A bill to amend the Farm Credit Act of 1971 to establish certain conditions under which a Farm Credit System institution can terminate its status as a System institution.

Mr. President, the recent CBS incident involving the record of President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard sheds light on the need for a Federal statute generally criminalizing the forgery of Federal Government documents. I believe that when it comes to crimes involving the fabrication of Federal documents or writings, the Federal Government has an obligation to step in and show the offenders there are serious consequences.

Many experts initially doubted the authenticity of the memos in question, which negatively and falsely characterized President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard. We now believe these memos were created on a modern word processing computer rather than the 1970-era typewriter, as alleged in the original CBS story.

LTC Jerry Killian was George Bush's commanding officer during his service in Vietnam. Unfortunately, Lieutenant Colonel Killian died in 1984 and therefore he could not defend his records that he so accurately discussed at that time about the quality of service of our President.

I would say this, though: That Colonel Killian's secretary Marion Knox typed all of his correspondence between the years 1956 and 1979. Referring to the memos in question, she said, ``I know I didn't type 'em'.''

She was very clear. She didn't qualify it. She said, ``I know I didn't type 'em'.''

It is clear that the documents CBS shared with American voters were more than suspect. After the fact--since CBS cannot verify its reporting--I am pleased to see that CBS has belatedly retracted its story.

We also now know that the Kerry campaign was aware CBS was planning to air the story 4 or 5 days before it was aired, while the White House did not know about the airing of this story until the eve of the story breaking. That shows an obvious bias. I don't think anyone can deny it.

President Bush stands by his honorable service in the Air National Guard. He should not have to worry about the threat of nefarious and petty efforts to defame his character.

I appreciated Dan Rather's words: ``I want to say personally and directly I am sorry,'' but saying I am sorry just doesn't cut it.

Under much pressure, CBS has appointed an independent panel to investigate its reporting of the President's service in the Texas Air National Guard. I understand this panel is to be headed by former Attorney General Dick Thornburg and former Associated Press chief executive and former Pennsylvania Governor Lou Boccardi.

I agree with many of my colleagues from the House of Representatives who were dismayed that CBS, a network that should be responsible for reporting objective news, involved itself in a campaign that misled the public and slandered the President. Therefore, I am proposing legislation to criminalize this type of action in general. Most people believe there is already a statute on the books that would have this criminalized.

After learning of the CBS scandal, I was curious about the penalty. I figured there had to be one for the forgery of Federal documents. In seeking the answer to this question, I called the Department of Justice. Their congressional relations office promptly responded: ``It depends.''

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that communication be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, the Justice Department stated that similar cases were often charged under the general sections of the fraud and false statements chapter of the United States Criminal Code. Those sections have proven quite useful to the prosecutors at the Department of Justice.

I learned of a loophole in the existing law regarding forgery and false statements. I learned there are no general sections of the United States Criminal Code for forgery in counterfeiting as there are in the other cases. Officials from the Department of Justice noted the absence of a general stand-alone statute that criminalizes the actions of those who would forge documents of the Federal Government, regardless of the end they seek to achieve or what these documents are. Currently, the prosecution of such actions depends completely on the context and how forged documents were the means to an end.

Chapter 25 of title 18 of the United States Code addresses various offenses in counterfeiting and forgery. The current 45 sections of the counterfeiting and forgery chapter essentially fall into four broad categories.

This is very important, because if forgery takes place and they do not fall into one of these four categories, then there is no penalty involved: No. 1, financial obligations. Obviously, this is not such a case; No. 2, military and naval discharge certificates; No. 3, transportation matters and motor vehicle documents; and No. 4, the seals of agencies, including courts, departments, and other agencies.

What we are saying is, if it doesn't fall into forgery, it doesn't fall into one of these four categories; there is no general statute that would offer a penalty.

The legislative history of the 45 sections of the counterfeiting and forgery chapter indicate that the sections were enacted piecemeal without a unifying, overarching section. If forgery takes place but does not fall into one of these sections, there is no penalty.

Chapter 47 of title 18 of the United States Code regarding the fraud and false statements chapter also contains disparate sections enacted piecemeal.

In contrast, however, the fraud and false statements chapter does have an overarching section, section 1001, that unifies its disparate, piecemeal parts as contrasted to the forgery statute.

In light of the recent situation involving President Bush's record, these broad, disparate sections need to include, in general, the fabrication of Federal writings or memos.

In speaking with officials from the Department of Justice, I have also become aware of concerns over whether the existing statute regarding fraud, 18 USCS 1001, can be used in this CBS incident. Chapter 47 on fraud and false statements specifically condemns false statements but only those with the intent to defraud the Federal Government. Again, this is talking about fraud and false statements, not the forgery statute.

There are questions as to whether the ``intent to defraud the United States or any agency thereof'' is applicable or whether it could successfully be argued that instead it was the voters of the United States who were initially defrauded, distinguishing in certain fashion the ``United States'' from voters or the like.

These concerns validate the need to criminalize the specific act of forging Federal documents. Technically, in the CBS incident, it could be argued that the forged Federal document did not monetarily or otherwise tangibly take away from the Federal Government. I would argue that it did harm the Federal Government by infringing on the Federal Government's copyright on its work. It certainly did affect millions of Americans by giving them a false and misleading impression about a Presidential candidate. But it needs to be clarified.

As placed under chapter 25 of title 18, my bill would criminalize general forgery of Federal Government documents, including those that characterize or purport to characterize official Federal activity, service, contract, obligation, duty, or property.

If someone attempts to forge in the name of an official of the Federal Government a document or memo that addresses an official Government duty or act, that person should be held accountable. There needs to be a Federal law prohibiting such forgery generally so prosecution of the same does not fall through the cracks.

Currently, there is no catchall section to address all forged Federal writings, such as a vote from one official to another about a Federal service.

I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee and I honor those who serve in the National Guard. Not only has the CBS incident resulted in slander to the honorable National Guard service of President Bush, it also highlights the risk of the records of other military service members and, moreover, all Federal servants governmentwide alike.

A civil servant at the General Services Administration, which the Environment and Public Works Committee which I chair has to oversee, is equally deserving of being protected from a forgery of his or her work records. Right now there is no section in the forgery chapter of the United States Code that specifically addresses protection for General Services Administration personnel. This omission is a problem we must correct.

My legislation also includes language to condemn those who, knowingly or negligently failing to know, transmit or present any such forged Federal writing or record which characterizes official Federal activities or service. This general criminalization of publishing forged documents follows existing provisions of the forgery code. If a major news network broadcasts a story based on alleged Federal documents, they must take the responsibility to verify those records.

While CBS may not have taken part in the creation of the memo in question, and indeed I think I join all of us Americans in yearning to know who did forge these memos, the network still touted them as verified and broadcast the forged memos as truthful to millions of American voters. I look forward to a full criminal investigation of who did forge the documents.

I draw an analogy in distinguishing between murder and negligent homicide. Those are crimes. Murder is intentional and negligent homicide is

not, but in both crimes someone has been killed. While CBS may not have had the intention to deceive its audience, the false information was communicated when it was negligently not verified and the damage was done nevertheless.

If it were not for the work of many astute people working through the Internet and otherwise, this travesty would not have been on its way to being exposed and fully prosecuted criminally. CBS and its surrogates pointedly disparaged the people who told the truth as mere second-class journalists of the Internet and table television and talk radio persuasions. Rather, it is CBS which has proven itself to be even less than second-class journalism.

I note that numerous pundits have been discussing recently the very vitality of the networks is faltering with the explosion of other media. Pundits have cited CBS's additional poor judgment in failing to cover the political conventions as well as other media outlets did. CBS owes a separate apology to those truth tellers whom it slandered and who have shown better judgment than CBS.

It can be difficult to communicate information without also conveying one's personal conviction on a matter. However, in a free society such as ours, the news media has a responsibility to work to be fair and balanced and to tell both sides of the story without letting a journalistic spin cloud their judgment.

Television, print, and the Internet are a powerful media. They shape our lives. They provide some part of the education of our children, whether we like it or not. The time has come for the media to take responsibility for its actions rather than manipulate public opinion to lobby the causes and politicians the media support. Facts, not conclusions or erroneous records, should be reported. Elections are a powerful example of why journalists must hold themselves to the highest of standards. People can then synthesize information for themselves.

In conclusion, I argue that the media has a grave responsibility to ensure that what it reports is a true and accurate representation of the facts. It could be argued that if CBS either forged the documents or knowingly represented forged documents as being true, there is no penalty under the law. We need to criminalize and establish the consequences for forging Federal documents. I urge my colleagues to stand with me. I cannot imagine anyone not supporting such a piece of legislation.

Exhibit I

There's no stand-alone federal offense for forging

government documents.

The criminal penalties for the forgery would depend upon

the circumstances, the context, basically the underlying

facts of the matter--what type of document, for what purpose,

what was done with it, what was intended--a lot of various

factors that would influence the decision about how it would

be charged and hence what the penalties would be.

There is no stand-alone forgery of government documents

offense. It depends on the context of the matter.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Special Olympics Sports Empowerment Act. I am very pleased that Senator Reid has joined me in introducing this legislation to authorize $15 million for Special Olympics programs. We are also joined by 31 other cosponsors, both Republican and Democrat, conservative, moderate, and liberal, demonstrating the wide range of support for this legislation.

According to the World Health Organization, there are 170 million individuals with mental retardation worldwide. Up to 7 million of these individuals live in the United States. Unfortunately, these individuals tend to have much shorter lives--by 10-20 years--in most countries. In developed countries, there is still significant preventable morbidity, pain and suffering. This population is also generally underemployed, stigmatized and many experience violence or abuse at some point in their lives.

Thirty-six years ago, Mrs. Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who had already been working for years with individuals with intellectual disabilities, founded Special Olympics. In July 1968, Special Olympics held its first games in Chicago, hosting 1,000 athletes. Over the years, Special Olympics has continued to serve many individuals with intellectual disabilities around the world by providing year-round sports training and competitive opportunities. Special Olympics now serves over 1.5 million individuals with intellectual disabilities, their families and communities.

Special Olympics recognizes the value and dignity of every life. As well as providing children and adults with intellectual disabilities with the opportunity of athletic training and competition, these programs provide participants with health screenings using the donated time of voluntary health care providers. In addition, they help to improve awareness throughout the world of the abilities and unique contributions that individuals with intellectual disabilities can make, thus helping to dispel negative stereotypes.

The Special Olympics Sports Empowerment Act will aid an organization that is already hard at work in assisting and providing affirmation to these individuals and their families. It does this by, for the first time, authorizing funding for Special Olympics over 5 years. It authorizes $15 million in fiscal year 2005, and such sums as necessary each year through fiscal year 2009. This bill recognizes the success Special Olympics has had, will ensure that their funding is more stable, and will help Special Olympics to continue to increase the number of athletes and families they serve each year.

I am pleased to be sponsoring this legislation and to have the support of so many of my colleagues. I am hopeful that the Senate and House will act to pass this legislation during the 108th Congress.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague and Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Mr. Cochran in introducing this piece of legislation to correct a continuing problem at the U.S. Department of Agriculture with funding for technical assistance for agricultural producers and landowners participating in agricultural conservation programs.

The 2002 farm bill contains a historic increase in funding for conservation programs, including for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) and the Conservation Security Program (CSP). These programs provide our nation's producers and landowners the financial and technical means to protect and enhance natural resources, including water, air, soil and wildlife habitat.

To realize the environmental benefits made possible by this large new investment in conservation, it is essential that farmers, ranchers and landowners receive professional technical assistance to help them plan, design and carry out effective and workable conservation practices in their specific operations. This technical assistance is provided by employees of USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service and, under the 2002 farm bill, private sector providers.

Because technical assistance is so crucial to the effectiveness of conservation programs, the 2002 farm bill included sufficient money for technical assistance as an integral part of the mandatory funding provided for each of the conservation programs. The legislation requires USDA to use mandatory funds to carry out the conservation programs, ``including the provision of technical assistance.''

By providing funding in this manner, Congress acted to remedy the substantial and continuing shortfalls in technical assistance for mandatory conservation programs under the 1996 farm bill--which on several occasions necessitated limited stop-gap funding in appropriations measures. These shortfalls resulted from application of a limitation on transfers from the Commodity

Credit Corporation (CCC), often referred to as ``the section 11 cap''. The only conservation program not affected by this limitation was EQIP. That is because the statutory language creating and funding EQIP specifically identified technical assistance as an integral function of the program, thereby creating a funding stream through the program funds directly and outside the limitation on Section 11 transfers from

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill I am cosponsoring with Senator Daschle. This important piece of legislation would affect the way the Farm Credit Administration, FCA, handles any possible sale of one of its member institutions. This bill would require the FCA to hold hearings in all the States affected by the sale, which is what my good colleague from South Dakota and I have been advocating since the time this proposed termination was announced. Additionally, the bill would prohibit the FCA from approving the termination plan no earlier than 6 months after the initial proposal is submitted. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation with Senator Daschle as it will give the Farm Credit System, FCS, and affected parties adequate time to discern long-term implications and consequences of the possible sale of an FCS institution.

This bill is very timely, in that Rabobank, a Dutch bank, has made a bid to purchase Farm Credit Services of America, a Farm Credit System member bank. This transaction is moving ahead at a rapid pace without any hearings in the affected region of the country which happens to include my home State of South Dakota. One of my greatest concerns about the operation of the FCS is for farmers and ranchers to have the ability to ask questions about the transaction and decide if it is in their best interest to allow the transaction to occur. We must ensure that producers will always be able to have access to affordable credit, and that they are well-informed before they are obligated to vote on the potential termination of the Farm Credit Services of America, FCSA.

The Farm Credit System has been in operation in the United States for 88 years and has been serving farmers well. The system was formed to allow farmers and ranchers easy access to credit for purchases that are fundamental to their day-to-day operations. Given the myriad of challenges producers face in our agricultural communities across America, I am greatly concerned that this acquisition would place yet another burden on our ranchers and farmers. I am fully committed to ensuring our producers have adequate access to reliable credit, and support this legislation as a means to achieve that goal. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues will support this commonsense and imperative legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill I am cosponsoring with Senator Daschle. This important piece of legislation would affect the way the Farm Credit Administration, FCA, handles any possible sale of one of its member institutions. This bill would require the FCA to hold hearings in all the States affected by the sale, which is what my good colleague from South Dakota and I have been advocating since the time this proposed termination was announced. Additionally, the bill would prohibit the FCA from approving the termination plan no earlier than 6 months after the initial proposal is submitted. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation with Senator Daschle as it will give the Farm Credit System, FCS, and affected parties adequate time to discern long-term implications and consequences of the possible sale of an FCS institution.

This bill is very timely, in that Rabobank, a Dutch bank, has made a bid to purchase Farm Credit Services of America, a Farm Credit System member bank. This transaction is moving ahead at a rapid pace without any hearings in the affected region of the country which happens to include my home State of South Dakota. One of my greatest concerns about the operation of the FCS is for farmers and ranchers to have the ability to ask questions about the transaction and decide if it is in their best interest to allow the transaction to occur. We must ensure that producers will always be able to have access to affordable credit, and that they are well-informed before they are obligated to vote on the potential termination of the Farm Credit Services of America, FCSA.

The Farm Credit System has been in operation in the United States for 88 years and has been serving farmers well. The system was formed to allow farmers and ranchers easy access to credit for purchases that are fundamental to their day-to-day operations. Given the myriad of challenges producers face in our agricultural communities across America, I am greatly concerned that this acquisition would place yet another burden on our ranchers and farmers. I am fully committed to ensuring our producers have adequate access to reliable credit, and support this legislation as a means to achieve that goal. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues will support this commonsense and imperative legislation.