Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to briefly discuss the turmoil in the financial markets, especially with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Let me be clear, Fannie and Freddie are too important to fail. Their fundamentals, as they look now, provide no reason to think they will fail. We all know how important they are.

These two institutions are the foundation of the mortgage market, and we fully stand behind them and their crucial role. Without Fannie and Freddie, housing markets would come to an utter standstill and our economy, shaky as it is, would sink much deeper. Therefore, we should take all necessary steps to ensure affordable home ownership for millions of American families, and that includes preserving the essential role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play.

Our Nation is caught in the middle of one of the most severe housing downturns since the Great Depression, so it is not surprising that the two institutions that guarantee $5 trillion worth of mortgages for families across America are now facing real significant challenges. But the markets' overreaction over the past 2 days is more based on psychology than reality.

Over the past few days, Treasury Secretary Paulson, James Lockhart, the GSE's primary regulator, the Federal Reserve, and Chairman Bernanke, and leading Senators, including both parties' candidates for President, have all clearly stated their confidence in Fannie and Freddie and the Government's commitment to keeping those institutions safe and secure.

That commitment has not changed and will not change.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are well capitalized. They are actually holding capital in excess of their current requirements.

In these volatile markets--in these volatile markets--share price is not the most reliable measure for judging Fannie and Freddie and will not dictate the responses by the regulators. Rather, the regulators are more closely watching the performance of Fannie's and Freddie's bonds and how their yields compare to U.S. treasuries. Right now, Freddie and Fannie bonds are trading closer to treasuries than they were in March after the Bear Stearns collapse, and that is a reassuring signal.

The stock markets may be overreacting, but the regulators should not and will not. I have talked to them on a regular basis today, and I can assure Americans in the markets that they are very much on top of this problem, they are looking at it in a careful, thoughtful, but nonpanicky and nonrush way.

We do not believe the regulators will be forced to act, but if they are, it is not a choice between inaction or full-blown receivership because there is more than one way to shore up Fannie and Freddie, if necessary. There are countless intermediate steps that regulators could take before ever having to entertain a Government takeover.

The regulators are preparing for worst-case scenarios. But developing contingency plans does not mean that disaster is around the corner. By simply being prepared, the Government can restore confidence that these institutions will remain safe and secure and continue to function in their essential role as the cornerstone of the mortgage markets for decades to come.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, are we in a quorum call?

Madam President, I rise in strong support of this legislation vitally needed from one end of the country to the other. Ask doctors who will face a significant cut, ask pharmacists who are going bankrupt because they are not being paid appropriately, and ask, most of all, our Medicare patients who will not have the ability to visit doctor after doctor after doctor.

This legislation is essential, and it is compromise legislation. The other side says ``compromise''? Sixty percent of the cuts come from medical education--something near and dear to me and my State. Only 40 percent comes from fee for service. Yet they say: Compromise. Do you know what compromise is to the other side, those opposed here? They want it all. All the money should come out of IME, none out of fee for service, or they will not budge.

Who is hurt when they play this political game? Millions of senior citizens. I would prefer to have all the money come out of fee for service. So would Chairman Rangel. So would many others from States such as mine that have medical education. But we are willing to go part of the way for the seniors.

I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Substantively and politically, this is among the worst votes that you will take if you oppose this legislation; among the very worst both substantively because it hurts our seniors and cripples Medicare, and politically because people really care about this. I have never seen organizations such as the AMA, the pharmacists, and the AARP in unison.

So I would urge at least one of my colleagues from across the aisle to reconsider for the sake of those who work so hard in the health care field and, most of all, for the sake of our senior citizens.

This bill is essential to keep things going in Medicare. I know there may be some who want to get rid of Medicare, but most of us want to fight to preserve it. If you care about Medicare, if you care about seniors, if you care about fair pay for pharmacists and doctors, the only vote is yes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleague, the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, about a matter that may become an issue if we do not pass the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills in a timely manner. As you know, there are several critically important projects in the Department of Energy's Office of Science budget in various stages of development. One of the projects is the National Synchrotron Light Source II at Brookhaven National Laboratory. This project is in the design phase and is expected to begin construction in the early part of 2009.

The fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill provided approximately $20 million less than the budget request, and the fiscal year 2009 budget request has a substantial increase, which is consistent with the funding profile. I am concerned about the impact a continuing resolution for several months may have on the schedule and overall cost for the National Synchrotron Light Source II project. One issue is that under a continuing resolution less money would be available than if the budget request were enacted. A more pressing issue is that under some previous continuing resolution rules construction would not be allowed to begin as that would be a new activity.

Could my colleague please comment on these matters?

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleague from the House, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, an important and noncontroversial bill designed to increase the percentage of eligible families that claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC, every year.

The bill is endorsed by the Service Employees International Union, SEIU, Wal-Mart, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Citizens for Tax Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Corporate Voices for Working Families, the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, TJ Maxx, Kindred Healthcare, and Cintas.

Even in these tough economic times, Wal-Mart is still the nation's top private employer, and they place a huge emphasis on keeping their business costs low. If they are taking such a lead role on this bill, it should send a strong signal to the business community and to Republicans that it is a good idea and that the cost burden on business is next to nothing.

The EITC is a hugely important and popular program for working families. Started under President Ford after President Nixon advanced a similar program, and expanded under virtually every President since, the EITC sends a message that if you work hard and play by the rules, you shouldn't live in poverty.

I know the program isn't perfect, but it's the best tax tool we have for helping working families make ends meet. Combined with the recent increase in the minimum wage that Democrats pushed through the Congress, the EITC is improving the lives of million of families.

For tax year 2006, more than $44 billion in benefits were distributed to more than 22.4 million American families. That shows what a success the program is.

As one of the most populous states, with millions of working families of modest means, the numbers for New York State by itself are impressive. In 2006, nearly 1.5 million New York families took advantage of the EITC, claiming $2.8 billion in benefits. That's an average of $1,867 per family. But if the estimates from the Government Accountability Office are right and 25 percent of eligible families do not file for the credit, that's almost 500,000 families in my state who are missing out.

At an average EITC benefit of nearly $1,900, that means that more than $900 million could be going back into the pockets of New Yorkers-- without a single change in the law--if we could find a way to reach these families. It could represent a second stimulus package for 500,000 working families as large as the one we passed earlier this year--and all eligible families have to do is ask for it.

With gasoline costing over $4 a gallon, and health care and tuition costs on the rise, if we can get an average of $1,900 into the pockets of 500,000 New York families, or 7.5 million people nationally--that's an opportunity we can't pass up.

Since these families are eligible for the credit under current law, it's not a policy that has to be scored or ``paid for'' under the PAYGO rules, because current law assumes these benefits will be paid. I can't imagine anyone objecting to this bill.

The Emanuel/Schumer legislation simply requires that employers notify their workers of their potential eligibility for the EITC when they send out the annual W-2 wage notice. To satisfy the notice requirement, employers would provide either a copy of IRS Notice 797, which explains how one qualifies for the EITC, or a separate written notice that is described in the language of the bill.

For those that might be concerned about the cost to business, our bill exempts firms with less than 25 employees.

This is a bill that is such common-sense, and represents such little cost to business, and offers such a large potential benefit to so many families, that it's something that we ought to be able to pass unanimously before the end of the year.

Rep. Emanuel and I sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson today about the bill. Even though the Bush Administration is nearing its end, the goals of this legislation could be accomplished via regulation or executive order, and I urge the Administration to take such action and render the bill moot. Rep. Emanuel and I would be happy not to have to pass this bill. Otherwise, we will push it and hope to pass it with broad bipartisan support by year's end. With unions and major employers both supporting the bill, there really should be no objection.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleague from the House, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, an important and noncontroversial bill designed to increase the percentage of eligible families that claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC, every year.

The bill is endorsed by the Service Employees International Union, SEIU, Wal-Mart, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Citizens for Tax Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Corporate Voices for Working Families, the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, TJ Maxx, Kindred Healthcare, and Cintas.

Even in these tough economic times, Wal-Mart is still the nation's top private employer, and they place a huge emphasis on keeping their business costs low. If they are taking such a lead role on this bill, it should send a strong signal to the business community and to Republicans that it is a good idea and that the cost burden on business is next to nothing.

The EITC is a hugely important and popular program for working families. Started under President Ford after President Nixon advanced a similar program, and expanded under virtually every President since, the EITC sends a message that if you work hard and play by the rules, you shouldn't live in poverty.

I know the program isn't perfect, but it's the best tax tool we have for helping working families make ends meet. Combined with the recent increase in the minimum wage that Democrats pushed through the Congress, the EITC is improving the lives of million of families.

For tax year 2006, more than $44 billion in benefits were distributed to more than 22.4 million American families. That shows what a success the program is.

As one of the most populous states, with millions of working families of modest means, the numbers for New York State by itself are impressive. In 2006, nearly 1.5 million New York families took advantage of the EITC, claiming $2.8 billion in benefits. That's an average of $1,867 per family. But if the estimates from the Government Accountability Office are right and 25 percent of eligible families do not file for the credit, that's almost 500,000 families in my state who are missing out.

At an average EITC benefit of nearly $1,900, that means that more than $900 million could be going back into the pockets of New Yorkers-- without a single change in the law--if we could find a way to reach these families. It could represent a second stimulus package for 500,000 working families as large as the one we passed earlier this year--and all eligible families have to do is ask for it.

With gasoline costing over $4 a gallon, and health care and tuition costs on the rise, if we can get an average of $1,900 into the pockets of 500,000 New York families, or 7.5 million people nationally--that's an opportunity we can't pass up.

Since these families are eligible for the credit under current law, it's not a policy that has to be scored or ``paid for'' under the PAYGO rules, because current law assumes these benefits will be paid. I can't imagine anyone objecting to this bill.

The Emanuel/Schumer legislation simply requires that employers notify their workers of their potential eligibility for the EITC when they send out the annual W-2 wage notice. To satisfy the notice requirement, employers would provide either a copy of IRS Notice 797, which explains how one qualifies for the EITC, or a separate written notice that is described in the language of the bill.

For those that might be concerned about the cost to business, our bill exempts firms with less than 25 employees.

This is a bill that is such common-sense, and represents such little cost to business, and offers such a large potential benefit to so many families, that it's something that we ought to be able to pass unanimously before the end of the year.

Rep. Emanuel and I sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson today about the bill. Even though the Bush Administration is nearing its end, the goals of this legislation could be accomplished via regulation or executive order, and I urge the Administration to take such action and render the bill moot. Rep. Emanuel and I would be happy not to have to pass this bill. Otherwise, we will push it and hope to pass it with broad bipartisan support by year's end. With unions and major employers both supporting the bill, there really should be no objection.

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

Madam President, I rise in support of this much-needed legislation. I find it difficult to believe that with our economic crisis, the President issued a veto threat today. I would like to explain why the bill is good, why it is needed; there are some changes I would like to see made; and then talk a little bit about the President's veto threat.

First, I commend Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for working so long and hard on this bill. This is not an easy bill, particularly when you have so many different concerns and considerations. I know how hard the chairman worked on this bill. I know how hard Senator Shelby did. They were wide apart in what they believed in. They came together in the middle with a compromise that is a very good step forward.

There are parts of this bill that are extremely important. The foreclosure counseling--this is something I have been championing for a long time. We need counselors. For about half of those who are about to go into foreclosure, or will be delayed in their payments, a mortgage counselor could be the difference between them saving their home and losing it; between the neighborhood going down the drain or staying decent; even between our economy going into a deep recession or on the edges of one--the way it is now.

We need these counselors. They are not expensive. They do a world of good. They take the place of the banker who used to be on the scene when banks held mortgages. The CDBG money is extremely important. We have communities in Queens and Long Island and particularly in upstate, places such as Buffalo and Rochester and Syracuse, where neighborhoods have a tough go. You get a few foreclosed homes that are abandoned and then vandals come in and rip out the plumbing and the electric parts. Then drug dealers come in and make these a haven for crime. One foreclosed home can have the whole neighborhood go down the drain.

In the suburbs, a foreclosed home may not have those consequences, but it certainly can mean a difference in the values of the home on the surrounding block or the surrounding area going up or going down. For so many Americans, their home is their little piece of the rock; it is all they have. They put all their sweat equity in it. For no fault of their own, because somebody else lost their home on their street or in their neighborhood, they should not have to lose value. CDBG will help deal with that.

We also have in this bill mortgage revenue bonds. I am very proud of the way these have been crafted. It is $11 billion to refinance subprime loans for struggling borrowers. There is a recycling provision. It is very important to my State, where we use our mortgage revenue bonds very quickly because there is so much need.

The HOPE for Homeowners Act--again, it is not going to save everybody. But for the people who are underwater but not so deeply underwater, this is a lifesaver. It basically says to them: You can refinance your mortgage at a lower rate. It says to the mortgagor, you are going to get repaid, not everything but at least most of what you put in. It is not a panacea. In my point of view, it would be a lot better to have the bankruptcy provision here as a club to get the lenders into these, to use these provisions. But it sure does a lot more good than not doing anything at all.

Of course, there is FHA modernization, which we have been seeking for a long time--GSE modernization and reform which creates, for the first time, a world-class regulator. We are going to need Fannie and Freddie in future years. We have to have them both be safe and sound and flexible. They

should not be just private government agencies and only do the same thing banks do but with the Government imprimatur. On the other hand, they cannot, because the Government is behind them, do anything they want, be reckless or lose their capital.

The reform creates the right balance. I am proud of the reform. It raises capital requirements, it puts a regulator in who can go in and look over their shoulder--which they need. But at the same time, by and large, it preserves the flexibility that Fannie and Freddie need to fill the hole between the private sector and what the Government does-- and they do it well.

In addition, we are going to need Fannie and Freddie to be strong because right now they finance about 80 percent of the mortgages in this country. We are going to need them to be strong to help us get out of this crisis. To veto this bill when we need them so badly is almost--it edges toward irresponsibility.

Finally, the Affordable Housing Fund--to help those who cannot on their own achieve the dream of owning a home but who struggle so mightily to get there. My colleague from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, has done a masterful job, persistent, knowing when, and cut his deal at just the right time.

It is a good bill. I have two concerns where I agree with the House, frankly. I say to my good colleague from Alabama, who I know has differences on these, that the House--and many of us on this side of the aisle--are of a different mind than he. I hope we can compromise this quickly.

First, the effective date. It is unheralded, when you have a major change in the law with a new regulator, to say the effective date is immediate. You need time. More important, I am worried that because this regulator, while he is great on safety and soundness, doesn't like Fannie and Freddie very much and will go too far in the regulations and tie Fannie and Freddie's hands for a very long time way on into the future, with unintended consequences of which we are not aware. To give the new powers to the new agency overnight, with no time to establish itself or prepare, particularly when you have someone who would be in charge who does not--at least share my views on how Fannie and Freddie ought to function, is a bad idea.

I hope when we meet with the House--I have spoken with Chairman Frank and he agrees with our side--I hope he, Senator Shelby, will realize how strongly some of us feel.

Second is the idea of Fannie being able to securitize. There is language on the portfolio regulation that could unnecessarily restrict the portfolio business of the GSEs by creating a bias toward securitization. If Fannie and Freddie want to hold some of these mortgages, they should--particularly now, when the securities market is either nonexistent or weak and fragile and in some places hard to find. I hope we can address this issue as well. I do not understand why we would not allow Fannie and Freddie to hold mortgages; why we put such an impetus on them to securitize when the security market is weak.

If this provision stays in the bill as is--there is a debate. I know some believe it has more flexibility in it than I do. But, if--if, if, if--I am right, it could actually handcuff Fannie and Freddie in their role of rescuing us out of this housing crisis at a time when they are very much needed.

Amendment No. 4984

Finally, I wish to take a moment to address an amendment filed by my colleague from North Carolina. While I respect her intentions, I oppose the Dole amendment, which would unravel the strong agreement the New York attorney general reached with the GSEs on appraisal standards. Inflated appraisals are one of the prime causes of the housing crisis. To allow banks to own appraisers without anyone looking over their shoulder is a built-in conflict of interest. We should not do that. I hope we will not.

Finally, on the President's veto message--this President is further and further removed from the economic realities of this Nation. To veto this bill at a time when housing is at the nub of our economic crisis-- at a time when housing prices are declining, at a time when foreclosures are increasing--makes no sense whatsoever. It seems the President is on a different economic planet than most Americans because, even if you do not hold a mortgage, even if you fully paid your mortgage, you are being hurt by this economy where foreclosures are rampant and housing prices plummet. The ripple is outward--people buy less, people vacation less, people have less money and feel less free with it. The vise of high energy prices and declining home values cripples our economy.

Here we have a bill passed 19 to 2 out of the Banking Committee, broad bipartisan support, and out of the blue the President issues a veto threat. What is going on here? Which economy is he looking at? It is appalling. In his veto message, there is language and there are things that contradict what his own Secretary of Treasury has said about portfolio loan limits.

I think the veto message indicates the ambivalence within the administration because it is not as strident and even as forthright as many are. But, unfortunately, the ideologues won out. The ideologues say: No government involvement. Let everyone learn their lesson even if the economy, people's savings, their whole lives, and their home goes down the drain.

What kind of thing is that? Maybe that was the predominant thinking in 1893 but certainly not in the America of 2008.

I say to my colleagues, if they want to know one of the reasons the President is so unpopular and why so many Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction, it is because he threatens to veto a modest bipartisan piece of legislation such as the one Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby have put together.

It defies understanding. I have always believed when ideologues run the show on the far right or far left, we lose. In this case, with this veto message, it feels as though the ideologues have started running the show, and homeowners, neighborhoods, communities, and our country's economy will suffer from that wrongly held belief.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise against this motion for several reasons.

First, on the specific issue, I do not think there has been a Member of this Chamber who has been more of a scourge against Countrywide than the senior Senator from New York. I do not like their practices. I do not like what they have done. I have criticized them publicly repeatedly. I have even asked Bank of America to make sure Countrywide employees--high-ups--are not hired when the company takes over. So I do not like Countrywide. I think many of us in this Chamber may not, given what we know they have done.

But I do not know of a single special interest provision, as my good friend from Alabama has stated, in this bill that applies to Countrywide. It is a general proposal supported by wide numbers of people on all sides--on the lending side, on the borrower side. Many of the groups that represent the poorest people in America support these provisions. So did my colleagues. Of the 10 Republican members of the Banking Committee, 8 supported this bill.

Furthermore, this bill is not one of those that are concocted in the dark of night and put on the floor 3 hours later. The provisions in the bill have been public for weeks. Not a single one of my colleagues has come up and is able to point to any special interest provision that names any specific lender, that benefits them differently than all the other lenders around.

If there is something we ought to do about Countrywide, we can hold hearings. If there is something we ought to do about the practices Countrywide and other lenders used, we should reform them. The chairman of this committee has been in the lead in trying to make those kinds of reforms. I know because a lot of the legislation he did we worked on together.

So there is no reason to believe--there is not a scintilla of evidence--there is a special interest provision here. We all know what is going on here. We ought to resist it on both sides of the aisle. I want to particularly salute my colleague from Alabama for standing up and saying that.

The second thing I want to say is this: This is beyond petty politics. We have a nation heading into recession. Thousands of people lose their homes every single day. Will the provisions of this bill-- introduced by Senators Dodd and Shelby and supported by the Banking Committee, 19 to 2--will they save every one of them? Absolutely not. Will they save a good number of them? You bet.

Will they bring back devastated neighborhoods that have foreclosure signs on all the houses? And innocent homeowners who happen to have a house next to them, who paid their mortgages off 10 years ago and are suffering today because the value of their homes is going down, will this bill help them? You bet it will, with the CDBG provisions.

Will this bill enable Fannie and Freddie--which we are going to need in the next few years more than ever because they back or securitize or hold 80 percent of the new mortgages in this country; it is the only way to get the housing business back on its feet; and this bill wisely strengthens the regulation of Fannie and Freddie and strengthens their capital requirements but at the same time enables them to move forward at a time when we need them more than ever before--will this bill do that? You bet.

Should we be holding this bill up now when we desperately need it, when not a single provision--not a single provision--in this bill can be pointed to as narrow, special interest, or favoring any single institution or individual?

The argument is conclusive. It is not a close one. This is not one of those--by the way, one other reason. We finally have a bipartisan bill on something important. It does not happen very much these days, to the regret of most of us here, whether we be Republican or Democrat. We finally have one because of the hard work of the senior Senator from Connecticut and the senior Senator from Alabama.

Therefore, I urge that this motion be defeated and that we move on and pass this bill tonight so we can get to the business of fixing the housing crisis and, furthermore, trying to make sure the recession we have is as shallow as possible.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I too rise to support extension in unemployment benefits, and express the profound regret I and so many others, not only in this Chamber but throughout America, are having that our minority colleagues blocked the attempt to move this bill forward this morning.

There are two reasons to do this. One is the individual and the humane, to help the people who need help. Of course, that is first and foremost. But the second is to give a real shot in the arm to the economy. There is no better way when an economy is in recession, going slow, to give it a shot in the arm than unemployment benefits. They are better than tax cuts, better than any long-term spending program. The economists have shown that.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to say no to just about everything.

The sad status quo is not very good. Look at the number of jobs this economy has lost this year: 324,000. That is probably 1 million people, given that so many of them are family members and breadwinners; 1 million people who had jobs or had loved ones who had jobs last year and don't have them today. We refuse to give them the barest of lifelines, an extension of unemployment insurance? That is disgraceful.

Let me talk about who these people are because each one is an individual. How about Vincent DiRoma, former senior engineer for Kodak? Not only does he have a wife and three children, he also supports his elderly mother who relies on Social Security to get by. Vincent is currently training for a new career. We all know Kodak has laid off thousands and thousands in the Rochester area, highly qualified people, people with tremendous work ethic who don't want to or can't leave the Rochester area. Vincent is now training for a new career. He is the kind of American we all appreciate. He is not sitting down and cursing the darkness. He is trying to make his situation better. His old job doesn't exist. An extension of his unemployment insurance will allow him time to complete the training and find a new job to support his extended family which, including himself, is six people.

Why are we telling Vincent DiRoma no? Why are we telling the other hundreds of thousands like Vincent no? That is so important. Again, we just block it.

Economists, liberal and conservative, will tell us, when an economy is teetering on the edge of a recession, or, as many of us think, in recession, the best way to get money into that economy is unemployment benefits. The people who get them spend it. A tax cut is often saved. That is not a bad thing, but it doesn't mainline money into the economy the way unemployment benefits do. The money is sent out quickly. There is an existing system so we don't have to set up a whole new program.

In the past, there have been bipartisan moves to extend unemployment insurance when the economy heads south. Only in this new Congress--this ``no, no, no'' Congress, where Republicans block everything almost instinctively, atavistically--do we not get this kind of extension.

Obviously, there is an attempt to put this in the supplemental bill. We will try to do that, but it should pass like that. There should not be a single opponent to Vincent DiRoma and the other 323,999 people and families who have lost their jobs.

For the sake of humanity, those who are unemployed such as Vincent and need the help, and for the sake of our economy, I urge colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider. Again, there is no better way--none--to get the economy moving than an extension of unemployment benefits. It is something we should move to quickly, without partisan wrangling, without ideological preconception. We should just move forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have come to speak on the Medicare bill, but I must make a few remarks in relation to the debate between the majority and the minority leaders. The bottom line is very simple, and that is they haven't said let's fight over what amendments nor have they offered amendments. They have said that we will not even proceed to the bill.

So when the majority leader, Senator Reid, says it is Orwellian, of course it is. In every instance when the minority has come and said they will do amendments related to the specifics of the issue at hand, the majority leader has been more than accommodating, rankling even some on our side. But they don't want to do that.

Senator Reid read the memo. They want to slow the bill down with extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with energy because they do not want to allow a vote, even on ANWR.

Now, my friend from Kentucky talks about ANWR as the answer. Even the most optimistic experts say it will be 7 years before we get a drop of that oil. So the minority leader and the minority are saying wait 7 years and maybe we will get oil prices down. We don't want to wait that long. In 7 years, we could have an energy policy that weans us away in part from fossil fuels in a serious and significant way, like what is being done in Europe and other places. They do not want to do that because big oil dominates. They do not want to do that because their base says drill in ANWR, and the people say no.

This idea that we don't want any production, the minority leader is just patently incorrect. Democrats, including myself, helped lead the charge and voted to increase production in the east gulf. That is the place where there is the most available oil and gas near refineries. And it wouldn't take 7 years the way starting a whole new venture in Alaska would. We voted for it under Republican leadership, when the Republicans led. So we are willing to increase production, but we do believe we are not going to drill our way out of this problem.

The majority leader is exactly right. The actions of the minority leader say: Don't even debate it. Then he says they want to debate it. Well, if you want to debate it, don't block the motion to proceed. And I am certain--though I haven't talked to the majority leader about this, but I will, and I know from his past actions--if they have a series of amendments that are related to energy, they will be entertained. But if they want to debate George Bush's tax cuts or the estate tax, well, the majority leader has a perfect right to say, don't do it.

So, Mr. President, again, this week in the Senate, Republicans are blocking lower energy costs. They are the party of no--no, no, no. They are the party of no on global warming, they are the party of no on lower energy costs, they are the party of no on tax help for solar and wind, and they are the party of no on preventing the oil companies from just doing everything they want. And as the majority leader said, the status quo is not what America wants, but the status quo is exactly what the minority, the Republicans, are standing for.

I said it yesterday, and I will say it again--I said in the DSCC that I care more about the substance. I would much rather we move forward. But as head of the DSCC, the minority is filibustering themselves right out of their seats. When three-quarters of Americans demand dramatic change, and the minority says no change, that is not a formula for political success. You don't have to be a political genius to know it.

So I would say to the rank-and-file members on the other side, I don't understand the logic, I don't understand the thinking, but you are sure not helping yourself or helping your country.

Now, Mr. President, I would like to talk about Medicare for a minute--that is the bill we are on--and I rise to speak in strong support of the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. I want to congratulate our leader on the Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus, for introducing this much needed legislation.

When Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965, he promised it would transform the lives of America's senior citizens, and he said this:

No longer will older Americans be denied the healing

miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and

destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over

a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later

years.

No one could have said it better, and yet 40 years later we are at a critical moment. Do we make much needed improvements to the program to allow it to fulfill its promise to America's seniors or do we ignore this challenge?

We have worked hard in the Finance Committee to put together fair and reasonable legislation that is supported by all physicians groups and millions of beneficiaries. We have compromised. I don't believe Medicare Advantage should come out of medical education. It affects my State, the majority of it will, and I am still willing to sort of suck it in and say, OK. But some on the other side are saying no, it has to be all their way. We know that fee for service in Medicare Advantage is far more lucrative and far more spread around the country. Yet we don't have very much of that in here to help pay for the other necessary increases. But it is a compromise bill. It is a bipartisan bill with broad support on the Finance Committee, and I urge all Members to vote for cloture today so we can provide help to millions of America's seniors and the hard-working health care providers who treat them.

We have to pass this bill to avoid catastrophic cuts to doctors. We know these physicians face a 10-percent cut. To those who say, well, they are doctors, they can afford it, the trouble is, if we do this cut, lots of doctors don't take Medicare, and our poor senior citizens are left in the lurch. When we cut resources to doctors, patients lose, in this instance. So we need to put aside politics and do the right thing for our seniors and pass this bill.

Some Members seem to think that doing more for low-income seniors-- those Americans who are trying to make ends meet and are deciding between filling their car's tank with $4 gas and paying for a doctor's visit--is wrong. Opponents of this measure say now is not the time to improve Medicare. Well, I say now is exactly the time. We need to cut costs where we can and enhance the program where it is needed.

Our constituents are waiting for action. In my State of New York, the AARP dropped off 20,000 petitions in three wheelbarrows at my office in Albany. These 20,000 petitions were from New Yorkers asking Congress to pass this bill, to pass S. 3101, because it helps seniors on fixed incomes, establishes an e-prescribing requirement, and helps limit premium increases.

We are particularly pleased the bill emphasizes preventive health care and expands coverage for key screenings, which can catch problems before they become more serious, and many other important measures.

In addition, the bill stops the cuts to physicians for 18 months and provides a 1.1-percent update for 2009.

The Medical Society of New York and medical societies throughout America are in favor. I have spoken to the head of the AMA, who is Dr. Nancy Nielsen from Buffalo, NY. She is the incoming President of the AMA. She has been tirelessly working, and I want to give her a shout- out of thanks here on the floor of the Senate.

I am particularly pleased that this bill provides increased payments for our ambulance providers. We put in a bill to do this; it got 25 bipartisan cosponsors. GAO found that ambulance providers are reimbursed on average 6 percent below their costs for providing services to Medicare patients. This is unacceptable. It means they cut back on the lifesaving equipment needed in the ambulance. We all know, for things like stroke and heart attack, having an up-to-date, modern ambulance with the most lifesaving equipment is often the difference between life and death, so this increase will actually save lives.

It also, unlike the other alternative, ensures that pharmacists dispensing prescriptions are receiving payments on time. Two thousand independent pharmacies in New York--and many more thousands around the country--are counting on this important change to keep them in the black. That is in the bill. You cannot ask pharmacies, small businesspeople, to just give a line of credit to the Federal Government. That doesn't make much sense.

This is a good bill. I urge we move forward and get the 60 votes. I hope we will not have another filibuster, No. 76. Let's hope and pray that doesn't happen so we can help America's seniors and continue to modernize Medicare and move this bill forward.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that during the times when we are in a quorum call, the time be equally divided between the minority and the majority.

Now I again suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about high gas prices and the fact that so many of my colleagues from across the aisle have no interest or seem to have no interest in addressing the problem. Republicans seem not to care about the pain at the pump, but they may well care about the pain at the polls that could come from ignoring this crisis and their constituents.

The bottom line is, we are asking to have a debate on the issue of how to reduce gas prices, and the other side just says no. They may have a different solution than we do. They think ANWR is the answer, the Alaska oilfields. We all know that would take 7 years before a drop of oil would come, and most estimates say it would not reduce the price by very much at all. But let's debate it. We are willing to debate ANWR, an issue they care about. Why are they not willing to debate the windfall profits tax or dealing with speculation or dealing with the cartel of OPEC? We are happy to debate it all.

Make no mistake, we are facing an energy crisis that has led to a painful and unprecedented spike in the price of oil--$140 a barrel, $4 a gallon--and the minority, the Republicans say this is a problem that is not worthy of our attention or action. It is hard to believe. When you go home, whether it is at a parade or a veterans hall, even at weddings and christenings, people are coming over to you and asking: What are you doing about gas prices? The other side says: Let's not debate it.

It is incredible.

Eighty-six percent of Americans are unhappy with the state of our economy. The most tangible symbol of this is $4 a gallon gasoline. I can't understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to address this issue and block us from helping American consumers as our economy continues to falter.

They can filibuster all they want. We are up to 75 filibusters. Seventy-five times, they said: We don't want to move forward. We don't want to debate. But they cannot play the American people for fools. Come November, they will reap what they sow. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will filibuster themselves right out of their Senate seats. The American public will not take lightly the fact that Senate Republicans have prevented anyone from helping. They will see through the shams and the false ideas. The strategy of playing to a base that is becoming more and more narrow is going to cost them dearly because the American people know which party is blocking action on energy prices and on tax extenders.

For all the talk about how American families have benefited from the Bush tax cuts, for all the emphasis Senator McCain is placing on making them permanent, the simple, undeniable, you-can-look-it-up, no-spin truth is that the average American family is paying far more in higher gas prices this year than they received from the Bush tax cuts. So set aside for a moment higher health care costs, higher tuition costs, higher food prices, and all the other ways American families are feeling the pinch. They are paying more this year in gas prices alone than they received in the Bush tax cuts. Let me repeat that. They are paying more this year in gas prices alone than they received in the Bush tax cuts. Our friends across the aisle have turned the economic stimulus plan into the big-oil stimulus plan. It is unconscionable that the American public is being forced to use their stimulus checks just to pay for gas.

I have asked myself, Why don't they even want to debate the issue? We are willing to debate ANWR. We are willing to debate some of their solutions. Why aren't they willing to debate ours? I will tell you why. There are too many people who don't want to vote yes or no. They are torn between their base, their oil company constituency, and the rest of America. So they want to duck. But that policy is not going to work--not this time, not this place, not this year.

So we are here today to ask that we be allowed to debate the two issues they blocked us on yesterday. This week in the Senate Republicans are blocking lower energy costs. Let me repeat that because clear as a bell, that is what is happening. This week in the Senate Republicans are blocking lower energy costs. We cannot even debate them. Yesterday, they blocked us twice from debating legislation to address rising gas prices.

The Senate majority leader put together a comprehensive energy package, the Consumer-First Energy Act. Senator Baucus put together the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act that extended tax credits to promote renewable energy and break our dependence on foreign oil. What did they say to either of these in terms of not just a lack of support but debate? No, no, no.

So we are stuck with high oil prices, and instead of letting us debate these pieces of legislation, my colleagues on the other side and the Bush administration keep going back to the same old tired idea: Drilling in Alaska. And do not be fooled because presenting this idea is like a poorly performed magic trick. It does not work, and if you look closely enough, you can see through the smoke and mirrors.

Let me ask my colleagues, when would ANWR drilling have an impact on prices? When are we going to get the first bit of oil? In 2018. Do the American people want to wait until 2018, 10 years from now? We Democrats--I was one of the leaders here--agreed last year to drill in the east gulf. That would have increased domestic production over the next few years. So when the other side says: We don't want to drill--we believe we cannot drill our way out of the problem. We need a profound change in energy policy. But to alleviate the short-term pain--not 10 years from now but more immediately--we have said drill in the east gulf. I helped round up Democratic votes to pass that bill.

So we are not saying do not drill, but we are saying we need a profound change in energy policy. ANWR is too far away. We should be changing the policy long before 2018 when the first drop of ANWR oil would come.

Perhaps the only thing we have done that will help reduce the price of oil and gas in the last while is something that had to wait for a Democratic Congress and Senate: Higher mileage standards in the cars. That will be something. But we need to do a lot more. We need to go after the oil companies. We need to go after OPEC. We need to stop rampant speculation.

The Consumer-First Energy Act does those things. We need to change our tax policy so instead of giving breaks and subsidies to the oil companies, we start encouraging alternative energy: Solar, wind, biomass--you name it.

In conclusion, yesterday we heard simply: No, we will not debate oil prices. They are blocking lower energy costs. We hope over the next day or two our Republican colleagues will rethink that position and join us in a fulsome debate because otherwise we will not get gas prices to go down.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as I understand it, there is 1 hour divided equally.

And the addition of leader time. I ask that I be given 7\1/2\ minutes of our time.

I will be happy to yield to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, we all know that gas prices and the high price of oil and all oil products is the No. 1 issue in America. Everywhere we go--Legion halls, parades, weddings--this is all people bring up, and they demand action.

Today, we in the Democratic majority are stepping to the plate with two comprehensive bills--one dealing immediately with the issue of gas prices and the oil companies and the speculation in the market and the second dealing with changing our tax policies so that we encourage alternative fuels. We are stepping to the plate because we know the problem America faces: $4-a-gallon gasoline. That is 267 percent higher than it was when President Bush took office in 2001. And we cannot pass any legislation?

We want to debate this legislation now. We have our ideas. The other side has its ideas. But we wish to move forward and debate the issue and finally get something done, and the other side, the minority leader said vote no. He is telling the American people that he and his party want to do nothing. They don't even want to debate it. That is an incredible statement at a time when America is crying out for action.

The bottom line is, we have had a White House, we have had a Republican minority that has taken zero proactive steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for 7 years. If it wasn't for this new Democratic Congress to pass along an overdue small increase in fuel efficiency standards, President Bush would leave the White House with a record he would consider spotless, committing no sins against big oil or against OPEC.

We on this side are not afraid to go after big oil when they are not doing the right thing, and we are not afraid to go after OPEC because they are a cartel that squeezes us. We are not afraid to do some strong, tough things that will, some in the short run and some in the longer run, bring down the price, the all-too-high price of gasoline.

We are hurting as a country. We are hurting individually as Americans. We are hurting as an economy, as people do not have the ability to spend on other things. We are hurting in our foreign policy as every day we send over $1 billion to people we do not like, such as leaders of Iran, Venezuela, and other places. And we are hurting as a globe as we continue to send carbon dioxide into the air. And the other side says: Do nothing. Don't even debate the issue.

I have heard some people talk about some things on that side. What about ANWR, Alaskan oil, which was defeated in a bipartisan way a while ago? We will debate ANWR. Nobody thinks it is going to do anything for 7 years. I, for one, and many of us on this side supported drilling in the east gulf. It is beginning to happen because it would produce more oil and gas more quickly and do something about the price.

So we are not against any domestic oil production or exploration or gas production or exploration if it is going to make some sense. But we cannot drill our way out of the problem. If we do not do conservation, if we do not do alternative energy, and if we do not tell the big oil companies they can no longer run energy policy in America, we will not succeed; plain and simple. We are finally telling them.

There are many provisions in this bill, but there are four major provisions. One goes after OPEC, one goes after speculation, but the one that I helped write, along with the chairman of the Finance Committee, goes after the windfall profits of oil companies. They are making record profits, and we say take some of those record profits and require them to be placed into alternative energy.

When the head of ExxonMobil came before the Judiciary Committee a couple of years ago, he said he didn't believe in alternative energy. Well, most Americans do. And unlike my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we don't believe ExxonMobil should dictate our energy policy. They are doing great, but we, the American people, are not.

If you want to get immediate production, do something about Saudi Arabia. They could in a minute increase supply by 1 million, 2 million barrels a day. This is not Alaska. A lot of people on the far right are saying: How can Schumer say increase Saudi production when he is not for Alaska production? Hello. One would pump oil into the system immediately and do something immediately if we could force the Saudis to do it. Some of us advocate not giving them arms until they do. One would take 7 years and, by many estimates, not do much to change the price because it is so long into the future.

It is appalling. I am profoundly surprised by the other side seeking to block this bill. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Might I ask the Chair how much time I have?

I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

The windfall profits tax part of this bill, which I helped write, is a different windfall profits tax. It says when the level of profitability is very high, take that money and require that it be used for alternative energy. That is not too much to ask of ExxonMobil or of Chevron, Texaco, or any of these newly merged oil firms. It will not do all the things my colleague from Kentucky said but instead will force the oil companies that are not sacrosanct to start doing something to help get us out of this mess instead of just profiting from it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for their support of S. 2420, the Federal Food Donation Act of 2007, which is being passed through the Senate today. I introduced this bill, which will encourage the donation of excess food from Federal agencies and their qontractors to emergency food providers, on December 6, 2007.

In a country as wealthy as ours it is unacceptable that anyone person should go hungry, yet approximately 35.5 million Americans have difficulty affording food. An estimated 732,000 households in my home State of New York live with hunger or the threat of hunger.

Food banks and pantries all across the United States are facing a perfect storm where as the economy suffers and food prices rise, more and more families are relying on their services; yet the pantries are straining to keep their shelves stocked due to the increase in food requests and food costs. According to America's Second Harvest, food banks around the country lare reporting that an estimated 20 percent more people are visiting soup kitchens and food pantries for help this year than last year, and too many people are being turned away. We need to do everything we can to make sure that all families in all communities have enough to eat during these difficult times.

This bill will help make fighting hunger a national priority. In the 1990s, the United States Department of Agriculture created an initiative through which it encouraged the practice of food recovery. During just 1 year of the program, 1998, the Federal Government recovered over 3 million pounds nationwide from cafeterias, farms, research centers, and military bases. For the past decade the Federal Government has strayed away from this important anti-hunger initiative, but this bill would take an important step towards reengaging the Federal Government's involvement in food recovery.

Nonprofits in the business of food rescue serve millions of people, and I would like to thank one such nonprofit, Rock and Wrap it Up!, a national food rescue organization headquartered in New York, for their help in conceiving of and promoting this bill. I commend them for their great work. It is now time for the Federal Government to join the nonprofit and private sectors in doing all it can to feed our Nation's hungry--the need for help is greater now than it has been in a very long time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4008, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be

read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am glad we have just passed H.R. 4008. I thank all of my colleagues and Representative Mahoney in the House, who authored the Credit and Debt Card Receipt Clarification Act. I introduced an identical bill on the Senate side, which was S. 2978. The House passed this bill last week by the unanimous vote of 407 to 0.

H.R. 4008 is a narrow, commonsense bill that will smooth the transition to new rules for printing credit card receipts under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, or FACTA.

FACTA says the credit card receipts can only display one of two things: either the last five digits of the credit card account number or the expiration date.

Unfortunately, the law was not as clear as it could have been, and many companies misunderstood this requirement. They redacted account numbers in order to comply with FACTA but mistakenly left expiration dates in place.

But unlike the State laws after which it is modeled, FACTA is tied to a statutory damages provision that sparked the filing of hundreds of class action lawsuits against companies whose sole error was printing expiration dates on receipts.

Let's be clear. These lawsuits are not alleging that consumers were harmed in any way. I will repeat that. The lawsuits are not alleging that consumers were harmed in any way. In fact, experts on identity theft will tell you that printing the expiration date doesn't present any risk of fraud or identity theft, as long as the account number is truncated.

Yet companies are facing sky-high liability of up to $1,000 per receipt. Some of them are large retail businesses; most of them are small mom-and-pop stores. The damages in these cases are so huge that judges have refused to certify class actions because the lawsuits could actually destroy the companies--small and large.

The long list of defendants in these cases includes many major corporations--we have all heard of the hotels, restaurant chains, et cetera--as well as little mom-and-pop stores.

It is fair to say that these lawsuits will actually hurt consumers because companies will be forced to raise prices, or even close stores, in order to cover the cost of legal fees and expensive settlements. This is at a time when our economy and businesses--particularly those dealing with retail--are already struggling to rebound from tough times.

So the bill is a win-win proposition for everyone. It stops destructive lawsuits against companies that made a harmless error in the past, but it also ensures that consumers can still sue in any case where they were actually harmed.

Going forward, companies will still have to meet the same strict rules Congress originally passed in fact. I am glad the Senate was able to take quick action on this important bill.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume executive session.

Mr. President, I ask that the following statement be printed in the Record.

The statement follows.

[From the Elks Magazine, Apr. 2008]

All-American Lodge--Oswego Elks Shining Forth in New York State

(By Mark Hagland)

Just because something is old doesn't mean it's tired. In

fact, in the case of Elks Lodge No. 271, in Oswego, New York,

the opposite is, most vigorously, true. The Oswego Lodge,

with over eleven hundred members and a very large contingent

of core active members, has been for years a leader lodge in

its region, its state, and the nation. Showered with awards

for outstanding achievement in such key areas as youth

programs, veterans activities, and ritual ceremony, the

Oswego Lodge was designated an All-American Lodge in 2006-

2007 by the GL Lodge Activities/State Associations Committee.

In fact, in the key area of youth programs, the Oswego

Lodge has won first or second place in the state of New York

every year for more than twenty years, confirms John Rinaldo,

Oswego's exalted ruler. ``We're absolutely committed to the

youth of this community,'' Rinaldo says, and all the awards

are evidence of the lodge's long-term commitment, a

commitment that actually goes back nearly to the beginning of

the lodge's history, he notes.

That history is a long and storied one. The Oswego Lodge

was inaugurated on June 24, 1894, at a time when Grover

Cleveland was in his second term as president, during the

nationwide depression of 1893 to 1896.

That the Oswego Lodge should have come into being during a

time of community--and nationwide--need should surprise no

one who understands and upholds Elks' values. For the 114

years of its existence, the lodge has been deeply involved in

supporting its community through a wide range of programs and

activities. Because of all the hard work and constant

participation of its active members, the Oswego Lodge

exemplifies the motto Elks Care--Elks Share.

Just ask some of those who have benefited from lodge

members' volunteerism.

Sheri Valle, Voluntary Service Program Assistant at the

nearby Syracuse VA Medical Center, for example, points out

that ``local Elks lodges have donated the equivalent of more

than $18,000 just this year in activities, items, and cash

donations, and this particular lodge has donated more than

$5,000 in items, time, and cash donations.''

And though the monetary amounts are gratifying, Valle

immediately adds that ``the biggest benefit to us is always

the time the Elks spend with our veteran patients, especially

in our nursing home care unit. Patients live there and really

don't have a lot of opportunity to see people outside the

medical center.'' The Oswego Lodge members, in addition to

volunteering to transport patients and residents to various

places, visit the nursing home residents virtually every day.

Among numerous other activities, the lodge supports a playing

card club in the nursing home; regularly hosts the

distribution of T-shirts and golf hats to residents; and

makes sure to create special activities for the various

holidays. ``They've been wonderful during the holidays,''

Valle enthuses. ``It's wonderful to see the faces of the

veteran patients when the Elks are here. They're a lot

happier, and they're asking, `When are they coming next?' ''

The same kinds of comments come from school officials in

Oswego. ``There doesn't appear to be anything that they've

been asked to do that they've said no to, if it benefits

kids,'' says Bill Foley, public relations director for the

Oswego School District. ``And,'' Foley adds immediately,

``practically everyone asks them for help, but they're always

more than willing to give.''

Foley cites the smaller size of the Oswego community, and

the interconnectedness of its residents, when describing the

generosity of the Elks' giving and volunteerism there.

``Almost all of them went through our schools,'' he notes.

``So they're giving back to the community in which they've

grown up, and that is just tremendous.''

Among the recognitions and awards the Oswego Elks bestow in

the local school system are Teen of the Month awards and

annual scholarships for graduating seniors. In a smaller

community like Oswego, which serves about forty-five hundred

students, such awards and recognitions are by definition

high-profile and resonate strongly. Indeed, Foley can speak

of them with personal zeal, since his own son, Michael, was

named Teen of the Month during the 1996-1997 school year.

``Michael was very proud,'' Foley recalls. ``He held his head

so high when he achieved that; it meant so much to him to be

recognized.''

From such experiences, Foley says that it's clear that

``students need to receive some recognition. Being named Teen

of the Month or receiving a scholarship builds confidence,

morale, and self-esteem. There's nothing but positive value

in this, and the Elks are having a major impact on our youth

through such programs.''

a special culture

Because of all the activities that the Oswego Elks Lodge is

involved in, there is always a buzz of volunteerism humming

around the lodge itself. If there were a single word that

would best describe the lodge's atmosphere, it might be

``enthusiastic.''

``It's all about an enthusiastic, community-focused

outlook,'' says Rinaldo. ``What you've heard from these

folks,'' he explains, referring to community leaders like

Bill Foley and Sheri Valle, ``is what this lodge is all

about. Everything has been geared toward the kids, toward the

vets, toward the community. It all comes back to what the

Elks are doing for the community. As far as the All-American

Lodge Award goes, I think we've earned it. Everyone here is

committed to this community.''

``At the same time,'' says Daniel Capella, a past exalted

ruler of the Oswego Lodge and a past president of the New

York State Elks Association, ``we have a lot of fun, and

that's part of what makes it go nicely. We know how to

laugh.''

Still, Capella notes, a tremendous amount of work and

energy go into all the lodge's activities, including the

social activities that take place at the lodge itself: ``From

the first Friday in January through April, we serve three

hundred or four hundred meals every Friday night here at the

lodge. Volunteers show up at four or four-thirty in the

afternoon, we start serving dinner at five, and it goes on

well into the evening. And yet we're never short of

volunteers to support the Friday dinners.''

good citizenship magnified

The Oswego Lodge demonstrates its Americanism and good

citizenship in various ways,

including very strong support for local law enforcement and

broad community efforts. Those efforts and that support are

clearly recognized and appreciated by law enforcement and

municipal officials. In a community of seventeen thousand,

such good works are very much noticed.

``In a smaller city such as this, everybody seems to know

what everybody else is doing,'' says Edward Geers, Oswego's

fire chief. ``And if there's a need in one family, everybody

helps out. I visit other places, but love coming back here,''

he adds. ``Everybody here is interested in the city as a

whole and the community as a whole. If somebody's in need,

whatever it is, the community pulls together; and the Elks

have always been a big part of that.''

The Elks' appreciation of the people and organizations that

hold the town together is shown regularly through public

recognition. For the lodge's annual public safety recognition

event, called Lincoln Day in Oswego, Geers develops a profile

of the personnel who might deserve the lodge's Firefighter of

the Year Award, and then he ``lets the firefighters decide

who they feel is worthy. And when the Elks recognize that

person, it means a lot.'' Geers continues, ``I think everyone

realizes that even though an individual wins an award, it's

not just that one individual who's being recognized. It

reflects on the entire department. We stand as one, and that

perception is very important for us.''

Geers, an active Elk for twenty-three years, adds: ``I'm

proud to say I'm a member of the Oswego Elks, because of the

wonderful things they've done in the community. Other

organizations do little things, but the Elks are

trendsetters, who make sure everything's done right.''

Oswego's chief of police, Michael Dehms Jr., agrees that

receiving the Oswego Lodge's public safety award is a

distinct honor. ``It's good to be recognized, but when you're

recognized by an organization like the Oswego Elks, it means

a lot.'' Dehms notes that the Elks also have made numerous

important contributions directly to public safety. For

example, in the 1980s, the Oswego Lodge purchased a working

police canine for the department's canine unit. What's more,

Dehms points out, every year during the community's biggest

social event, called Harborfest, the Elks ``supply meals for

our officers and state police, for the officers who have to

work through it and can't go home for dinner. Anything we've

ever asked for, they've always helped us,'' he adds.

According to Dehms, the Elks ``definitely set an example of

community involvement.'' One of the Elks' programs, for

example, honors the memory of a deceased police officer by

maintaining an ongoing memorial fund in his name that

provides college scholarships.

Mayor Randolph Bateman easily summarizes the Oswego Elks'

exceptional volunteerism by saying that ``the Elks'

contribution to the community is great. They're involved in

various activities, including youth activities. And last

year, they hosted the New York Elks' bowling tournament,

which brought significant income into the city.''

Another example of the Oswego Elks' civic involvement that

Mayor Bateman cites is the Youth Community Day that the lodge

sponsors every year in May. Youth Community Day includes an

Elks-sponsored luncheon for students and local government

officials. At the luncheon, the mayor and various city

department heads speak to the students, explaining some of

the functions of city government, and give the students the

opportunity to meet public officials directly. Such events,

Bateman says, are extremely important in helping reinforce

the natural cohesiveness that already exists in a community

like Oswego.

As the school district's Bill Foley sees it, a smaller

community like Oswego brings out the best in people, and the

Elks of Oswego help to encourage that. ``We look like a

sleepy little town on the lake,'' he says, ``but what amazes

me is the way this town always pulls together, whether during

the ice storm of a few years ago, or during Harborfest. This

is a caring community,'' he emphasizes. ``It's almost like a

community of the past. We joke about Oswego maybe being a few

years behind other places, but we care about each other and

pull for each other. And to have folks like the Elks be so

involved, it's tremendous.''