[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 186 (Thursday, December 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14849-S14856]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. 
        Obama):
  S. 2419. A bill to permit employees to request, and to ensure 
employers consider requests for, flexible work terms and conditions, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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

[[Page S14850]]

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.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 2421. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax benefits to individuals who have been wrongfully incarcerated; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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

[[Page S14851]]

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.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2423. A bill to facilitate price transparency in markets for the 
sale of emission allowances, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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

[[Page S14852]]

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.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2423

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Emission Allowance Market 
     Transparency Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. EMISSION ALLOWANCE MARKET TRANSPARENCY.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to facilitate 
     price transparency in markets for the sale of emission 
     allowances (including markets for real-time, forward, 
     futures, and options) to the maximum extent practicable, 
     taking into consideration--
       (1) the public interest;
       (2) the integrity of those markets;
       (3) fair competition; and
       (4) protection of consumers.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Emission allowance.--The term ``emission allowance'' 
     means any allowance, credit, or other permit issued pursuant 
     to any Federal law (including regulations) to any individual 
     or entity for use in offsetting the emissions of any 
     pollutant (including any greenhouse gas) by the individual or 
     entity.
       (c) Duties of Administrator.--
       (1) Regulations.--The Administrator shall promulgate such 
     regulations as the Administrator determines to be necessary 
     to achieve the purpose of this section, including regulations 
     that provide for the dissemination, on a timely basis, of 
     information regarding the availability and prices of emission 
     allowances with respect to--
       (A) the Administrator;
       (B) State regulatory authorities;
       (C) buyers and sellers of the emission allowances; and
       (D) the public.
       (2) Obtaining information.
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Administrator may--
       (i) obtain the information described in paragraph (1) 
     directly from any emission allowance market participant; or
       (ii) enter into an agreement under which another entity 
     obtains and makes public that information.
       (B) Limitation.--Any activity carried out by the 
     Administrator or another entity to obtain information 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be subject to applicable 
     rules designed to prevent the disclosure of information the 
     disclosure of which would be detrimental to the operation of 
     an effective emission allowance market, as determined by the 
     Administrator.
       (3) Use of existing price publishers and service 
     providers.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Administrator shall--
       (A) take into consideration the degree of relevant price 
     transparency provided by price publishers and providers of 
     trade processing services in operation on the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (B) use information and services provided by those 
     publishers and providers to the maximum extent practicable.
       (d) Actions by Individuals and Entities.--
       (1) Prohibitions.--It shall be unlawful for any individual 
     or entity--
       (A) to knowingly provide to the Administrator (or another 
     entity acting pursuant to an agreement described in 
     subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii)) any false information relating to 
     the price or quantity of emission allowances sold, purchased, 
     transferred, banked, or borrowed by the individual or entity, 
     with the intent to fraudulently affect the data being 
     compiled by the Administrator or other entity;
       (B) directly or indirectly, to use in connection with the 
     purchase or sale of an emission allowance any manipulative or 
     deceptive device or contrivance (within the meaning of 
     section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 
     U.S.C. 78j(b))), in contravention of such rules and 
     regulations as the Administrator may prescribe to protect the 
     public interest or consumers; or
       (C) to cheat or defraud, or attempt to cheat or defraud, 
     another market participant, client, or customer.
       (2) Monitoring.--The Administrator shall monitor trading to 
     prevent false reporting, manipulation, and fraud under this 
     section.
       (3) Effect of subsection.--Nothing in this subsection 
     creates any private right of action.
       (e) Excessive Speculation.--
       (1) Finding.--Congress finds that excessive speculation 
     relating to emission allowances--
       (A) can cause sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or 
     unwarranted changes in the price of emission allowances; and
       (B) imposes an unnecessary burden on--
       (i) the development of a well-functioning emission 
     allowance market;
       (ii) the planning decisions of businesses and industry; and
       (iii) consumers.
       (2) Prevention of burdens.--
       (A) In general.--To prevent, decrease, or eliminate the 
     burdens associated with excessive speculation relating to 
     emission allowances, the Administrator, in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B) and after providing notice and an 
     opportunity for public comment, shall adopt position 
     limitations or position accountability for speculators as the 
     Administrator determines to be necessary on--
       (i) the quantity of trading transactions allowed to be 
     conducted, and the positions eligible to be held, by any 
     individual or entity in any emission allowance market; and
       (ii) any emission allowance auction conducted pursuant to 
     Federal law (including regulations).
       (B) Consultation.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the 
     Administrator shall consult with--
       (i) the Commodity Futures Trading Commission;
       (ii) the Federal Trade Commission; and
       (iii) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
       (C) Nonapplicability to bona fide hedging transactions or 
     positions.--
       (i) In general.--No regulation promulgated pursuant to this 
     paragraph shall apply to a transaction or position described 
     in subparagraph (A)(i) that is a bona fide hedging 
     transaction or position, as determined by the Administrator.
       (ii) Regulations for definitions.--The Administrator shall 
     promulgate such regulations as the Administrator determines 
     to be necessary to define the term ``bona fide hedging 
     transaction or position'' for purposes of clause (i), 
     including regulations that permit individuals or entities to 
     hedge any legitimate anticipated business need for any 
     subsequent period during which an appropriate futures 
     contract is open and available on an exchange or other 
     emission allowance market or auction.
       (f) Penalties.--An individual or entity that, as determined 
     by the Administrator, violates an applicable provision of 
     this section or a regulation promulgated pursuant to this 
     section shall be subject to a fine of $1,000,000, or 
     imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for each 
     violation.
       (g) Jurisdiction of Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--
     Nothing in this section abrogates the jurisdiction of the 
     Commodity Futures Trading Commission with

[[Page S14853]]

     respect to any contract, agreement, or transaction for future 
     delivery of an emission allowance (including a carbon dioxide 
     credit).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 2427. A bill to promote accessibility, accountability, and 
openness in Government by strengthening section 552 of title 5, United 
States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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

[[Page S14854]]

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.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2427

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Openness Promotes 
     Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007'' or the 
     ``OPEN Government Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Freedom of Information Act was signed into law on 
     July 4, 1966, because the American people believe that--
       (A) our constitutional democracy, our system of self-
     government, and our commitment to popular sovereignty depends 
     upon the consent of the governed;
       (B) such consent is not meaningful unless it is informed 
     consent; and
       (C) as Justice Black noted in his concurring opinion in 
     Barr v. Matteo (360 U.S. 564 (1959)), ``The effective 
     functioning of a free government like ours depends largely on 
     the force of an informed public opinion. This calls for the 
     widest possible understanding of the quality of government 
     service rendered by all elective or appointed public 
     officials or employees.'';
       (2) the American people firmly believe that our system of 
     government must itself be governed by a presumption of 
     openness;
       (3) the Freedom of Information Act establishes a ``strong 
     presumption in favor of disclosure'' as noted by the United 
     States Supreme Court in United States Department of State v. 
     Ray (502 U.S. 164 (1991)), a presumption that applies to all 
     agencies governed by that Act;
       (4) ``disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of 
     the Act,'' as noted by the United States Supreme Court in 
     Department of Air Force v. Rose (425 U.S. 352 (1976));
       (5) in practice, the Freedom of Information Act has not 
     always lived up to the ideals of that Act; and
       (6) Congress should regularly review section 552 of title 
     5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of 
     Information Act), in order to determine whether further 
     changes and improvements are necessary to ensure that the 
     Government remains open and accessible to the American people 
     and is always based not upon the ``need to know'' but upon 
     the fundamental ``right to know''.

     SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF FEE STATUS FOR NEWS MEDIA.

       Section 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``The term `a representative of the news media' means any 
     person or entity that gathers information of potential 
     interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial 
     skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and 
     distributes that work to an audience. The term `news' means 
     information that is about current events or that would be of 
     current interest to the public. Examples of news-media 
     entities are television or radio stations broadcasting to the 
     public at large and publishers of periodicals (but only if 
     such entities qualify as disseminators of `news') who make 
     their products available for purchase by or subscription by 
     or free distribution to the general public. These examples 
     are not all-inclusive. Moreover, as methods of news delivery 
     evolve (for example, the adoption of the electronic 
     dissemination of newspapers through telecommunications 
     services), such alternative media shall be considered to be 
     news-media entities. A freelance journalist shall be regarded 
     as working for a news-media entity if the journalist can 
     demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through 
     that entity, whether or not the journalist is actually 
     employed by the entity. A publication contract would present 
     a solid basis for such an expectation; the Government may 
     also consider the past publication record of the requester in 
     making such a determination.''.

     SEC. 4. RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 552(a)(4)(E) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(E)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) For purposes of this section, a complainant has 
     substantially prevailed if the complainant has obtained 
     relief through either--
       ``(I) a judicial order, or an enforceable written agreement 
     or consent decree; or
       ``(II) a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the 
     agency, provided that the complainant's claim is not 
     insubstantial.''.
       (b) Limitation.--Notwithstanding section 1304 of title 31, 
     United States Code, no amounts may be obligated or expended 
     from the Claims and Judgment Fund of the United States 
     Treasury to pay the costs resulting from fees assessed under 
     section 552(a)(4)(E) of title 5, United States Code. Any such 
     amounts shall be paid only from funds annually appropriated 
     for the Federal agency against which a claim or judgment has 
     been rendered.

     SEC. 5. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS FOR ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS 
                   REJECTIONS OF REQUESTS.

       Section 552(a)(4)(F) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(F)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) The Attorney General shall--
       ``(I) notify the Special Counsel of each civil action 
     described under the first sentence of clause (i); and
       ``(II) annually submit a report to Congress on the number 
     of such civil actions in the preceding year.
       ``(iii) The Special Counsel shall annually submit a report 
     to Congress on the actions taken by the Special Counsel under 
     clause (i).''.

     SEC. 6. TIME LIMITS FOR AGENCIES TO ACT ON REQUESTS.

       (a) Time Limits.--
       (1) In general.--Section 552(a)(6)(A)(i) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``determination;'' and 
     inserting ``determination. The 20-day period shall commence 
     on the date on which the request is first received by the 
     appropriate component of the agency, but in any event no 
     later than ten days after the request is first received by 
     any component of the agency that is designated in the 
     agency's FOIA regulations to receive FOIA requests. The 20-
     day period shall not be tolled by the agency except--
       ``(I) that the agency may make one request to the requester 
     for information and toll the 20-day period while it is 
     awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested 
     from the FOIA requester; or
       ``(II) if necessary to clarify with the requester issues 
     regarding fee assessment. In either case, the agency's 
     receipt of the requester's response to the agency's request 
     for information or clarification ends the tolling period;''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) Compliance With Time Limits.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Search fees.--Section 552(a)(4)(A) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(viii) an agency shall refund search fees under this 
     subparagraph if the agency fails to comply with any time 
     limit under paragraph (6), provided that--

       ``(I) no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those 
     terms are defined for purposes of paragraphs (6)(B) and (C), 
     respectively) apply to the processing of the request; and
       ``(II) such refunds shall be paid from annual 
     appropriations provided to that agency.''.

       (B) Public liaison.--Section 552(a)(6)(B)(ii) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting between the first 
     and second sentences the following: ``To aid the requester, 
     each agency shall make available its FOIA Public Liaison, who 
     shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the 
     requester and the agency.''.
       (2) Effective date and application.--The amendment made by 
     this subsection shall take effect 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and apply to requests for information 
     under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, filed on or 
     after that effective date.

     SEC. 7. INDIVIDUALIZED TRACKING NUMBERS FOR REQUESTS AND 
                   STATUS INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 552(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Each agency shall--
       ``(A) establish a system to assign an individualized 
     tracking number for each request received that will take 
     longer than ten days to process and provide to each person 
     making a request the tracking number assigned to the request; 
     and
       ``(B) establish a telephone line or Internet service that 
     provides information about the status of a request to the 
     person making the request using the assigned tracking number, 
     including--
       ``(i) the date on which the agency originally received the 
     request; and
       ``(ii) an estimated date on which the agency will complete 
     action on the request.''.
       (b) Effective Date and Application.--The amendment made by 
     this section shall take effect 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and apply to requests for information 
     under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, filed on or 
     after that effective date.

     SEC. 8. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 552(e)(1) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by inserting after the first 
     comma ``the number of occasions on which each statute was 
     relied upon,'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``and average'' after 
     ``median'';
       (3) in subparagraph (E), by inserting before the semicolon 
     ``, based on the date on which the requests were received by 
     the agency'';
       (4) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) and (G) as 
     subparagraphs (N) and (O), respectively; and
       (5) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) the average number of days for the agency to respond 
     to a request beginning on the date on which the request was 
     received by the agency, the median number of days for the 
     agency to respond to such requests, and the range in number 
     of days for the agency to respond to such requests;
       ``(G) based on the number of business days that have 
     elapsed since each request was originally received by the 
     agency--

[[Page S14855]]

       ``(i) the number of requests for records to which the 
     agency has responded with a determination within a period up 
     to and including 20 days, and in 20-day increments up to and 
     including 200 days;
       ``(ii) the number of requests for records to which the 
     agency has responded with a determination within a period 
     greater than 200 days and less than 301 days;
       ``(iii) the number of requests for records to which the 
     agency has responded with a determination within a period 
     greater than 300 days and less than 401 days; and
       ``(iv) the number of requests for records to which the 
     agency has responded with a determination within a period 
     greater than 400 days;
       ``(H) the average number of days for the agency to provide 
     the granted information beginning on the date on which the 
     request was originally filed, the median number of days for 
     the agency to provide the granted information, and the range 
     in number of days for the agency to provide the granted 
     information;
       ``(I) the median and average number of days for the agency 
     to respond to administrative appeals based on the date on 
     which the appeals originally were received by the agency, the 
     highest number of business days taken by the agency to 
     respond to an administrative appeal, and the lowest number of 
     business days taken by the agency to respond to an 
     administrative appeal;
       ``(J) data on the 10 active requests with the earliest 
     filing dates pending at each agency, including the amount of 
     time that has elapsed since each request was originally 
     received by the agency;
       ``(K) data on the 10 active administrative appeals with the 
     earliest filing dates pending before the agency as of 
     September 30 of the preceding year, including the number of 
     business days that have elapsed since the requests were 
     originally received by the agency;
       ``(L) the number of expedited review requests that are 
     granted and denied, the average and median number of days for 
     adjudicating expedited review requests, and the number 
     adjudicated within the required 10 days;
       ``(M) the number of fee waiver requests that are granted 
     and denied, and the average and median number of days for 
     adjudicating fee waiver determinations;''.
       (b) Applicability to Agency and Each Principal Component of 
     the Agency.--Section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Information in each report submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall be expressed in terms of each principal component 
     of the agency and for the agency overall.''.
       (c) Public Availability of Data.--Section 552(e)(3) of 
     title 5, United States Code, (as redesignated by subsection 
     (b) of this section) is amended by adding after the period 
     ``In addition, each agency shall make the raw statistical 
     data used in its reports available electronically to the 
     public upon request.''.

     SEC. 9. OPENNESS OF AGENCY RECORDS MAINTAINED BY A PRIVATE 
                   ENTITY.

       Section 552(f) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) `record' and any other term used in this section in 
     reference to information includes--
       ``(A) any information that would be an agency record 
     subject to the requirements of this section when maintained 
     by an agency in any format, including an electronic format; 
     and
       ``(B) any information described under subparagraph (A) that 
     is maintained for an agency by an entity under Government 
     contract, for the purposes of records management.''.

     SEC. 10. OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 552 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) There is established the Office of Government 
     lnformation Services within the National Archives and Records 
     Administration. The Office of Government Information Services 
     shall review policies and procedures of administrative 
     agencies under section 552, shall review compliance with 
     section 552 by administrative agencies, and shall recommend 
     policy changes to Congress and the President to improve the 
     administration of section 552. The Office of Government 
     Information Services shall offer mediation services to 
     resolve disputes between persons making requests under 
     section 552 and administrative agencies as a non-exclusive 
     alternative to litigation and, at the discretion of the 
     Office, may issue advisory opinions if mediation has not 
     resolved the dispute.
       ``(i) The Government Accountability Office shall conduct 
     audits of administrative agencies on the implementation of 
     section 552 and issue reports detailing the results of such 
     audits.
       ``(j) Each agency shall--
       ``(1) Designate a Chief FOIA Officer who shall be a senior 
     official of such agency (at the Assistant Secretary or 
     equivalent level).
       ``(a) General Duties.--The Chief FOIA Officer of each 
     agency shall, subject to the authority of the head of the 
     agency--
       ``(A) have agency-wide responsibility for efficient and 
     appropriate compliance with the FOIA;
       ``(B) monitor FOIA implementation throughout the agency and 
     keep the head of the agency, the chief legal officer of the 
     agency, and the Attorney General appropriately informed of 
     the agency's performance in implementing the FOIA;
       ``(C) recommend to the head of the agency such adjustments 
     to agency practices, policies, personnel, and funding as may 
     be necessary to improve its implementation of the FOIA;
       ``(D) review and report to the Attorney General, through 
     the head of the agency, at such times and in such formats as 
     the Attorney General may direct, on the agency's performance 
     in implementing the FOIA; and
       ``(E) facilitate public understanding of the purposes of 
     the FOIA's statutory exemptions by including concise 
     descriptions of the exemptions in both the agency's FOIA 
     handbook issued under section 552(g) of title 5, United 
     States Code, and the agency's annual FOIA report, and by 
     providing an overview, where appropriate, of certain general 
     categories of agency records to which those exemptions apply.
       ``(2) Designate one or more FOIA Public Liaisons who shall 
     be appointed by the Chief FOIA Officer.
       ``(b) General Duties.--FOIA Public Liaisons shall report to 
     the agency Chief FOIA Officer and shall serve as supervisory 
     officials to whom a FOIA requester can raise concerns about 
     the service the FOIA requester has received from the FOIA 
     Requester Center, following an initial response from the FOIA 
     Requester Center Staff. FOIA Public Liaisons shall be 
     responsible for assisting in reducing delays, increasing 
     transparency and understanding of the status of requests, and 
     assisting in the resolution of disputes.
       ``(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.''.

     SEC. 11. REPORT ON PERSONNEL POLICIES RELATED TO FOIA.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Office of Personnel Management shall submit to 
     Congress a report that examines--
       (1) whether changes to executive branch personnel policies 
     could be made that would--
       (A) provide greater encouragement to all Federal employees 
     to fulfill their duties under section 552 of title 5, United 
     States Code; and
       (B) enhance the stature of officials administering that 
     section within the executive branch;
       (2) whether performance of compliance with section 552 of 
     title 5, United States Code, should be included as a factor 
     in personnel performance evaluations for any or all 
     categories of Federal employees and officers;
       (3) whether an employment classification series specific to 
     compliance with sections 552 and 552a of title 5, United 
     States Code, should be established;
       (4) whether the highest level officials in particular 
     agencies administering such sections should be paid at a rate 
     of pay equal to or greater than a particular minimum rate; 
     and
       (5) whether other changes to personnel policies can be made 
     to ensure that there is a clear career advancement track for 
     individuals interested in devoting themselves to a career in 
     compliance with such sections; and
       (6) whether the executive branch should require any or all 
     categories of Federal employees to undertake awareness 
     training of such sections.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWN:
  S. 2431. A bill to address emergency shortages in food banks; to the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, across Ohio and the Nation, many families 
rely on food banks to survive. I rise to introduce an emergency 
assistance measure--$40 million in bridge funding for the Emergency 
Food Assistance Program.
  When a child knows there will be no dinner waiting for her at home, 
that is an emergency. When a mother or father cannot put food on the 
table for a family, that is an emergency. When an elderly couple eats 
one small meal a day, that is an emergency. Across the country, lines 
at food banks are already longer than they were at this time last year. 
That is an emergency. It is a health emergency. It is a humanitarian 
emergency.
  In Ohio, food reserves intended to last until July are projected to 
run out by February. Food banks are being forced to ration food and 
turn hungry people away already, in a particularly bad time of year. In 
Lorain County, in north central and northern Ohio, the food bank has 
run out of food three times this winter. Remember, it is only early 
December. Many of us, especially in this Chamber, who are so very 
blessed, celebrate the holidays by buying presents for our loved ones. 
For too many families in Ohio and in other States across this country, 
food on the

[[Page S14856]]

table will be the greatest gift they can give this holiday season.
  In Cleveland, one of the food distribution centers is Cooley Avenue 
Church of God. There, Pastor Richard Bolls hands out food to an elderly 
man, Norm. Of the food bank, Norm says:

       At the end of the month I have just $19 left after paying 
     for my rent, my utilities, and my medicine. Normally I 
     wouldn't get fruit and vegetables to eat. I consider this my 
     ice cream.

  It was 28 degrees and windy in Cleveland on Tuesday, colder today. At 
11 o'clock in the morning, Christian, a native of the Mount Pleasant 
area of Cleveland, and her newborn stood in line for food at the 
Cleveland Food Bank, recognized as the No. 1 food bank in the country 
recently. Christian is a trained nurse's assistant. She has been 
searching for a job for 6 months since she had her baby, without luck. 
She notices the price of food she buys at the supermarket seems to rise 
every day. with the cost of caring for a newborn and the rise in food 
and fuel prices--heating and gasoline--Christian stood in line at the 
food bank Tuesday because she cannot afford to feed her family without 
some additional help.
  Christian and Norm have heartbreaking stories, but their stories are 
not unique. More Americans are lining up at food banks this year. Most 
are working Ohioans and working people. Many are middle-class 
Americans, teetering on the edge. Additional funding for the emergency 
food stamp program is the most immediate Federal solution to the 
national food crisis.
  This food bank crisis underscores the need to pass the farm bill. The 
farm bill is an agriculture bill, it is a hunger bill, it is an energy 
bill, it is a conservation bill. I applaud Chairman Tom Harkin, the 
Senator from Iowa, for his leadership on this bill. This farm bill 
helps family farmers in Ohio and across the country by strengthening 
the farm safety net. For the first time ever, farmers will be able to 
enroll in a program that ensures against revenue instability, which for 
many farmers means either a bad yield or low prices. But either can be 
devastating.
  With the right resources and the right incentives, farmers can help 
decrease our dependence on foreign oil and produce clean, sustainable, 
renewable energy.
  This bill, the farm bill which we hope to pass before we leave this 
month, increases food stamp benefits and indexes the benefits to 
inflation. When the purchasing power of food stamps erodes, so does our 
progress against hunger. Food stamps today amount to about $1 per 
person per meal. A mother with two children gets about $9 in food 
stamps. That is the extent of the benefit. This farm bill, bipartisanly 
agreed to, will increase that.
  We are the wealthiest country in the world, a caring and 
compassionate people. Families in our country, especially families who 
work hard and play by the rules, should never, ever go hungry.

                          ____________________