mr. Dorr’s chosen method of combining the trust payments plus the payments to Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm—let’s use that 

method. If you combine the trust payments plus the payments to 

Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm, remember, it was evading the potential to 

exceed the payment limitation for Dorr’s Pine Grove Farm that is 

the issue. 

If you look at the potential maximum combined payments, we see the combined payments could have exceeded $50,000 in 1989, in 

1991, and perhaps even 1990 or 1992, had they been paid as a crop 

share basis rather than custom farming. 

Again, that really is the point of what we are trying to point out 

here. The fact that, as I have said before, someone who is entrusted 

with a high position as Under Secretary of Agriculture, with this 

in the background, sends a very bad signal to farmers, to anyone 

who is partaking of Government programs. 

Now, I have never said that people should not try to minimize 

their taxes or things like that, as long as it is done legally. As long 

as things are done legally and forthrightly, and as long as things 

are done in a way not to cheat the Government or misrepresent 

how an entity is structured—well, if you do it that way, then that 

is wrong. 

Anyway, just a second. I am sorry. Mr. Chairman, one other 

thing, just to—I hope this is the last—have a table put into the 

record at this point regarding farm payment scenarios with target 

prices and loan rates for the years 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 

and 1994. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The table of farm payment scenarios with target prices and loan 

rates for years 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 can be 

found in the appendix on page 207.] 

Senator HARKIN. Mr. Dorr, you were a trustee of the Melvin G. 

Dorr irrevocable family trust, is that correct? 

Mr. DORR. That’s correct. 

Senator HARKIN. Are you still a trustee of that? 

Mr. DORR. No. 

Senator HARKIN. Were you at this time in question also a trustee 

of the Harold E. Dorr? 

Mr. DORR. No. 

Senator HARKIN. Just the Melvin G. Dorr——

Mr. DORR. That’s correct. 

Senator HARKIN [continuing]. Irrevocable family trust. You also 

had power of attorney for the Melvin G. Dorr irrevocable family 

trust? 

34

Mr. DORR. That’s correct. 

Senator HARKIN. Again, Mr. Dorr, my question here gets to how 

you see your responsibilities. Now, again, I realize that families 

want to keep farms as viable operations. Is not your fiduciary responsibility as a trustee of the Melvin G. Dorr irrevocable family 

trust, is not your responsibility and obligation to get the best possible return for the trust? 

Mr. DORR. Sure. 

Senator HARKIN. Do you believe that the arrangement that you 

had set up gave them the best return? 

Mr. DORR. The custom farming and management arrangement 

we had set up was a good return for them, yes. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, did you ever consider relinquishing your 

position as trustee during the years that you, through Dorr’s Pine 

Grove Farm and PGF seeds, purchased inputs, farmed the land, 

and marketed the grain? Are you not also operating in Pine Grove’s 

interest at that time? 

Mr. DORR. Obviously, yes. 

Senator HARKIN. You did not consider relinquishing your position 

as trustee of the Melvin G. Dorr irrevocable family trust? Again, 

the reason I ask that question, because if you assume this position 

of under secretary, then you have certain responsibilities and commitments. It has to be clearly delineated where those interests and 

where those responsibilities lie. Again, I would think as a trustee 

that you would have recognized that that was in conflict with your 

operations, or could potentially be a conflict with your operations 

on Pine Grove Farms and with the arrangements that you had 

with the Melvin G. Dorr irrevocable family trust. 

I just have a couple of things. I want to loop back again where 

I started. Actually, I was going to finish on this, but I started on 

it, and that has to do with the letter that you sent me in 1999, October 8, 1999, and again, in which you say that—well, first of all, 

you are complaining about the access fee, the Federal universal access fee under telephone charges, which I in 2002 pointed out that 

this money helps rural communities. Here is what you said: With 

these kind of taxation and subsidies, you collectively are responsible for turning Iowa into a State of peasants totally dependent on 

your largesse. Should you decide to take a few side trips to the 

Iowa countryside, you will see an inordinate number of homes surrounded by five to 10 cars. The homes generally have a value of 

less than $10,000, which just confirms my 10–car, $10,000–home 

theory. The more you try to help, the more you hinder. The results 

are everywhere. 

Again, Mr. Dorr, 3 years later, I would like to ask you again to explain the $10,000–home, 10–car theory. What is that theory? 

What is it a theory of? 

Mr. DORR. It’s appropriately stated in my note to you at the time, 

that was from a constituent to a Senator, not under the guise of 

the expectation that it would be something presented at a hearing. 

I feel pretty passionately, Senator, about creating economic opportunities in rural America so those perhaps hardest—some of us 

have the opportunity to gain an economic foothold to build equity. 

As a matter of fact, in the context of my operation and my business, I work very, very closely with my associates, helped one of 

35

them get a college education, helped another one buy a couple of 

homes, and get started so he had home ownership. The essence of 

it is, is that if you—every time you turn around they have more 

taxes to pay, it becomes more and more difficult for them to get the 

leg up that they need. 

That was an outgrowth of my frustration with the increase in 

that particular tax at the time, that was stimulated, actually, by 

one of my associates who came out to me and showed it to me. It 

is absolutely no reflection on my view or my attitude about those 

in rural America that need a leg up and that we clearly work with, 

rural development, and that I have a long history of having worked 

with in my community and in a number of things that I have been 

involved with over the years. 

To the extent that sheds any light on that comment, that’s probably the best I can do at this point. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, first of all, I would point out, again, as I 

did in the record at that time, that the national access fee you complained about for $4.31 was not a tax, even though you might have 

thought it was. It is the cost that long-distance companies pay the 

local telephone companies to cover some of the fixed costs. The tax 

that you had here was the universal access fee, it was 3 cents. You 

called it confiscatory. I pointed out at the time that a lot of this 

goes to help our rural schools, hospitals, and things like that. 

This idea that somehow the more you help, the more you hinder, 

I asked you at the time—and I will refer back to the hearing—I 

said, Well, I still find this a little baffling. Then you said, ‘‘The 

more you try to help, the more you hinder.’’

Mr. Dorr, it seems to me, as under secretary for rural development you are there to help people. If you have an attitude that the 

more you help, the more you hinder them, I don’t understand how 

you can carry that out. I assume, and I can only read this as plain 

English, you talk about Government maintaining a constituency 

dependent on Government revenue, the more you try to help, the 

more you hinder. The results are everywhere. Again, I am reading 

from the record, on Page 80 of that hearing in 2002. 

Well, Mr. Dorr, the way I look at it, it seems that the Dorr family 

has benefited a lot from Government help. 

‘‘Did not the Dorr farms receive farmers home loans back during 

the farm crisis of the 1980’s?’’

‘‘Mr. Dorr: I don’t believe we received a farmers home loan. I believe I received a guaranteed loan the 1980’s, that’s correct.’’

‘‘The Chairman. That is a guaranteed loan?’’

‘‘Mr. Dorr. That’s correct. I appreciated it.’’

‘‘The Chairman. You went to college. Did you get student loans?’’

‘‘Mr. Dorr. Yes, I did.’’

‘‘The Chairman. Those were Government-backed?’’

‘‘Mr. Dorr. Yes.’’

‘‘The Chairman. You have received farm payments?’’

‘‘Mr. Dorr. Yes.’’

‘‘The Chairman. From the Federal Government?’’

‘‘Obviously.’’

‘‘Has all this hindered you?’’

Well, you went on to say no, then you went on to make a comment about mega-farms. 

36

I guess it is that attitude, and I am trying to find out—that is 

why I asked if you had looked at the record. In my opening statement, I asked if you had looked at the record and was there anything you wanted to complete or correct. I guess what I was looking 

for, perhaps, was, that had you been, now, the length of time that 

you have been down at the Department and you have been working 

in these capacities, that maybe the more you help, the more you 

hinder is not quite the correct way to look at many of these things. 

I don’t know. I don’t know how to interpret it other than what was 

said there, other than you just wrote it in a moment of anger. I 

can understand people sometimes flying off the handle and stuff 

like that. If that is what it was, hey, I can accept that. If that was 

just I flew off the handle and I got ticked off 1 day and I wrote 

my Senator. I can understand that. 

Are you saying that this really does—does this reflect your philosophy or does it not reflect your philosophy now? 

Mr. DORR. Senator, I just explained to you what my philosophy 

was. I said earlier in the day what my philosophy is and what my 

views are of the things and the opportunities that we have at rural 

development to do. I believe that my background and characterization, my passion for assisting the minority communities that we 

talked about earlier, and all the others involved in rural development are pretty clearly part of the record. To suggest that I believe 

that the more we help, the more we hinder—that is clearly not 

true. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Last—I see Senator Grassley has come back—I do want to, 

again—I just want to comment on the bandwidth issue. Now, you 

have been down at the Department for the last 3 years or so in a 

key position. You served for over 1 year as under secretary for 

rural development, during which time the 2002 Farm bill was in 

effect. There is a provision in the Farm bill that provides for lowinterest loans to private entities for getting broadband to rural 

communities, with a preference for those communities with less 

than 2,500, population. 

Now, Senator Grassley was with me last year when we talked 

about that to President Bush in Des Moines. You can correct me 

if I am wrong, you said you had constituents, I know I have had 

constituents in Iowa, private entities who have tried to get these 

loans to get broadband out to small communities, and they have 

been stymied at every turn. Now, if I am off, I am off a little bit 

on this in terms of $1.6 billion, but there is still about $1.6 billion 

sitting there that could go out. When you responded to Senator 

Grassley earlier, you said, Well, if I get there then we will get outside experts to look at it. 

That money has been there for 3 years. You were under secretary 

for a year. You have been in a key advisory position down there 

for 3 years. Yet, nothing has happened. You mentioned bandwidth 

in your opening statement. Well, Mr. Dorr, I don’t see anything 

happening down there. With a provision that was put in the Farm 

bill, it is mandatory spending. The money is there. I have been extremely frustrated, as I know other Senators have been, that this 

money is not getting out to entities. Some of these entities are already providing services to communities. It is not that they are 

37

some fly by-night outfit. In order to get the bottom line to come out, 

they need these low-interest loans, and they can get out to small 

communities all over our State and, I am certain, Georgia and 

other places, too. 

I am—I just want for the record to say that I would like to have 

seen a little bit more action on that up to now than we have seen 

in getting that out. It is nice to hear that you support that, that 

you are interested in getting broadband out. That is wonderful. 

Words just don’t suffice. We have to have some action in that regard. 

If you have any comment on that. It is not really a question; it 

is more of a statement on my part. 

Mr. DORR. I agree the program is a good program. We need to 

implement it as aggressively as possible. If I am confirmed, I will 

clearly work very hard on that. 

Senator HARKIN. I thank you. I thank you, Mr. Dorr, and, Mr. 

Chairman, again I want to thank you for your indulgence as chairman for letting me pursue this questioning and making the record. 

I just can’t thank you enough for your indulgence. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. 

[The statement and Biographical information of Mr. Dorr can be 

found in the appendix on page 282.] 

Senator HARKIN. Oh—I thought I already asked that. I have a 

letter from Secretary Veneman dated April 12, 2002, that is referred to in the Harl letter. I have an order from the court dated 

September 6, 2002, regarding the audio tape. Then documents produced pursuant to a court order and the materials were disclosed 

after in camera inspection and redaction of purely private items, 

regarding the audio tape. The minutes of the Cherokee County 

FSA County Committee meeting of June 20, 1996; August 29, 1996; 

November 14, 1996; December 5, 1996; and December 19, 1996. 

Last, the Annual Survey of County Farmland Values prepared by 

Cherokee County FSA dated February 1, 1996. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The letter dated February 1, 1996 of the Annual Survey of 

County Farmland Values prepared by Cherokee County FSA can be 

found in the appendix on page 245.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say, first of all, that this issue of farm 

payments has certainly come up a lot in discussion today. It also 

came up quite often in the discussion in the hearing on March 6, 

2002. [ I have statistics here from the Farm Service Agency that 

show that in fiscal year 2001 alone there were thousands of repayments to USDA.] This includes a number of programs and also includes voluntary collections. I am not in any way introducing this 

to condone or agree with what Mr. Dorr did or should have done 

or didn’t do relative to his situation, I do know, as all of us do, that 

farm programs can be very complicated, just like the tax code, and 

that individuals can make mistakes. The Government even makes 

mistakes. I would ask unanimous consent that these FSA statistics 

be included in the record. They will be, without objection. 

[The information referred to in the FSA statistics can be found 

in the appendix on page 194.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Also, after Mr. Dorr’s first hearing before this 

committee, on March 6, 2002, the USDA Inspector General received 

38

a hotline complaint regarding the statements made on the audio 

tape that was played here today. That prompted a full investigation, and Mr. Dorr was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing. 

According to a report dated May 28, 2002, from Joyce Fleischman, 

Acting Inspector General for USDA, the conversations on that tape 

were the subject of a thorough investigation by OIG and the Iowa 

State FSA Office. I would ask that a copy of that report be included 

in the record. 

Based upon the information developed during the OIG investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Iowa declined any criminal or civil prosecution of Mr. Dorr, and the OIG 

considers this case to be closed. Quoting from that OIG report, let 

me read this statement: ‘‘We feel that we have investigated the 

matters referred to OIG concerning Mr. Dorr fully and consider the 

case to be closed. To date there is no new evidence to warrant reexamination nor the need to open a new investigation.’’

We have requested a copy of that OIG report. I would ask unanimous consent that when it is received, that it be inserted into the 

record. 

[The information referred in the OIG report can be found in the 

appendix on page 303.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further? 

If not, this hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X

APRIL 27, 2005

40


20839.001
41


20839.002
42


20839.003
43


20839.004
44


20839.005
45


20839.006
46


20839.007
47


20839.008
48


20839.009
49


20839.010
50


20839.011
51


20839.012
52


20839.013
53


20839.014
54


20839.015
55


20839.016
56


20839.017
57


20839.018
58


20839.019
59


20839.020
60


20839.021
61


20839.022
62


20839.023
63


20839.024
64


20839.025
65


20839.026
66


20839.027
67


20839.028
68


20839.029
69


20839.030
70


20839.031
71


20839.032
72


20839.033
73


20839.034
74


20839.035
75


20839.036
76


20839.037
77


20839.038
78


20839.039
79


20839.040
80


20839.041
81


20839.042
82


20839.043
83


20839.044
84


20839.045
85


20839.046
86


20839.047
87


20839.048
88


20839.049
89


20839.050
90


20839.051
91


20839.052
92


20839.053
93


20839.054
94


20839.055
95


20839.056
96


20839.057
97


20839.058
98


20839.059
99


20839.060
100


20839.061
101


20839.062
102


20839.063
103


20839.064
104


20839.065
105


20839.066
106


20839.067
107


20839.068
108


20839.069
109


20839.070
110


20839.071
111


20839.072
112


20839.073
113


20839.074
114


20839.075
115


20839.076
116


20839.077
117


20839.078
118


20839.079
119


20839.080
120


20839.081
121


20839.082
122


20839.083
123


20839.084
124


20839.085
125


20839.086
126


20839.087
127


20839.088
128


20839.089
129


20839.090
130


20839.091
131


20839.092
132


20839.093
133


20839.094
134


20839.095
135


20839.096
136


20839.097
137


20839.098
138


20839.099
139


20839.100
140


20839.101
141


20839.102
142


20839.103
143


20839.104
144


20839.105
145


20839.106
146


20839.107
147


20839.108
148


20839.109
149


20839.110
150


20839.111
151


20839.112
152


20839.113
153


20839.114
154


20839.115
155


20839.116
156


20839.117
157


20839.118
158


20839.119
159


20839.120
160


20839.121
161


20839.122
162


20839.123
163


20839.124
164


20839.125
165


20839.126
166


20839.127
167


20839.128
168


20839.129
169


20839.130
170


20839.131
171


20839.132
172


20839.133
173


20839.134
174


20839.135
175


20839.136
176


20839.137
177


20839.138
178


20839.139
179


20839.140
180


20839.141
181


20839.142
182


20839.143
183


20839.144
184


20839.145
185


20839.146
186


20839.147
187


20839.148
188


20839.149
189


20839.150
190


20839.151
191


20839.152
192


20839.153
193


20839.154
194


20839.155
195


20839.156
196


20839.157
197


20839.158
198


20839.159
199


20839.161
200


20839.162
201


20839.163
202


20839.164
203


20839.165
204


20839.169
205


20839.170
206


20839.171
207


20839.175
208


20839.182
209


20839.183
210


20839.184
211


20839.185
212


20839.186
213


20839.187
214


20839.188
215


20839.189
216


20839.190
217


20839.191
218


20839.192
219


20839.193
220


20839.194
221


20839.195
222


20839.196
223


20839.197
224


20839.198
225


20839.199
226


20839.200
227


20839.201
228


20839.202
229


20839.203
230


20839.204
231


20839.205
232


20839.206
233


20839.207
234


20839.208
235


20839.209
236


20839.210
237


20839.211
238


20839.212
239


20839.213
240


20839.214
241


20839.215
242


20839.216
243


20839.217
244


20839.218
245


20839.219
246


20839.220
247


20839.221
248


20839.222
249


20839.223
250


20839.224
251


20839.225
252


20839.226
253


20839.227
254


20839.228
255


20839.229
256


20839.230
257


20839.231
258


20839.232
259


20839.233
260


20839.234
261


20839.235
262


20839.236
263


20839.237
264


20839.238
265


20839.239
266


20839.240
267


20839.241
268


20839.242
269


20839.250
(271)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

APRIL 27, 2005

272


20839.288
273


20839.289
274


20839.290
275


20839.291
276


20839.292
277


20839.293
278


20839.294
279


20839.295
280


20839.296
281


20839.297
282


20839.298
283


20839.299
284


20839.300
285


20839.301
286


20839.302
287


20839.303
288


20839.304
289


20839.305
290


20839.306
291


20839.307
292


20839.308
293


20839.309
294


20839.310
295


20839.311
296


20839.312
297


20839.313
298


20839.314
299


20839.315
300


20839.316
301


20839.317
302


20839.318
303


20839.319
304


20839.325
305


20839.326
306


20839.327
307


20839.328
308


20839.329
309


20839.330
310


20839.331
311


20839.332
312


20839.333
313


20839.334
314


20839.335
315


20839.336
316


20839.337
317


20839.338
318


20839.339
319


20839.340
320


20839.341
321


20839.342
322


20839.343
323


20839.344
324


20839.345
325


20839.346
326


20839.347
327


20839.348
328


20839.349
329


20839.350
330


20839.351
331


20839.352
332


20839.353
333


20839.354
334


20839.355
335


20839.356
336


20839.357
337


20839.358
338


20839.359
339


20839.360
340


20839.361
341


20839.362
342


20839.363
343


20839.364
344


20839.365
345


20839.366
346


20839.367
347


20839.368
348


20839.369
349


20839.370
350


20839.371
351


20839.372
352


20839.373
353


20839.374
354


20839.375
355


20839.376
356


20839.377
357


20839.378
358


20839.379
(359)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

APRIL 27, 2005

360


20839.380
361


20839.381
362


20839.382
363


20839.383
364


20839.384
365


20839.385
366


20839.386
367

Æ


20839.387