Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I just want to say a few words about an amendment, No. 4942, that was accepted in the managers' package. On April 28 of this year, the administration announced a plan to check ``all individuals seeking access to port facilities. . . .'' They wanted to check all individuals seeking access to port facilities. The plan was to check these individuals' names against the terrorist watch list and to check for citizenship status. But a major loophole was created when it intentionally left out port truck drivers from this process. Now, we are reminded that when the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993, took place, the explosives were hidden in a van. When the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was blown up, the explosives were hidden in a van. And not to recognize that these trucks entering a port area could be carrying anything--whether it is taking cargo containers out of the port that had been brought to our shores from foreign ports or whether it is taking an empty cargo container back into the port--my gosh, you could almost hide a tank in one of those. So to me it really did not make sense when the Department of Homeland Security's excuse was that it was simply too hard to do, to vet all of these truck drivers who come in, and get them an ID card to show they have been checked for any security concerns. Certainly, I do not think that is a valid excuse when it comes to protecting us from a terrorist attack. ``Too hard'' is never an acceptable reason. Just look at our brave troops in Iraq and in other places, places of great danger. No one is saying it is too hard. They are doing their duty to protect all of us and our interests. One of the largest truck driver labor organizations in the world fully supports my amendment. They know they have nothing to hide, and they want to know that their workplaces are secure from terrorism. The amendment simply requires that the IDs of truck drivers who have access to secure areas of ports be checked against terrorist watch lists and to confirm their American citizenship. Earlier this year, DHS Customs Enforcement agents did an investigation of port truck drivers. Of about 10,000 port truck drivers working in the Port of New York and New Jersey, almost half had criminal histories. Some had been charged with the possession of millions of dollars of stolen pharmaceutical goods, or trying to smuggle cocaine and Iranian carpets into the United States. This failure to check port truck drivers along with all other port workers is a dangerous shortcut. It is unacceptable. When it comes to protecting our security, we do not seek shortcuts. We do not want to. We want full measures taken to keep us, our families, our constituents, and the people in the area safe. I want to thank the manager, the Senator from Maine, and Senator Stevens from Alaska for accepting this amendment. It will help make sure our attempts for security are better fulfilled. I thank them. and I thank the chairman for working with me on this important issue. I understand there may be concerns with some technical aspects of my amendment, but I think it is clear that everyone here recognizes the problem of not checking port truck driver names against the terror watch list and for citizenship status.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment brought by my colleague, Senator Menendez, because I think it covers the bases we are concerned about. This amendment, very simply, demands accountability from the Bush administration on port security. The bill before us contains an amendment as well, that I authored in committee, to require 100 percent screening of containers coming into the United States. These containers would have to be screened before they are loaded on ships at a foreign port. I think that is the time to do it. We have already seen attempts by the majority to downplay or even duck this requirement. I am not suggesting, in the interests of safety and security, that the Senator from Minnesota or the Senator from Maine is less concerned about the security or the safety of our people. But I am supporting the Menendez amendment because he gets specifically to the point, and I think the approach that we take is the strongest one and in the best interests of the American people. We need the administration to tell the American people exactly how long it will take them to provide the security necessary to reach the level of a 100-percent screening requirement. Right now, as we all know, we only inspect around 5 percent of shipping containers coming into our country. Terrorists could smuggle weapons, nuclear or chemical weapons, into a harbor and potentially launch an attack even more devastating than the 9/11 attack we experienced. I listened very carefully to Senator Menendez review his amendment, and that is to get us to the 100 percent opportunity. The Senator from Minnesota says he believes there would be 100 percent screening. But that would come only after there have been paper documents saying what was being shipped was OK. I ask you, would we take the most honest presentation of a clergyman, a doctor, a lawyer, a judge, or an individual and say: OK, that individual can bypass security at the airport? Not on your life. And we should not do it here. Why do we want to put trust in a paper-laden system where the GAO says that many of the manifests and the documents for shipping cargo are unreliable, that they are not trustworthy. I think if we are really going to do the job people expect of us, we are going to have to try to get as quickly as we can to 100 percent screening. The amendment of Senator Menendez does absolutely that, so we ought not to tinker any further. Are we really serious about getting to the end of the game, protecting our citizens as much as we can? Then we have to do it by a 100-percent screening. What we are not saying is do it overnight or do it by next week or next month. But we are saying: Give us the plan, Mr. President and this administration, on how you expect to do this. We have to remember one thing: Senator Menendez has, in his former territory, in his former constituency, the second largest port in the country; the New York-New Jersey Harbor is just that. He has worked with people who run the cargo operations. He knows the people who are terminal operators. He is very conscious of what it takes to protect ourselves to the last detail that we can. I believe we have to be in support of the Menendez amendment that says: OK, come on, tell us what it is that you plan to do to protect the people of America in a way that gives us comfort--not 1 out of 20 cargo containers that arrive that might be supported by a paper manifest that doesn't mean an awful lot because there is plenty of opportunity to tinker with that cargo container before it leaves the shore unless we have scanned it at the last moment possible. I urge our colleagues to support the Menendez amendment. Let's not waste any more of the time that the people of America need to feel secure about those ships that enter our harbors bringing goods into this country. I yield whatever time there is back to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Washington. I listened very carefully to what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said. I wonder about why it is we are defending a voluntary system, of sorts, that raises the question about why a shipper would waste any time tracing the source of the product if they are going to be inspected again. What are we doing? Are we saying the question is whether we trust the shipper? That is not the position we take at all. The position we take, that the amendment of Senator Menendez takes, is tell us when you are going to have 100 percent security. That is the right objective. We know that it works. We know in Hong Kong they can process a scan of a cargo container in something around 2 minutes at an average cost of about $8. Is it not worth it? We pass the cost along to the shipper. That is their cost, not the American taxpayer's cost. As regards relying on paperwork to give us a head's up as to whether that cargo should be inspected, GAO has found that shipping documents are one of the least reliable sources of information that Customs collects. One audit pre-9/11 showed that over 60 percent of these documents had major discrepancies. So who are we trying to defend? Are we trying to defend the well-being of the American people, of the economy that relies so much on harbor activity, on imported goods, or are we trying to satisfy an industrial perspective that says don't take the time, don't do that, let's trust, right now, 95 percent of the cargo that comes in here as being safe to reach our shores. I do not think that is a very good way for us to be reacting when everyone is so concerned about another terrorist attack, something that everybody is concerned about, a repetition of something that resembles 9/11, or even worse. The best thing to do is stick to our guns and say that we want to see 100 percent of those cargo containers scanned so we know what is in there. After it has been closed up, after everything else has been done, the paper manifest is still there, and whether they are exactly precise would not matter. We will know what is in that cargo container, and we will be able to protect the American people as we should. I, once again, hope Members will reject the amendment and support Senator Menendez's amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4931

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I may respond to say I am so pleased that the Senator is asking for more money for screeners, and we will try to convince the appropriators jointly to increase the funding for those workers.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the current hiring limit on TSA screeners at our Nation's airports. That is what this amendment deals with--to eliminate the current hiring. One can ask: Why can't we just add more funding to TSA's budget and let them hire the personnel they need? Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Each year, in the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the House Republican leaders tie the hands of TSA officials by setting an arbitrary limit on the number of screeners they can hire. This cap has no basis in security. It is not what the security experts at TSA want. This cap only undermines our security, while forcing Americans to wait in longer security lines at airports. This arbitrary cap currently restricts the TSA screener population to 45,000. Now, 45,000 is a large number, until you consider that 2 million people fly within the United States every day. In our discussions with TSA officials, it is clear that we need more than 45,000 screeners. Mr. President, we are at a point in time, I am told by the managers of airports, particularly at Newark Liberty Airport, that we are likely to be exceeding the gross travel numbers in aviation that were achieved in the year 2000. So here we are with more people traveling, more concern about terrorist invasions of our country and particularly in aviation. So why do we have this cap? Well, it is not for security, it is not for efficiency. Believe it or not, it is based on ideology. Conservatives in the House want this cap to limit the growth of a so- called big Government workforce. But do you know what? The American people want this workforce, and they want it fully staffed, as I do; we should all want it fully staffed. The result of this ill-advised cap is the shortage of screeners. We witnessed this last month when British and U.S. authorities foiled a plot to attack airliners headed to our shores using liquid explosives. In the days following the British threat, DHS raised the security alert level and overworked screeners at American airports. They had to doublecheck bags, conduct random searches at gates, and help calm anxious crowd fears. At Newark Liberty Airport in New Jersey, screeners worked 12-hour shifts and 60-hour weeks for several weeks after the London incident. There were reports of exhausted screeners falling asleep at x-ray machines. One screener said that his colleagues ``can't maintain these 12-hour days.'' Remember, this work is on your feet. You are mandated to look at every little detail in front of you. It is exhausting work. Overstretching this workforce puts the American people at risk, and that is unacceptable. Now, with my amendment, TSA will be able to hire enough well-trained, alert screeners to give us the safety and efficiency we deserve. Since 9/11, long lines have been the rule rather than the exception at our Nation's airports. Each year, 760 million people fly in the United States, and by 2015, we will hit 1 billion passengers a year. Anyone who has traveled by air in the last few years has seen this congestion at airport security checkpoints. To give an example, this is Orlando Florida International Airport. The lines are waiting to go through security. We see the same thing throughout the country. This is Denver, a very efficient airport, but one cannot get through security in time enough, in many cases, to reach the flights. It is an unacceptable condition. This is the international airport in Nashville, TN--lines and lines. We see it wherever we travel in almost any part of the country. The Senate accepted an amendment I offered in July to the Homeland Security appropriations bill to eliminate this arbitrary cap, but the Republican majority in the House of Representatives wanted to remove my amendment in the final bill that will be sent to the President. They want to keep the 45,000-worker cap rather than letting TSA decide what its workforce needs are. Security cannot be based on arbitrary numbers. Conservative ideology must not trump commonsense security needs. Americans stuck in long security lines at airports don't care about ideology. They want to get through, and they want to get through on time. The mission for our system to operate efficiently is to have no longer than 10-minute waits, and we can only accomplish that if we have the people and the equipment to review this baggage as it comes to them. The American people want to know that they and their families are safe when they fly. This body needs to go on record on this issue so it can scrap this limit once and for all. I hope my colleagues will look carefully at this amendment. Listen, remember, it might be their family who is on an airplane, it might be their friends who are on a particular airplane, it might be anybody who is entitled to feel secure when they are in an airplane. But judge it by one's personal attitude and say this is a responsibility we have as Senators to want enough people to assure security wherever we can get it. One way to do that is to have enough of these screeners working these lines, fully awake, able to handle their jobs, and reduce what we find is significant growth in sick days among the screener population. There are a lot of absences. Perhaps we will hear: We have a 45,000-person limit, but we only have 43,000 people working. The problem is we will always have some absentees. We will always have some job turnovers. These are not easy jobs. So we are going to have a difference between the number hired and the number at work at a given time. We should raise the limit so we know we are increasing the likelihood that all of the places will be covered, that the flying public will be able to get through their security check within a 10-minute timeframe. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How many do we need, Mr. President, for the yeas and nays? Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wish to ask the Senator from Alaska a question, if I might, in relation to his comments. Is it not possible that with the increased passenger volume we are seeing--and it is about to break the record held since the year 2000 in terms of volume of people traveling--is the manager, the committee chairman, aware of the fact that TSA has said that in order to have a 10-minute wait or less, they need more screeners than they have? They need as many as 48,000.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I may ask the Senator from Alaska another question, and that is, if we had a higher cap and were able to persuade the management of TSA to search for a larger pool of people, might we have more people available presently to serve? My experience from my corporate life tells me that you never quite reach the level you have. We see that in our staffing here. I urge the Senator from Alaska to respond to whether the Senator thinks we can improve our population of screeners who are readily available if we search a little bit harder, train a little bit better, reduce the fatigue factor which now occurs and causes so many sick days, so many absences, and so much turnover because the job, at 60 hours a week, as many of our people are working, is a strain on them and they just can't take it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we obviously don't agree. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have so much respect for the Senator from Alaska. He is on top of the issues of security, as well as aviation. But is the Senator aware that many of the screeners are on military duty or medical leave because of exhaustion? Shouldn't we try to improve the pool of people from which we can choose? We have as much as 10 percent of the workforce out at a time. If it is 10 percent of 48,000, that is 4,800. That is quite different from having a population that is short on the job. We don't have enough time. I can simply add that at Newark Airport, we are about 10 percent short of the number we need, something over a thousand. We can't get them. The recruiters can't search for them because they will be bumping up against the cap. I think and I hope the Senator will reconsider. I believe--and I throw this in for the Senator's consideration with my question; that is, aren't we better off taking the limit off and trying to find a way--we are talking about security of the people. The Senator doesn't need any lecture from me. But aren't we better off knowing that everybody who can make a connection can get through in 10 minutes, thoroughly screened, and having a population that is equal to the growing population of those who want to travel by air?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is the Senator aware of the fact that this was an amendment which was already there, it was already conferenced and was dropped in conference? The Senator is certainly aware of the process here. If you don't like it, accept it; it will die of its own weight. For the Senator's information, before the screeners were federalized, the turnover rate was 400 percent and we were ignoring the risks we were putting people under. That was a porous thing. You could walk through there with almost anything. What we want to do is get a stable workforce of screeners who have passed the vetting, who work normal hours, who have--and by the way, the Senator is absolutely right about the improvement in equipment so the baggage lifting doesn't have to be as strenuous as it is. So I would ask the Senator whether we can have a vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And when we meet with the House, let the conferees, when the issue goes to conference, look at the issue and review what it is that is keeping them from----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President as we are now prepared to consider the amendment, in the minute I have--which I assume is the time--I would like to tell everybody that the purpose of this amendment is to ask that we take the cap off the number of TSA screeners we can hire. The cap is 45,000. We have had it in legislation before, but the House insisted on the cap being continued. It is silly, when passenger volume on airlines, as of this point in the year is almost at the alltime high, and it is expected this year we will see the largest number of airline passengers in the history of the country. We have these constant reviews to protect ourselves from terrorist attack from those who want to sabotage an airplane. So it is simple. Just remove that cap. Remove it and let the TSA figure out what to do with it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. As has been his tradition, as has been his experience, he brings forth an issue that I think is of special importance at this moment because while we discussed in these last few days the honesty with which we get information and data, we have recognized that there is often an attempt to obscure the truth from the American people about the war we are in at the moment. We see it in different ways. We see it in the fact that, for instance, flag-draped coffins are not permitted to be photographed when the remains of our most courageous people fighting the battle in Iraq are returned home. They come to a base in the State of Delaware, and it is prohibited to take pictures of those flag-draped coffins. That testimonial the country gives to these fallen soldiers is denied public view, as is the fact that there is another American, or more, lost in this quest to bring democracy to a country in which there is considerable doubt about whether they want our form of democracy. This amendment would make certain that no Department of Defense funds are used for propaganda. Last week, we learned that the Defense Department wants to pay a company $20 million to monitor and analyze American and Middle East media to help improve the image of the U.S. Government and the military. I fully agree with him on the importance of limiting these funds for a propaganda campaign. I will not support the use of these funds in that manner. The contractor being hired is expected to put together a database of news stories and assess their tone to come up with ways to get more glowing news coverage for the administration to try to convince the American people that things are going pretty much to plan and it just needs more time. We don't talk about the fact that it needs, very often, more troops to do this assignment, without regard to whether we ought to be there at this time or whether they deserve the protections and equipment that is often missing. But we are not just talking about the Middle East press. This is Department of Defense money provided by U.S. taxpayers to comb American newspapers to track and evaluate their stories. I can't say I am surprised by this development. After all, this administration has mastered the art of propaganda, and after I asked for investigations of the administration's propaganda activity, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, ruled that the administration violated law in several cases. Propaganda efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education were ruled illegal by GAO. So what did the administration do? Did it agree to abide by the law? Of course not. That is not their customary action, not this administration. The administration announced that it would ignore the GAO rulings. The administration sees the rule of law as kind of a speed bump, not a roadblock. That is why Congress has to cut off these funds for these propaganda efforts. This isn't the Soviet Union. We promote a free press in this country. It is essential to our democratic functioning. Learn the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, and deal with it as we should--honestly. We should not be manipulating the news media in our country. I want the news about Iraq to be better, too. We all have great respect and affection for those who are on the front line who are doing their duty in spite of questions about what the purpose is or when the return to their homes begins. But maybe if we made some changes in our leadership and in our strategy we wouldn't need a PR campaign to improve our image here or abroad. Instead of trying to make the current situation look better, we ought to focus on actually making it better. If we have any money to spare, let's spend it on our troops making sure that everybody has body armor, the latest there is, to protect them, or that the humvees and other vehicles are appropriately armored to see if we can defend ourselves better against these roadside bombs and these attacks on our troops, or on developing better strategies to fight terrorism and to defend our country. We are on the eve of the commemoration of 9/11. It was one of the events in American history that still shocks our psyche. The fact that in a single day almost 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil by foreign intervention still astounds even the grimaced imagination. The fact that these two tall towers fell--I had an office in one of those towers when I was a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey before I came to the Senate. They stood like cities, with 50,000 people going in and out, moving to their jobs, to their assignments, to their responsibilities, to their families, not only to their companies, not only to the services they provided. And we are still in search of the perpetrators. We all want to see victory come out of this war. The problem is I am not sure we can define victory. It is too late for us to resume our lives as we used to live them without constantly having to show an ID, without constantly having to be in lines waiting, interfered with in our normal routine. The last thing we need is to cover up reality. That is what is taking place. This is an attempt to further cover up the reality, cover up the losses we are enduring, cover up the expense it is costing us. The financial costs are secondary to the loss of life, but, nevertheless, that is reality. I commend my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. He has brought thoughtful discourse to this body, and we welcome his attempt to clear the air, to make sure we are not spending money to color the issues, to give it a rosy tone, but to tell the truth and to not spend $20 million of taxpayer money on glossing over what is a very painful reality. I hope our colleagues will fully support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce and discuss my bill, the ``Truth in Cigarette Labeling Act.'' I wish to thank my colleagues, Senators Clinton, Harkin, Menendez, Reed, Durbin, Kennedy and Leahy for co-sponsoring this important legislation. My bill bans the tobacco industry from using deceptive cigarette marketing terms such as ``light'' and ``low tar'' to imply health benefits and it prohibits cigarette manufacturers from making any claims based on the cigarette testing method established by the Federal Trade Commission called the ``FTC Method,'' which measures tar and nicotine yields. My legislation is consistent with the recent court ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler. Kessler's ruling says cigarette manufacturers must stop labeling cigarettes as `'low tar'' or `'light'' or `'natural'' or with other `'deceptive brand descriptors which implicitly or explicitly convey to the smoker and potential smoker that they are less hazardous to health than full-flavor cigarettes.'' The tobacco companies are appealing that ruling, which will likely tie it up in the courts for a while. This makes it necessary for Congress to act now and pass my bill. Many smokers switch to cigarette brands advertised as ``low tar'' or ``light'' out of concern for their health, believing that such cigarettes are less risky or a step toward quitting. These claims are based on the FTC tar ratings, which are now known to be inaccurate in assessing the behavior of actual smokers. Some 85 percent of all smokers today smoke these so-called safer cigarettes. FTC officials admit the agency's test is flawed. Former FTC Commissioner Timothy Muris testified at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on June 11, 2003, that the tar rating system is ``broken.'' The FTC has also published a warning to consumers called ``Up In Smoke: The Truth About Tar and Nicotine Ratings.'' This alert concludes that ``cigarette tar and nicotine ratings can't predict the amount of tar and nicotine you get from any particular cigarette.'' It is absurd that the FTC permits a testing method that FTC officials admit is flawed. According to the National Cancer Institute, cigarette tar and nicotine yields as measured by the FTC Method don't give smokers a meaningful measure with regard to how much tar and nicotine they are likely to inhale from smoking a cigarette, and that marketing cigarettes as delivering lower amounts of tar using the FTC Method is deceptive to consumers. Not surprisingly, the tobacco companies have known since 1975 that this test doesn't work. The tobacco companies' internal documents show that people actually get more tar and the same amount of nicotine when they smoke light cigarettes than from smoking regular cigarettes. That's because smokers will inhale more deeply and/or frequently to draw out the nicotine they're addicted to. So, the FTC, the National Cancer Institute and the tobacco companies all agree that the FTC testing method doesn't work. And all the while, the tobacco companies have been taking advantage of this fact and using it to spike the nicotine yield in cigarettes and make them more addictive. A recently released report by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health shows that from 1998 through 2004 cigarette manufacturers increased the amount of addictive nicotine delivered to the average smoker by 10 percent. Of 179 cigarette brands tested in 2004, an astonishing 166 brands fell into the State's highest nicotine yield range, including 59 brands that the manufacturers had labeled ``light'' and 14 described as ``ultra-light.'' The increase in nicotine levels went unnoticed because the standard government test--the flawed FTC Method--uses a smoking machine that fails to mimic real-life smoking behavior. A manufacturer, for example, can design a cigarette that will score low in nicotine delivery to the machine by placing tiny ventilation holes in the filter to dilute the smoke. But in real life, a smoker will often cover the vents with his or her lips or fingers, thereby inhaling a higher dose of nicotine. Everyone knows nicotine is a highly addictive drug. For tobacco companies to spike the amount nicotine at a time when States and the Federal Government are creating public health campaigns to curb smoking is absolutely deplorable. I used to smoke--a lot. Fortunately, my daughter, when she was a young girl, convinced me to quit. She said, ``Daddy, they told me at school that if you smoke, they will have to put a black box in your throat. I don't want you to get a black box in your throat.'' From that day forward I quit. Across America, smokers--men, women, and kids--have their own reasons for quitting. I know it's tough to quit. But I want Americans to be healthy. ``Big Tobacco'' doesn't. They make their money off an addictive product that kills people. They have known for decades that their product is lethal. They need our kids sick and addicted to make a dime. When I came to the Senate, I was determined to do everything I could to protect Americans--especially our youth--from the dangers of tobacco. I'm proud to say that my work on tobacco control started long before it became a mainstream issue. I've been protecting Americans from Big Tobacco's lies since 1987, when I wrote the bill that banned smoking on planes. In 1989, I wrote the requirement that all federally-funded programs for children provide a smoke-free environment. Those laws changed our culture. Today, we'll try and change it again. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and stop cigarette manufacturers from lying to the public. My legislation can help America's smokers kick the habit by putting out more of big tobacco's big lies. Tobacco-related illnesses kill over 400,000 Americans every year. My bill can help save America $89 billion a year in health care costs. Most important, it can save people's lives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce and discuss my bill, the ``Truth in Cigarette Labeling Act.'' I wish to thank my colleagues, Senators Clinton, Harkin, Menendez, Reed, Durbin, Kennedy and Leahy for co-sponsoring this important legislation. My bill bans the tobacco industry from using deceptive cigarette marketing terms such as ``light'' and ``low tar'' to imply health benefits and it prohibits cigarette manufacturers from making any claims based on the cigarette testing method established by the Federal Trade Commission called the ``FTC Method,'' which measures tar and nicotine yields. My legislation is consistent with the recent court ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler. Kessler's ruling says cigarette manufacturers must stop labeling cigarettes as `'low tar'' or `'light'' or `'natural'' or with other `'deceptive brand descriptors which implicitly or explicitly convey to the smoker and potential smoker that they are less hazardous to health than full-flavor cigarettes.'' The tobacco companies are appealing that ruling, which will likely tie it up in the courts for a while. This makes it necessary for Congress to act now and pass my bill. Many smokers switch to cigarette brands advertised as ``low tar'' or ``light'' out of concern for their health, believing that such cigarettes are less risky or a step toward quitting. These claims are based on the FTC tar ratings, which are now known to be inaccurate in assessing the behavior of actual smokers. Some 85 percent of all smokers today smoke these so-called safer cigarettes. FTC officials admit the agency's test is flawed. Former FTC Commissioner Timothy Muris testified at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on June 11, 2003, that the tar rating system is ``broken.'' The FTC has also published a warning to consumers called ``Up In Smoke: The Truth About Tar and Nicotine Ratings.'' This alert concludes that ``cigarette tar and nicotine ratings can't predict the amount of tar and nicotine you get from any particular cigarette.'' It is absurd that the FTC permits a testing method that FTC officials admit is flawed. According to the National Cancer Institute, cigarette tar and nicotine yields as measured by the FTC Method don't give smokers a meaningful measure with regard to how much tar and nicotine they are likely to inhale from smoking a cigarette, and that marketing cigarettes as delivering lower amounts of tar using the FTC Method is deceptive to consumers. Not surprisingly, the tobacco companies have known since 1975 that this test doesn't work. The tobacco companies' internal documents show that people actually get more tar and the same amount of nicotine when they smoke light cigarettes than from smoking regular cigarettes. That's because smokers will inhale more deeply and/or frequently to draw out the nicotine they're addicted to. So, the FTC, the National Cancer Institute and the tobacco companies all agree that the FTC testing method doesn't work. And all the while, the tobacco companies have been taking advantage of this fact and using it to spike the nicotine yield in cigarettes and make them more addictive. A recently released report by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health shows that from 1998 through 2004 cigarette manufacturers increased the amount of addictive nicotine delivered to the average smoker by 10 percent. Of 179 cigarette brands tested in 2004, an astonishing 166 brands fell into the State's highest nicotine yield range, including 59 brands that the manufacturers had labeled ``light'' and 14 described as ``ultra-light.'' The increase in nicotine levels went unnoticed because the standard government test--the flawed FTC Method--uses a smoking machine that fails to mimic real-life smoking behavior. A manufacturer, for example, can design a cigarette that will score low in nicotine delivery to the machine by placing tiny ventilation holes in the filter to dilute the smoke. But in real life, a smoker will often cover the vents with his or her lips or fingers, thereby inhaling a higher dose of nicotine. Everyone knows nicotine is a highly addictive drug. For tobacco companies to spike the amount nicotine at a time when States and the Federal Government are creating public health campaigns to curb smoking is absolutely deplorable. I used to smoke--a lot. Fortunately, my daughter, when she was a young girl, convinced me to quit. She said, ``Daddy, they told me at school that if you smoke, they will have to put a black box in your throat. I don't want you to get a black box in your throat.'' From that day forward I quit. Across America, smokers--men, women, and kids--have their own reasons for quitting. I know it's tough to quit. But I want Americans to be healthy. ``Big Tobacco'' doesn't. They make their money off an addictive product that kills people. They have known for decades that their product is lethal. They need our kids sick and addicted to make a dime. When I came to the Senate, I was determined to do everything I could to protect Americans--especially our youth--from the dangers of tobacco. I'm proud to say that my work on tobacco control started long before it became a mainstream issue. I've been protecting Americans from Big Tobacco's lies since 1987, when I wrote the bill that banned smoking on planes. In 1989, I wrote the requirement that all federally-funded programs for children provide a smoke-free environment. Those laws changed our culture. Today, we'll try and change it again. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and stop cigarette manufacturers from lying to the public. My legislation can help America's smokers kick the habit by putting out more of big tobacco's big lies. Tobacco-related illnesses kill over 400,000 Americans every year. My bill can help save America $89 billion a year in health care costs. Most important, it can save people's lives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am proud to support S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. This important legislation requires the Office of Management and Budget to create an online searchable Web site to allow Americans to understand who is getting Federal money. This legislation has broad support from across the political spectrum. Whether we believe we spend too much or we should be doing more to help people in need, we can all agree that we ought to get value from the dollars we spend. Transparency is the first step in that process. I believe that S. 2590 is only the first step. I am excited that Senators Coburn and Obama have endorsed the concept of creating a similar database for targeted tax benefits that go to companies or industries who are adept enough at Washington politics to get them enacted. Like the spending to be disclosed in S. 2590, many targeted tax breaks are good policy. But the American people deserve to know who is paying less in taxes and causing them to pay more. They have a right to know who is getting benefits from Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues to have a bill, hold hearings, bring the bill to the floor, and make information on tax benefits public and easily accessible.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is interesting and amazing to me to listen to the critics of dissent in this democratic society. If you disagree with the administration, they try to insult you out of order and to create positions that describe you as insignificant, willing to retreat. We watched last week as the President continued his administration, as he began yet another campaign to convince Americans that its policy in Iraq is working. But much like the President's Iraq policy itself, this latest rhetorical campaign just isn't working. There have been five Bush administration campaigns to convince America that we should stay the course, and in each one of these administration claims they fail to convince the public. The public is smarter than they give them credit for. The American people understand what is happening in Iraq, and no wordsmithing is going to change that. The administration rhetoric continues. Last month, in a speech in Arizona, Vice President Cheney said: What these Democrats are pushing now is the very kind of retreat that has been tried in the past and has failed. Is he implying that their mismanaged offense worked? Ask the 2,600 families who lost a son or a daughter there whether they think the plan has worked. It is insulting to suggest that those who disagree suggest a retreat. They are ugly, partisan, political comments by the Vice President. What the Democrats want--and many Republicans--is a change in the direction in Iraq and new civilian leadership at the Pentagon to implement it. The stubborn Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld approach is simply not working. The retreat the Republican administration should be concerned with is the retreat of their colleagues from this failed Iraq policy. Some Republicans in Congress are happy to walk the plank and support the arguments that simply defy logic and others are jumping ship. We are seeing staunch Republicans, such as Representative Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota, saying that we lack strategic control of Baghdad and calling for a limited troop withdrawal. Representative Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania has characterized the Bush stay-the-course strategy as extreme. We all know our principled colleague, Senator Hagel, has spoken up in favor of changing course in Iraq from these failed policies. But through it all, the Bush administration mantra is the same: Stay the course. Don't cut and run. The alternative to that is stay and die. Critics are either unpatriotic or, as we heard from Secretary Rumsfeld last week, like Nazi appeasers. It seems the more the Americans call on the President to change course in Iraq, the more adamant he is to continue his failed approach. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld are making the same speeches now that they were making a year ago and even 2 years ago. Most of the words and phrases are the same. Nothing has changed except the date and the stage of the time. The reality is that this administration is incompetent, and those in this Congress who stand with them are endorsing this grievous incompetence. The administration's incompetence in Iraq has put our troops in danger. The administration's incompetence in Iraq is now empowering the terrorist regime in Iran. The administration's incompetence in Iraq has strengthened, not weakened, al-Qaida and other jihadists. In summary, this administration's incompetence has made us less safe, and Americans feel it in poll after poll and in State after State. I used to run a large company. Any successful CEO will tell you that if one of the top executives is making mistake after mistake after mistake, you have only one course: fire him. Get rid of him. There have been so many mistakes and miscalculations by Secretary Rumsfeld it is staggering to try to understand why he is still around, to be polite, why he is still on the job. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't make sense to millions across the country. Before the war, Secretary Rumsfeld said: We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. But now we know that there was no real evidence that Iraqis had WMDs. He also said that the Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and that Iraqi resistance would be limited. That was obviously wrong. He also failed to build coalitions with our allies. That doesn't stop him from referring to the coalition experience that we are having. There is virtually no coalition existence there, with the exception perhaps of the U.K. and Canada. In fact, Secretary Rumsfeld went out of his way to mock our allies when he should have been reaching out to them. This administration's failure to build a real coalition has caused our troops to bear the vast majority of risk and to suffer the casualties. These casualties stand at 2,652 deaths and almost 20,000 wounded. Secretary Rumsfeld said the war would be short. He said: It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. More than 3 years later, we know that assessment was tragically wrong. Secretary Rumsfeld also ignored warnings that he wasn't committing enough personnel and resources to win the war. When Army Chief of Staff GEN Eric Shinseki suggested that we needed more troops to maintain order in postwar Iraq, he was forced out. Secretary Rumsfeld also was way off on the cost of the war. He said it would cost no more than $100 billion. The war so far has cost a staggering $320 billion. He missed the mark. He said--insultingly: You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want. Is that a suggestion that our troops are less competent, less brave, less courageous, less willing to do their job? I think it is a terrible reference: If you think about it, you can have all of the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. Ask the parents of those who are in the tank corps how they feel about that. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. So it means, if you take it literally, well, that is what happens. If you don't have enough armor, they just get killed. Talk to the parents. I talked to them. I visited with them. Boy, they don't feel they were as protected as they should have been. Despite all of the funds, all of the effort, all of the sacrifice devoted to the war, Secretary Rumsfeld has failed to fully equip our troops. As we know, a number of prominent retired generals have come forward to say what many in the military have been thinking for years-- it is time for Secretary Rumsfeld to leave his post. The generals who have spoken out: MG Paul D. Eaton, GEN Anthony Zinni, LTG Gregory Newbold, MG John Batiste, MG John Riggs, MG Charles Swannack, Jr., LTG Paul van Riper, GEN Wesley Clark--distinguished military leaders who served nobly, who served bravely. Now, when they say take a look and see where we are going, they are ignored. General Eaton, who served in Iraq, said the following about Secretary Rumsfeld: In sum, he has shown himself incompetent, strategically, operationally, and tactically, and is, far more than anyone else, responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down. In summary, business as usual in Iraq has to stop. We need new leadership. Unless Secretary Rumsfeld is replaced, we are, unfortunately, destined for more of the same pain and casualties as we have in Iraq now.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have very few hours before we depart for the August break. Let's say we have 6 hours--360 minutes-- before we leave to campaign or vacation or meet with constituents back home. How are we going to use 360 minutes? The Republican leadership's idea is to use that precious time to pass the so-called ``trifecta'' bill. It's a bill that was sent to us from the House, and I think it symbolizes all that is wrong with the Republican Congress. For one, it is a cynical ruse. This bill holds the minimum wage hostage in exchange for a dramatic reduction in the inheritance tax--which only the richest families in America pay. The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 for almost a decade. That's $10,712 a year. And even though the Republican leadership has blocked a clean vote on the minimum wage for years, this ``trifecta'' bill marries the minimum wage increase with this huge cut in the inheritance tax. This inheritance tax only affects the richest one-half of 1 percent of families in the country. So, in other words, the Republican position is: we will only help everyday working people in America if you give multi-millionaires and billionaires a bribe. Mr. President, that is not the way to govern this country. This bill is also offensive because it is so out of touch with the priorities of the American people. Why aren't we taking steps to actually bring down gas prices? Gas is over $3 a gallon. It costs $60 to fill a tank for many people. That's what most Americans are concerned about right now. Are we going to use these last 360 minutes to deal with that issue? Meanwhile healthcare is in crisis. We have 43 million people without health insurance. And then there is a storm brewing over the new Medicare drug law. Indications of this storm are appearing in newspapers from Honolulu to Ho-Ho-Kus. This storm is called the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap. Some call this coverage gap the ``Doughnut Hole,'' but that is too kind a name. It's a much more serious crisis, and can have deadly consequences. Here is what is happening across America because of the coverage gap: millions of seniors on the new Medicare Prescription Drug Plan are going to the pharmacy counter and experiencing ``sticker shock.'' Why? Because their drugs suddenly cost four times as much as last month. Their drugs are costing four times as much because the Republican Medicare law allows drug plans to include a massive gap in coverage. In a nutshell, once you pay $750 out of pocket from the deductible and co- pays, your coverage just stops. And to make matters worse, your coverage goes away but you still have to pay the monthly premium. A lot of unhappy seniors are starting to experience this problem, and it will only get worse through the end of August and into September. So what are we doing about it? An inheritance tax break for multi-millionaires is what the Republican leadership is concerned about while millions of seniors are facing a financial gap in their prescription drug coverage. I would like to share some stories with my colleagues from recent news articles about how this coverage gap is affecting people across the country. The Bergen Record in New Jersey told the story of Melba Heck, who is in the coverage gap. When she started the Medicare Part D plan, she was paying $50 a month. Now, all of the sudden, the bill is $400. Ms. Heck, a retired nurse, told the newspaper that ``For the first time in ten years, I've had to cut back on my church pledge.'' Marcella Crown of Des Plaines, IL, reached the coverage gap back in April. Her husband said ``Blue Cross is saying that even though she will get no benefit, she must still pay the premiums. That's outrageous. We have never had insurance policies that gave us no benefit yet required us to pay premiums.'' In Maryland, retired teacher Elise Cain walked into her Silver Spring pharmacy and said she nearly ``passed out'' at the cash register. Her drug monthly cost jumped from $20 to $175. These are just some examples of the pain that millions of senior citizens will have to endure. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of this crisis. We need to deal with this Medicare coverage gap crisis now. If we wait until September, we do so at our own peril. Mr. President, this Congress is out of touch, and the Republican priority is to heap more wealth on a few of the richest people in America while tens of millions of their hardworking neighbors' children will struggle to get along with less as a result. Let's not let it happen.