A bill to address emergency shortages in food banks.

Mr. President, today, I want to say a few words about the bill I am introducing, the Wrongful Convictions Tax Relief Act of 2007. My bill would provide much-needed assistance to individuals who have been wrongfully convicted of a crime and subsequently exonerated by clarifiying that State compensation awards are tax-free; and stating that exonerees shall have their first $50,000 of earnings free of federal income and payroll taxes for each year that they were wrongfully imprisoned. The second benefit would only apply to those who have never been convicted of a felony for which they were not exonerated. If they had a conviction prior to their wrongful conviction, they would not be eligible. If they are subsequently convicted, they would lose their eligibility as well.

I want to thank Senator Brownback for offering to be the lead Republican cosponsor of my bill. He and I have worked together on a number of issues now, and I appreciate his willingness to support this legislation.

As my colleagues are surely aware, whatever their political leanings may be, this bill addresses an incredibly timely and important issue. Just 2 days ago, a Federal prosecutor in Jacksonville, Florida dismissed a murder case against a Florida man, based on DNA evidence, exonerating him in a 1994 murder. According to the Innocence Project, this man represents the 209th person nationwide exonerated by DNA testing.

More and more innocent people are regaining their freedom through post-conviction DNA testing. No matter what your view may be of the death penalty; no matter what your view may be of mandatory sentencing laws; no matter how ``tough on crime'' you want to be--surely everyone would agree that when innocent people spend time in prison for crimes that they did not commit, something of value has been taken from them.

In this country, everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Yet for those wrongfully convicted of a crime, our legal system has failed them. Some of the common causes of wrongful convictions include eyewitness misidentification, unreliable or limited evidence tests, and false information presented by informants. Even more sobering, more than a quarter of all prisoners exonerated by DNA evidence had falsely confessed or made incriminating statements, simply to end hours of aggressive interrogation.

Thankfully, advocacy groups such as the Innocence Project and the Justice Project have taken on the challenge of addressing what can only be described as a systemic problem. The Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law in New York City has been a tireless leader in overturning wrongful convictions, and has led the charge in using DNA evidence to prove, once and for all, a person's innocence. With new improvements in DNA testing and technology, we can now positively identify or rule out suspects based on DNA evidence left at the scene of a crime. In most wrongful conviction cases, new testing of DNA evidence taken from the crime scene years before points to another perpetrator.

Once released, exonerees face huge and sometimes insurmountable challenges. Multiple studies have shown that upon release, these individuals often have difficulty reentering society. They have lost the prime years of their life, serving time in prison for crimes they did not commit. The vast majority of exonerated individuals entered prison in their teens or 20s, and they stayed there while some of their peers on the outside settled on careers, married, started families, bought homes, and began saving for retirement. They have emerged from prison many years behind, and it is difficult to catch up. Think about how much the economy has changed in just the last 10 years, and think about how difficult it would be to adjust if you had spent that time behind bars.

Shockingly, despite being imprisoned for an average of 12 years, exonerees typically leave prison with less help pre-release counseling, job training, substance-abuse treatment, housing assistance and other services than some states offer to paroled prisoners. Even the basic tasks that seem so unremarkable to you and I, like going to the grocery store, paying bills, and getting to and from work, are huge tasks for someone who has spent so much time in prison. In fact, in some cases, people have lost jobs once their employers find out about their past

conviction, despite the fact that they have been exonerated of the crime. I know that sounds unbelievable, but it's true. You didn't commit the crime, it is proven that you didn't commit the crime, but you still lose your job. Imagine for just a moment if this happened to one of your friends or family members. You would be outraged. The unfairness is heartbreaking.

Certainly we can all agree that these individuals deserve and need support after their release, and lawmakers on both the state and federal level have begun to address the question of compensation for wrongfully convicted individuals. In 2004, Congress passed the Justice for All Act, which I am proud to have cosponsored. This bill, among other things, raised the cap for potential federal compensation awards for wrongful convictions to $100,000. Although the federal compensation has not been claimed, this landmark piece of legislation set a precedent for state compensation laws. As of now, 22 States have followed suit and passed compensation laws as well. But the system is a patchwork. Some States, such as Maine and New York, provide exonerees with a lump sum as the court sees fit, and cap these awards at specific levels. Other States, such as California and Texas, give compensation based on time spent in jail. Only a few States, such as Louisiana, offer compensation to cover costs such as vocational training, medical bills and counseling, to aid re-entry.

We can and should do more. Of all people known by the Innocence Project to have been exonerated through DNA evidence as of August 2007, at least 79--nearly 40 percent--didn't receive a dime to compensate them for their years in prison. Even when someone is awarded compensation, they can wait in limbo for years. More than half of those who did receive compensation waited two years or longer after exoneration for the first payment, forcing them to rely on family, friends, lawyers, and even strangers for shelter, clothing, food and emotional support immediately after their release.

The Federal Government cannot and should not offer cash compensation for those who have been wrongfully convicted by state courts, but we do have the power to address how compensation awards are taxed, and how these individuals are taxed once they try to rebuild their lives. We can help even the playing field across all States by changing the law to ensure that there are some benefits that will be consistent across all 50 States. My bill changes the law in a number of ways to ensure that there are some benefits available to everyone, regardless of which State they call home.

The first change in my bill is more of a clarification than a new tax benefit. If an exoneree does receive a state compensation award, the Federal tax laws are unclear as to whether these awards are taxable. According to the Innocence Project, the Internal Revenue Service has not yet made any attempts to tax these awards, but the concern remains that the IRS could make such a claim in the future. My bill specifically clarifies that any civil damages, restitution, or other monetary awards related to the wrongful imprisonment are excluded from taxable income.

The second change in my bill will help provide much-needed economic assistance to exonerees that are trying to rebuild their lives, but finding it hard to make ends meet. My bill says that, for every year that someone was wrongfully imprisoned and then exonerated, up to 15 years, the first $50,000 they earn each year after their release will be free of Federal income and payroll taxes. For married couples filing jointly, the tax-free amount would be $75,000 per year. Again, the benefit would only apply to those who have never been convicted of a felony. If they had a conviction prior to their wrongful conviction, they would not be eligible. If they are subsequently convicted, they would lose their eligibility as well.

In terms of real dollars, let us take the example of someone earning $20,000 post-imprisonment. In a typical tax filing scenario, my bill will save them nearly $2,800 in income and payroll taxes. This is a real benefit that can make wages go just that much farther--it can pay for a few months' rent, or a community college course, or any number of things that can help this victim return to a productive life.

As my colleagues know, I feel very strongly about justice and fairness. I am not one to shy away from making tough decisions to strengthen our laws, but I also believe that when someone has been treated unfairly by the law, it is our responsibility to provide some help. I sincerely believe that people who have been wrongfully convicted of a crime have had parts of their lives taken from them, plain and simple.

Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the issue of fair compensation for wrongful convictions. I stand ready to work with Senator Brownback and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, to get this bill enacted next year.

Mr. President, today, I have joined with Senator Cornyn to reintroduce the ``Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act--or the OPEN Government Act--the first major reform to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, in more than a decade. The Senate passed this historic FOIA reform legislation, S. 849, before adjourning for the August recess. But, sadly, this measure has been stalled in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for several months, preventing these long-overdue FOIA reforms from being enacted into law.

Despite the unfortunate delay of this bill, I remain deeply committed to enacting FOIA reform legislation this year. Because time is of the essence, I am requesting that this legislation be immediately placed on the Senate Calendar and that the Senate promptly take up and pass this bill by unanimous consent, so that it can be sent to the House.

The version of the bill introduced today includes ``pay/go'' language that has been requested by the House and eliminates the provision on citations to FOIA exemptions. After needlessly delaying the enactment of this bill for several months, I hope that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will promptly take up this important measure, so that the House can enact this legislation and send it to the President before the end of the year.

As the first major reform to FOIA in more than a decade, the OPEN Government Act will help to reverse the troubling trends of excessive delays and lax FOIA compliance in our government and help to restore the public's trust in their government. This bill will also improve transparency in the Federal Government's FOIA process by: restoring meaningful deadlines for agency action under FOIA; imposing real consequences on federal agencies for missing FOIA's 20-day statutory deadline; clarifying that FOIA applies to Government records held by outside private contractors; establishing a FOIA hotline service for all Federal agencies; and creating a FOIA Ombudsman to provide FOIA requesters and Federal agencies with a meaningful alternative to costly litigation.

Specifically, the OPEN Government Act will protect the public's right to know, by ensuring that anyone who gathers information to inform the public, including freelance journalists and bloggers, may seek a fee waiver when they request information under FOIA. The bill ensures that Federal agencies will not automatically exclude Internet blogs and other Web-based forms of media when deciding whether to waive FOIA fees. In addition, the bill also clarifies that the definition of news media, for purposes of FOIA fee waivers, includes free newspapers and individuals performing a media function who do not necessarily have a prior history of publication.

The bill also restores meaningful deadlines for agency action, by ensuring that the 20-day statutory clock under FOIA starts when a request is received by the appropriate component of the agency and requiring that agency FOIA offices get FOIA requests to the appropriate agency component within 10 days of the receipt of such requests. The bill allows Federal agencies to toll the 20-day clock while they are awaiting a response to a reasonable request for information from a FOIA requester on one occasion, or while the agency is awaiting clarification regarding a FOIA fee assessment. In addition, to encourage agencies to meet the 20-day time limit, the bill requires that an agency refund FOIA search fees if it fails to meet the 20-day deadline, except in the case of exceptional circumstances as defined by the FOIA statute. To address pay/go concerns, the bill requires that these refunds come from annual agency appropriations.

The bill also addresses a relatively new concern that, under current law, Federal agencies have an incentive to delay compliance with FOIA requests until just before a court decision is made that is favorable to a FOIA requester. The Supreme Court's decision in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 2001, eliminated the ``catalyst theory'' for attorneys' fees recovery under certain Federal civil rights laws. When applied to FOIA cases, Buckhannon precludes FOIA requesters from ever being eligible to recover attorneys' fees under circumstances where an agency provides the records requested in the litigation just prior to a court decision that would have been favorable to the FOIA requestor. The bill clarifies that Buckhannon does not apply to FOIA cases. Under the bill, a FOIA requester can obtain attorneys' fees when he or she files a lawsuit to obtain records from the Government and the Government releases those records before the court orders them to do so. But this provision would not allow the requester to recover attorneys' fees if the requester's claim is wholly insubstantial. To address pay/go concerns, the bill also requires that any attorneys' fees assessed under this provision be paid from annually appropriated agency funds.

To address concerns about the growing costs of FOIA litigation, the bill also creates an Office of Government Information Services in the National Archives and creates an ombudsman to mediate agency-level FOIA disputes. In addition the bill ensures that each Federal agency will appoint a Chief FOIA Officer, who will monitor the agency's compliance with FOIA requests, and a FOIA Public Liaison who will be available to resolve FOIA-related disputes.

Finally, the bill does several things to enhance the agency reporting and tracking requirements under FOIA. Tracking numbers are not required for FOIA requests that are anticipated to take 10 days or less to process. The bill creates a tracking system for FOIA requests to assist members of the public and the media. The bill also establishes a FOIA hotline service for all federal agencies, either by telephone or on the Internet, to enable requestors to track the status of their FOIA requests. The bill also clarifies that FOIA applies to agency records that are held by outside private contractors, no matter where these records are located.

The Freedom of Information Act is critical to ensuring that all American citizens can access information about the workings of their government. But, after four decades, this open government law needs to be strengthened. I am pleased that the reforms contained in the OPEN Government Act will ensure that FOIA is reinvigorated so that it works more effectively for the American people.

I commend the bill's chief Republican cosponsor, Senator John Cornyn, for his commitment and dedication to passing FOIA reform legislation this year. I also thank the many cosponsors of this legislation for their dedication to open government and I thank the Majority Leader for his strong support of this legislation. I am also appreciative of the efforts of Senator Kyl in helping us to reach a compromise on this legislation, so that the Senate could consider and pass meaningful FOIA reform legislation.

But, most importantly, I especially want to thank the many concerned citizens who, knowing the importance of this measure to the American people's right to know, have demanded action on this bill. This bill is endorsed by more than 115 business, public interest, and news organizations from across the political and ideological spectrum, including the American Library Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, OpenTheGovernment.org, Public Citizen, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Sunshine in Government Initiative and the Vermont Press Association. The invaluable support of these and many other organizations is what led the opponents of this bill to come around and support this legislation.

I hope that by once again passing this important FOIA reform legislation, the Senate will reaffirm the principle that open government is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. But, rather, it is an American issue and an American value. I encourage all of my Senate colleagues, on

both sides of the aisle, to unanimously pass this historic bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Emission Allowance Market Transparency Act.''

This legislation would establish necessary market oversight authorities to prevent Enron-type fraud and manipulation in the new greenhouse gas credit markets that are expected to emerge once Congress approves comprehensive climate change legislation.

The goal is simple: To prevent the same type of fraud and manipulation that occurred during the Western Energy Crisis from happening if a new greenhouse market is established.

The bill would establish transparency and anti-manipulation provisions modeled after energy markets protections that were established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Additionally, the legislation includes anti-fraud provisions and limits excessive speculation. The bill would establish strong financial penalties. Each offense would result in a fine of up to $1 million and 10 years in jail.

Simply put, this legislation is a necessary and critical part of any new carbon trading markets approved by Congress.

Specifically, the legislation would require the Environmental Protection Agency to create a regulatory structure to oversee the new carbon credit markets.

This system would be parallel to the system used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee FERC for the electricity and natural gas markets.

The EPA would publish market price data in order to increase transparency; monitor trading for manipulation and fraud; and limit the size of speculative holdings to prevent any single trader from being able to set the price.

The bill would also prohibit traders from: reporting false information; manipulating the market; and cheating or defrauding another market participant.

Any trader who violated this Act would pay a maximum $1 million fine and spend 10 years in jail for each offense.

We believe that this will strongly discourage traders from seeking to manipulate the market.

This legislation is the key part of an effort to prevent newly emerging greenhouse gas markets from evolving without rules or regulation. These markets are coming, and we need to have the law in place to receive them.

California has passed legislation and will soon establish a cap and trade system to control carbon dioxide emissions.

Many members of the U.S. Senate support legislation, such as the Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act that I have introduced, to establish a Federal cap and trade system.

Legislation sponsored by Senators Warner and Lieberman to establish a national, economy-wide greenhouse gas cap and trade system will be marked up in the Environment and Public Works Committee this week.

If we don't set up a framework for oversight, the greenhouse gas market could turn into a wild west. The market--estimated to be worth as much as $300 billion annually--would invite the worst kind of manipulation, fraud, and abuse. The resulting volatility would affect consumer energy costs.

This is not a hypothetical. In 2000 and 2001, newly created California energy markets lacked the basic protections in this bill. The electricity and related natural gas markets emerged

before the law caught up, and much of the manipulation that resulted, shockingly, was legal.

Enron, for instance, ran a market where only they knew the prices. Without market transparency laws, this one-sided market was legal.

Enron manipulated natural gas and electricity prices--but nothing in the Natural Gas Act or the Federal Power Act made this manipulation unlawful.

Only years later, after millions of consumers had been harmed, after billions of dollars had been lost, and after the entire west had endured an energy crisis largely fabricated by traders, did Congress act.

We were able to increase market transparency and prohibiting manipulation in natural gas and electricity markets were adopted.

The provisions finally gave a sheriff the ability to impose oversight and record-keeping.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has put its new authority to good use. It has performed aggressive natural gas market oversight.

This summer it brought its first manipulation case, against Amaranth--a notorious hedge fund that allegedly manipulated natural gas prices month after month.

The Emission Allowance Market Transparency Act would establish transparency and anti-manipulation provisions mirroring the provisions from the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Markets would be transparent, and manipulation would be illegal.

In addition, this legislation adds anti-fraud provisions and limits excessive speculation. These additional market protections are longstanding principles of the Commodity Exchange Act.

By mirroring proven market oversight mechanisms that protect market participants and consumers, this legislation would slip already broken- in regulatory concepts onto a new market.

This Nation needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and many economists believe that a cap and trade system with a greenhouse gas market would be the most cost efficient way to guarantee emissions reductions.

The economists also tell us that markets are most efficient when buyers and sellers have complete information, no market participant can cheat another, and prices result from supply and demand, not manipulation.

That is why we need to prevent manipulation, fraud, and a lack of transparency.

So this legislation would provide buyers and sellers with complete information; and prevent manipulation, fraud, and excessive speculation.

Bottom line: this legislation is vital to protecting the market integrity of greenhouse gas emissions markets, and it should be included as part of any cap and trade legislation approved by Congress.

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

Mr. President, I will yield myself such time as I might consume.

I am obviously very pleased that the Senate has finally come to the point of voting on something in 2007 to take care of the alternative minimum tax problem. I would rather have gone through this process several months ago but better late than never.

Over the course of this year, I have given 12 Senate floor speeches analyzing the alternative minimum tax and describing the problem it poses for middle-class taxpayers, and I have done that in great detail. As I said so many times--before, hoping, and now I am glad to say the Senate Democratic leadership seems to realize--the AMT should not be offset.

I also wish to thank my good friend, Chairman Baucus, for all of his hard work this year and for several years to protect middle-income taxpayers from the AMT. Chairman Baucus did our country a great service by pushing for this compromise that can garner, we hope, the support of Democrats and Republicans. Although we did not mark up in committee, Chairman Baucus rolled up his sleeves and got to work to find a middle ground. That middle ground is before us. He has consistently avoided bitter partisanship and always worked to do the right thing.

Tonight, I ask my friends in the House Democratic leadership, assuming we get the votes to pass this product before us, to follow the example of Chairman Baucus and the Senate Democratic leadership and finish this job to give the assurance that is necessary to these 23 million taxpayers that they are not going to be hit by a tax they were never expected to pay in the first place.

Everyone has thus far made partisan points. That episode must cease. Those obsessed with their tax-increase-biased version of pay-go must turn now to the people's business. Those who want to raise more taxes to pay for a tax that was never meant to raise revenue from the middle class have made their points. The record is clear. My friends in the House Democratic leadership need to cease punishing the 23 million middle-income taxpayers with a pay-go obsession.

I say to my friends in the House Democratic leadership, we can talk until we are blue in the face. The bottom line is we need to change the tax laws with respect to AMT. That law change needs congressional action and Presidential signature. Anything else is just plain talk.

Last night, I suggested a path to get all parties to an agreement on changing the law on the AMT patch. By ``all parties,'' I am referring to House Democrats, House Republicans, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, and I have to include the President because without an agreement we will not get a law, and a law has to be signed. Without a law change, 23 million families face an unexpected tax increase that we think will be about $2,000 per family. Without a rapid law change, we make things even worse during filing season. We are going to have a fiasco of another 27 million families and individual taxpayers hurt, waiting for a refund.

I reiterate my suggestion tonight. It is in a letter from Chairman Rangel, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member McCrery, and myself. That letter, dated October 31 this year, contains the tests that ought to be applied to any proposal in substance or process on the AMT patch legislation. Here is one sentence, ``We''--the four of us:

We plan to do everything possible to enact AMT relief

legislation in a form mutually agreeable to the Congress and

the President before the end of the year.

Chairman Baucus and the Senate Democratic leadership are trying to meet this test with this agreement which is before us now. Now the Democratic leadership in the House needs to follow through. We Senators hopefully will pass this package that is agreeable to the President and the House. What do we all agree on? We agree the patch needs to get done, so that is the base of what will pass the Senate, we hope. If House Democrats continue to insist on offsets for a patch--we hope that doesn't happen.

The President and congressional Republicans disagree with the Democrats on the need for offsets. Offsets for the patch are not mutually agreeable, as the letter we sent implies. They fail the tax writer's test. On extenders, the House wants 1 year, the Senate wants 2 years. President Bush had 1 year in his budget. Maybe 2 years might be mutually agreeable. On this point, offsets are not mutually agreeable. But it looks as if we will defer on next year's extenders.

On this year's AMT patch, we need to make law. To make law, the proposals must be mutually agreeable. The only proposal that is mutually agreeable is an unoffset AMT patch. Let's get to the law change and end the AMT patch dilemma.

I urge the House Democratic leadership to pass the AMT patch bill and send it to the President. It is in a form the President will sign. We must change the law now. We owe it to the 23 million families who could be hit by the AMT. We owe it to the additional 27 million families and individuals who face delayed refunds.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

I yield back our time.

Mr. President, the American workplace has changed significantly in recent years. In the new global economy, many businesses are open around the clock--and employees often work long shifts and unpredictable hours. With computers and cell phones, employers can reach employees almost any time, anywhere. Hard economic times require many men and women to work longer hours or hold multiple jobs. Almost 8 million Americans now juggle the demands of at least two jobs, and tens of millions more find it increasingly difficult to achieve a fair balance between their work and their family.

These and other shifts in our society mean that many Americans and their

families are stretched to the limit. Two-thirds of all families in our country are headed by either two employed parents or a single working parent, and parents are working outside the home longer hours than ever--an average of 91 hours a week for dual income couples.

As the population ages, more and more Americans must also care for elderly parents and relatives. An aging population also means more older workers, who want to stay on the job, but don't want or can't manage long hours any more. Expanding populations in metropolitan areas mean longer commutes. A recent Gallup poll found that about a third of American workers spend an hour or more a day getting to and from work.

Our working families deserve a 21st century answer for these 21st century job challenges. Greater flexibility is an essential part of the response. More than 80 percent of workers would like more flexibility in their jobs. Almost half of them, however, worry that asking for such flexibility will jeopardize their careers.

The Working Families Flexibility Act I am introducing today will give employees the ability to ask for flexible arrangements without fear. Flexible scheduling will enable working parents to coordinate child care more effectively and spend more time with their children. It can even help workers be better parents. Studies show that parents with greater control over their schedules spend more time with their children.

For employees with long commutes, telecommuting reduces stress and time wasted time wasted on the road. Many workers say they are just as productive at home, and sometimes even more so.

Flexibility also lets more people stay in the workforce who otherwise could not. Often coming into the office for a traditional 8 hour day, five days a week isn't possible for elderly workers or persons with disabilities. With flexible scheduling and telecommuting, these workers can continue on the job.

Flexibility is also good for business. Persons with flexible work arrangements are more reliable employees. In a recent survey, two- thirds of workers with flexible schedules missed less work because of such arrangements.

They are also happier employees. Another study showed that almost three times as many workers in companies that offer flexibility felt satisfied with their jobs, compared to workers without such options. Companies that offer flexibility also discover that it helps them attract and retain better employees.

The Working Families Flexibility Act brings workers and employers together to find creative ways to provide such flexibilities. Our legislation allows those who know their jobs best--the ones actually doing the work--to suggest changes as to when and where they do their work. It creates a process for workers and employers to come up with solutions that best fit their particular circumstances.

We know that laws like this will benefit both employers and employees. Great Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands, have adopted similar laws with great success. 90 percent of British workers now have flexible work options, compare to only about a quarter of American workers. Last year 91 percent of British employers who had employee requests for flexibility were able to grant them. It is making the workers more satisfied with their jobs. Those who took advantage of flexibility were 50 percent more satisfied with their work arrangements than workers who did not.

We all fill many roles in our lives. We are workers, parents, sons and daughters, and members of our communities. We struggle to do well in each responsibility. But when the demands of work overshadow the rest of our lives, our lives feel out of balance. This legislation gives millions of American workers the opportunity to restore that balance--to be good employees and responsible citizens and family members, too. They deserve no less.