Floor Statements

Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I was shocked and saddened by the commuter plane crash last February outside of Buffalo, NY. Sadly, Clay Yarber, a resident of Riverside, CA, was one of the 50 victims of this tragic crash.

I would like to offer my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Yarber and to all of the families dealing with such horrific loss.

The crash of Continental flight 3407 has had a significant impact on how Americans across the country view air travel and has raised serious questions about the safety and oversight of our Nation's aviation system.

Initial hearings held this past May by the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, brought to light many unsettling revelations about pilot training, hours of experience, fatigue, and the FAA's oversight role of regional airlines.

I was greatly disturbed by what appeared to be a lack of proper training for the pilots on how to recover from a stall, how to proceed in icing conditions, and reports of the crew commuting cross country without proper rest prior to the flight.

Although regional airlines account for one-half of all of the scheduled flights in the U.S., five of the last seven fatal commercial plane crashes involved these airlines.

As more Americans rely on commuter airlines for air service, the FAA must take aggressive action to ensure that there is no difference in the level of safety provided by these air carriers.

The National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, hearings also made clear that the FAA must be more proactive when it comes to safety. We must not wait until the next disaster to make long overdue changes in safety regulation at the FAA.

It is unacceptable that the NTSB recommendations designed to address some of the most serious aviation safety deficiencies continue to go unaddressed by the FAA today.

Last May, I joined Senator Snowe in sending a letter to the Department of Transportation urging the agency to take immediate action to address NTSB recommendations that languished on its Most Wanted list for years and other pressing safety concerns.

In some instances, recommendations such as those meant to address pilot fatigue, have been on the NTSB Most Wanted list since its inception 19 years ago. We must take immediate action to ensure that no other family must endure a similar tragedy because of unmet safety recommendations and a lack of agency oversight.

I was encouraged by recent announcements from the FAA about the agency's initiative to revise work hour rules to address pilot fatigue and to conduct emergency inspections at pilot training facilities. I believe this is a step in the right direction, but we must do more.

That is why I am proud to join Senator Snowe in introducing the Ensuring One Level of Aviation Safety Act of 2009, to address some of the more egregious aviation safety deficiencies. Our bill requires the FAA to implement unfulfilled NTSB recommendations and to do more oversight of regional airlines and pilot training academies. The bill also requires the FAA to update minimum training standards and hours of experience requirements for pilots.

Finally, this legislation mandates continuing education training for pilots, requires the development of airline fatigue management plans, and allows carriers immediate access to pilot performance records.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and the FAA to implement this legislation and to take additional steps to ensure that there truly is no difference in safety between major carriers and regional airlines.

We cannot wait for the next airline tragedy to take action. The flying public must be assured that the FAA and the airlines are doing their part to make safety the No. 1 priority.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 15 minutes from now.

Madam President, I decided to come to the floor to talk about a couple of things. One is health care reform and the other is the stimulus package.

We are seeing attacks from the party of no, the Republican Party, every day on this floor, and I believe the purpose is to derail health care reform. I think it is perfectly legitimate to debate how we do it, but I think when everything is stripped away, you are going to see the Republicans as the party of the status quo.

In relation to health care reform, the status quo has to go, because it is hurting our people. I will put a couple of facts out there that are irrefutable; they are just facts. The fact is, if we don't act, soaring health care costs are unsustainable for our families. In this great Nation, we pay twice as much as any other nation for our health care. The fact is we must turn this around. As the wording is now, we must ``bend that cost curve,'' because we cannot sustain the situation as it is. It is hurting our families. Premium rises are unbelievable. We all know it in our own circumstances. And we know the uninsured keep growing. Why? Because they cannot afford the premiums or maybe companies won't take them because they may have had high blood pressure or something, and they don't get the coverage they need. So they don't avail themselves of prevention.

We have too much obesity in this country among our kids and adults. We know that prevention in and of itself could bend that cost curve. If someone understands nutrition and diet, and they get help in making sure they change their lifestyle or that their kids don't eat sugar and fattening foods all the time, it has an enormous impact on what happens to them when they get older. Diabetes is a major problem. We can turn that around, along with the heart risks that go with it later on, and the stroke risks that go with high blood pressure. These things can be controlled.

We took a first step in prevention when we passed the bill on smoking

which, for the first time, will give the FDA the ability to regulate cigarettes and keep these products away from our kids, who are lured into smoking. You know how it is, because I am sure everybody knows someone who has this addiction, how very difficult it is--those folks who want to quit have such a hard time. Clearly, if we have prevention as the name of the game, we are going to see a decrease in costs, we are going to see healthier families, and we should see lower premiums.

The question is: If we do nothing, can we sustain what happened? If we do so, it ought to stress prevention and also make sure that the insurance companies are kept honest. How do you do that? It seems to me you want to make sure we have some kind of plan out there that has to live by the same rules as the private sector, be it a cooperative, a public plan, but it should live by the same rules so we can test and judge whether our people are getting ripped off when they get these huge increases in their premiums. We also need a plan that covers the uninsured, however we deal with it, because there is no question about it that when people are uninsured, they are still going to get the health care they need. No doctor is going to turn them away when they show up in the emergency room with a stroke or heart condition that probably has not been looked at for a long time. The signs of a stroke you can find through blood pressure taking. If they haven't done that, when they show up there, who pays for it? The fact is, those costs come right back home to us. Somebody has to pay for it. That is reflected in the premium.

So here is the point. I don't think it is that complicated. If you stress prevention, and if you have a plan out there--a nonprofit plan-- that can keep the insurance companies honest and make sure they are not overcharging us, and if you cover the uninsured, I think those are the principles I am looking for. I don't think it is that complicated. But we hear our colleagues on the Republican side come out to the floor day in and day out bashing public plans.

Let the Republicans introduce a bill to repeal Medicare. That is a public plan. Our seniors love it. The Republicans fought it in the 1960s. The Democrats passed it under Lyndon Johnson. Why don't they come here and say they want to repeal Medicare?

Another public plan is veterans' health care. It is a government plan. Why don't they come here and put forward a proposal to completely do away with veterans' health care? I will tell you, the veterans in this country will rise up--the Republican veterans, the Democratic veterans, the Independent veterans, the old and young veterans. Why don't they do that, instead of coming here and saying public plans are bad?

How about SCHIP, the public plan that allows our children to be covered, our poor kids? Why don't they come here and say our children should not be covered and let's repeal it?

How about our military? They get free health care through the public domain. Should we now cancel that and contract it out?

Look, I am for a robust debate. I am for a bipartisan bill. I want to work toward that. But let me tell you this: If we don't get 60 votes for something, we cannot quit around here. We cannot allow a terrible crisis toward the end of life bankrupt our families. More than half of our families who file bankruptcy do it because of a crisis in their health. We cannot afford that. The fact is that we are on the verge of being able to do something but not if the party of no comes here every day and bashes every idea and starts frightening the American people. They will have their chance, but I hope we won't stop. We will have to figure out a way to do it with a majority vote. That is my feeling. This is too important an issue. Our families cannot take it. They cannot take a circumstance where they are now already paying a third of their money for their mortgage. Are they going to pay another third, or half, for health care? What is left over to live a life and support their kids?

Come on, get over it, party of no. Come to the table and work with us. Don't bash every idea President Obama lays down on the table. He is the President. Give him a chance to move this forward.

The Stimulus Program

Madam President, speaking of bashing things, my last commentary until we vote is this:

Senator Coburn has put out a report in which he bashes the stimulus program. I think it is very important for the American people to understand a few things. One, a couple of his examples are right on target, and we always expect there will be a couple of things that would happen that were wrong. The administration is aware of that. We tried to get on top of it and stop it. But we lost over a trillion dollars from our economy and we put in this stimulus package--about $787 billion--so we can make sure that this great recession doesn't turn into a great depression. That is why we have I think 30 inspectors general overseeing this program.

Despite that, I understand Senator Coburn. He was never for the stimulus. He said let the American people work their way through it, that government should stay out. That is fair. Now he is bashing the stimulus program. All of the work he has done thus far has identified .7 percent--not even 1 percent--that was a problem. Some of those are way off base. I want to talk about some of them in California that he has highlighted and has bashed:

First, $200,000 to place restrooms at a Black Butte Lake, California park. Excuse me. Maybe there is something wrong with me, but I think having a clean restroom in a State park that is safe and available is quite important. But he says that is ridiculous. It creates jobs to build that, and it is an important hygienic issue that I think needs to be addressed.

He talked also about a State park. This is near and dear to my heart. It is $620,000 to build a State park for our children in Long Beach, CA. I don't know about Mr. Coburn in Oklahoma--they have fewer people there, true. I have a State of 37 million people. We have a lot of kids. We have a lot of kids who get in trouble after school and who drop out of school. We have a problem. They love to skateboard. As a matter of fact, we had a former gang in Oakland come forward and actually construct it themselves. Building a State park for our kids is not a boondoggle. It is a safe place for them to go, and you create jobs when you do it.

We are installing energy efficient runway guidance lights at the San Diego Airport. Yes, energy efficient lighting saves money. As a matter of fact, this thing has a payback. It cost $5 million. It has a payback of 2 to 5 years. When you put in efficient lighting, there is a payback. It uses less electricity and it lowers the cost. But, no, Senator Coburn bashes that. Those are some examples of what he is bashing just in my State.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document entitled ``Funding Notification By Program'' for my State of California.

If you go through this, you will see in the largest State of the Union, which is suffering with an 11.2 percent unemployment rate, projects that are putting people to work today and doing good things. There is a medical assistance program; a clean water State revolving fund grant; a State energy program, which is putting people to work; weatherization assistance for low income; working with the youth; and it goes on and on. There are safe drinking water grants, a law enforcement grant, educational technology grant, adoption assistance grant, and a foster care grant.

Why is my colleague not coming down here and saying he did find less than 1 percent of a problem, but these other things are good, and these other things are putting people to work and they are saving our children, saving our environment, and saving energy?

It is the party of no. No, no, no, a thousand times no. The American people understand that we on this side of the aisle, and our President, in reaching across the aisle, are going to continue to work for change. Change means getting out of this mess we are in right now--this deep recession. We are going to continue to do it. They are going to say no, no, a thousand times no. We will work with them when they want to work with us. If they don't, we have to figure out a way to bring the change and jobs to America, the energy efficiency to America, and all that is good that the American people deserve.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be closed.

I ask unanimous consent that the hour for debate prior to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1023 be yielded back.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jonathan Kolikant and Matthew Long of Senator Bingaman's office be granted the privilege of the floor for the pendency of the Travel Promotion bill.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Rickey Henderson on his induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame on July 26, 2009. During a remarkable 25-year career, Rickey Henderson's keen batting eye and unique combination of speed and power earned him the recognition as one of the greatest leadoff hitters in the game's long and storied history.

Born on Christmas day in 1958, Rickey Henderson and his family moved to Oakland, CA, when he was 2 years old. He was a standout athlete at Oakland Technical High School, where he excelled at basketball, baseball and football. Though his exploits on the gridiron as an All- American running back earned him dozens of scholarship offers, Rickey chose to pursue a professional baseball career and follow his dream to don the green and gold of his hometown Oakland Athletics.

Rickey Henderson made his major debut on June 24, 1979. Over the course of the next 25 seasons, he would compile one of the most impressive resumes in baseball history. In a game which defines greatness by statistics, Rickey Henderson's name can be found at or near the top of some of the more hallowed records in baseball history. The 10-time All Star retired as the all-time leader in career walks and holds the career records for runs scored and stolen bases as well as the single-season stolen base record. The 8 stolen bases that he amassed during his Most Valuable Player performance in the 1989 American League Championship Series remains the record for most stolen bases in a single postseason series. A year after spearheading the Oakland A's 1989 World Series title, Rickey was named the American League Most Valuable Player in 1990.

Rickey Henderson's induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame will see him join Joe Morgan and Frank Robinson as a legend of the game who honed his skills and love for America's pastime during his formative years in Oakland. During three separate stints with his hometown team, Rickey established a bond with generations of loyal Oakland A's fans that remains as strong today as when Rickey stole 130 bases in 1982. Speaking after his election into the Hall of Fame, he said that, ``in my eyes, I wanted to see the fans in Oakland enjoy the game as much as I enjoyed it . . . playing in front of friends and family there gave me a little bit more of a boost. It helped me out in my career, and I was proud to go out there and represent the Oakland area.'' Judging from his achievements on the field and his devotion to the fans, it is clear to see why Rickey Henderson is one of the most beloved sports figures in the bay area and a worthy exemplar of the rich history of major league baseball in Oakland.

As his teammates and fans would attest, Rickey Henderson is a deserving inductee into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Throughout his career in baseball, Rickey has consistently achieved excellence on the field and conducted himself with integrity and character off the field.

I congratulate Rickey Henderson on his induction in the National Baseball Hall of Fame, and wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring the memory of an extraordinary labor leader, civil servant, and dear friend of mine, John F. ``Jack'' Henning. Jack's legendary activism and innovation in the labor movement will serve as a source of inspiration for decades to come. Jack passed away on June 4, 2009. He was 93 years old.

Jack Henning was born in San Francisco on October 25, 1915, to hard- working Irish-American parents. After he graduated from St. Mary's College with a degree in English literature, he began what would become a lifelong and immensely successful career in the labor movement. In 1938, Jack began working for the Association of Catholic Unionists in San Francisco, and in 1949 he was hired by the California Labor Federation.

Recognizing Jack's exemplary leadership, hard work, and compassion for his fellow-man, former California Governor Pat Brown named him director of the California Department of Industrial Relations in 1959. A public servant

and leader at both state and federal levels, Jack also served as Under Secretary of Labor under President Kennedy and was later appointed as U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand by President Johnson.

With an already impressive and accomplished career behind him, Jack returned to California in 1970 and continued his life-long effort to improve conditions for working Americans. For 26 years Jack served as the executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, representing over 2 million workers.

Jack's leadership in the labor movement had a huge impact on workers across California and the Nation. A friend and colleague of Cesar Chavez, Jack worked alongside the United Farm Workers to pass California's groundbreaking Agricultural Labor Relations Act in 1975, which established the right to collective bargaining for farm workers. Jack went on to fight many successful battles for improvements in worker safety and compensation laws.

Jack's belief in, and dedication to, equal rights was not limited to the labor movement. Jack also fought against ignorance and racial discrimination. As the Regent for the University of California from 1977 to 1989, Jack worked to establish affirmative action policies and encouraged the University to divest from South Africa in protest of the country's support of apartheid.

Jack stood out as a driven organizer and hard worker who cared for his community deeply. Jack will be remembered by his friends and partners in the labor movement as a visionary, a talented orator, and stalwart defender of equal rights. He was a champion for workers everywhere, and he will be sorely missed. We take comfort in knowing that the future of the labor movement will continue to benefit from Jack's dedication for generations to come. We will always be grateful for Jack's example of a steadfast commitment to social and economic justice.

Jack is survived by his five sons, John Jr., Patrick, Brian, Daniel, and Thomas; two daughters, Nancy Goulde and Mary Henning; 12 grandchildren; and six great-grandchildren. My thoughts are with Jack's family at this difficult time.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I came to the floor to speak in support of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and also to express my gratitude to Senator Kennedy and my colleagues who have pushed so hard for the consideration of this important bill. I am so pleased about the vote last night which allowed us to move forward on this bill.

This would be a historic accomplishment for this Senate, the House, and for the President. I am at a loss to understand how Senators could stand in opposition to this important legislation. To prove the point, I could ask a couple of questions:

What is the leading cause of preventable death in this country, killing over 400,000 Americans a year? The leading cause of preventable death is tobacco.

What causes more deaths than HIV/AIDS, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle accidents, suicides, and murders combined? I guess if you ask people out there, they may not know that the answer is tobacco.

What are the only products on the market that kill one-third of their purchasers? Madam President, if you had a health device or any product that kills one-third of its purchasers, we would outlaw that product in a heartbeat. We are not outlawing tobacco; we are simply saying tobacco needs to be controlled by the FDA. Remember, the only product on the market that kills one-third of its purchasers is tobacco, if used as directed.

I could go on and on with these rhetorical questions. Clearly, we know tobacco is the only product on the market that is advertised and sold without any government oversight.

I don't understand how 35 or so of our colleagues think the answer to our pushing for this is no. But then again, that is the answer we get back from the other side of the aisle a lot. I am very grateful to the eight or nine Republicans who joined us. Without them,

we wouldn't be here today. As I did on the stimulus, thanking those three who had the bravery to say yes, I thank the eight or nine who had the bravery to say yes and move to regulate tobacco. Food is regulated. Drugs are regulated. Consumer products are regulated. Tobacco is not. We know this bill could prevent 80,000 tobacco-related deaths every year.

It makes me sad to think that over the years our failure to address this issue is having the greatest impact on our Nation's children. Ninety percent of all new smokers are children. I have spoken to the tobacco executives and watched them being interviewed. ``Oh, we just don't want kids to get our products.'' Please. It is embarrassing that they can say that with a straight face when they have invented all kinds of new products, including tobacco candy. You know, there is an old cliche that ``this is so easy, it is like giving candy to a baby.'' We know kids love candy, and what happens if you lace that candy with an addictive product? The answer is that we get a lot of kids hooked on tobacco who cannot quit when they get older.

Claims by the tobacco industry that these products are safe alternatives to smoking and they are not designed to attract kids, frankly, just don't add up. You know what they are doing. We know adult smokers are finally saying no; they are quitting, thank goodness. It is very difficult. I have watched it up close with family and friends, and some of them who quit for 2, 3 years go right back again, and it is worse than ever. This isn't easy. Don't say you are creating a safer product when you create tobacco candy, a smokeless tobacco. We know smokeless tobacco can lead to oral cancer, gum disease, heart attacks, heart disease, cancer of the esophagus, and cancer of the stomach. Smokeless tobacco products are only the latest effort by the tobacco companies to market tobacco products that they claim pose a reduced risk.

Cigarettes contain 69 known carcinogens and hundreds of other ingredients that contribute to the risk of all of the diseases I mentioned. Yet the tobacco industry is not required to list the ingredients of its products as all food products have to do. We have a right to know the calories, sugar, protein, and all those things when we eat food, but for cigarettes they don't have to list the ingredients.

The bill will make it so that we finally know what is contained in these products. The legislation will grant the FDA the authority to ban the most harmful chemicals used in tobacco and even to reduce the amount of nicotine.

A 2006 Harvard School of Public Health study revealed that the average amount of nicotine in cigarettes actually rose 11.8 percent from 1997 to 2005. How can my colleagues on the other side, who voted pretty much en masse against this bill, say we should just keep it open to amendment? How can they explain that even after all these years, now that we know the risks of tobacco? There were reasons in the early years when we didn't know how serious it was. That is one thing. But here they have a situation where recently they raised the amount of nicotine. There is no rhyme or reason for that.

This bill will give the FDA the authority to require stronger warning labels, prevent industry misrepresentations, and regulate ``reduced harm'' claims about tobacco products. If you die because you use smokeless tobacco but say you die from a heart attack, you are still dead. This Congress and the President have committed to reducing health care costs through comprehensive reform. This legislation is such an important step on the way because lung cancer is a preventable disease. It is preventable, as well as the heart risks associated with smoking. Investing in prevention and wellness will enable us to increase access to quality health care while reducing costs.

Tobacco use results in $96 billion in annual health care costs, and in California alone--my State--we spend $9.1 billion on smoking-related health care costs. Everybody who has a heartbeat and a pulse today knows that my State suffers mightily from a terrible budget crisis--$20 billion. We don't know where to look, what to do. People never put together the fact that smoking is causing our health care costs to swell. If my State could save $9.1 billion on smoking-related health care costs, that really saves the education system and a lot of other important things we do in our State.

Preventive medicine and giving the authority to the FDA to vigorously enforce some strict, new laws about cigarettes is going to make a positive difference. I am proud to be here in support of this important legislation.

I wish to say again to Senator Kennedy, if he is watching this debate, how much I respect, admire, and miss him and his presence here on this bill. If he were here, he would be roaring from the back of the Chamber about this, in the best of ways, and challenging us to move forward on this bill as quickly as we can.

The House has acted. Once the Senate acts, we can have a conference-- or maybe the House will take the Senate bill--and this bill will be on the President's desk before we do health care reform. Imagine what a great preamble this would be to health care reform--tackling this incredible problem in our society, tobacco use, an incredible problem in our society that causes so much suffering and dependence and so much addiction, so much cost--if we are able to tackle this as a preamble to our health care reform, I would be so proud. I know each and every one of us who will support this will be very proud. I know President Obama will be very proud. He has struggled with tobacco addiction. He knows how tough it is to say no to cigarettes. Clearly, the best way is to prevent someone from getting addicted in the first place.

I don't want my grandkids being lured into smoking by looking at a box of candy cigarettes and trying one, two, three, and four. I don't want that for anybody's grandkids. If people decide when they are older, when they know all of the facts, that they are going to smoke, in many ways that is their problem. But it is our job to let them know the risks and dangers. Very clearly, we have been dancing around the edges with these little warning labels, but we have not controlled tobacco. We need to do that.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--again, thanking the eight or nine Republicans for joining us--to make an investment in the health of the American people and support this legislation.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the vote with respect to the Burr-Hagan amendment be modified to provide that the vote occur at 4:20 p.m. under the same conditions as previously ordered.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would my friend yield for a question?

I know we have to vote, but I wish to speak for a minute. As a woman, and being from California, we have such excitement about this nomination. I know we all agree this is a historic first, this nomination, and I think, given that and the fact that the women of this country comprise a majority and there is only one woman on the Court-- and we certainly have never had a Latino on the bench--I am asking my friend, does he not believe this nominee should be accorded equal treatment--equal treatment as it relates to the others who have been nominated to the same post?

That is all I am asking for. I am not on the committee, but I am supporting our Chairman Leahy and the rest of the committee--at least those who are moving toward this in a schedule similar to Justice Roberts. I would ask, once again: Shouldn't we, who are very excited about this nomination and want to see it move forward, expect to have Judge Sotomayor treated in an equal fashion?

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor the life of Professor Ronald Takaki, a pioneer and leader in the field of ethnic studies. Professor Takaki passed away on May 26, 2009, at the age of 70.

Ronald Takaki, the grandson of Japanese immigrants, was born and raised in Hawaii. In his youth he was an avid surfer, earning the nickname ``Ten Toes Takaki'' because of his ability to perform one of the most impressive and iconic stunts a surfer can do on a surfboard. Though uninterested in school when he was younger, Takaki applied to and was accepted at the College of Wooster in Ohio; he was the first in his family to attend college. After earning a bachelor's degree in history, he attended UC Berkeley, where he received a master's and doctorate in history. It was at UC Berkeley, doing a dissertation on the history of American slavery, that Takaki found his passion.

In 1967, Takaki was hired by UCLA, where he taught the University of California's first Black history course following the tumultuous Watts riots. Though an unlikely candidate to teach the course, students quickly came to respect and admire him, and he and his class became one of the most popular on campus. In 1971, Professor Takaki returned to UC Berkeley, where he served as the first full-time teacher in the Department of Ethnic Studies.

In addition to teaching Black history, Professor Takaki also established UC Berkeley's PhD program in ethnic studies, the first of its kind in the Nation. During the 30 years he taught at UC Berkeley, Professor Takaki succeeded in his desire to make the school's curriculum more multicultural and diverse. He inspired and engaged thousands of students with his thought-provoking and insightful perspectives on race and ethnicity in the United States.

Professor Takaki was also a distinguished and prolific writer. Among his most well-known books were Iron Cages: Race and Culture in 19th- Century America; A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America, which won the American Book Award, and Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans, which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.

Professor Takaki is survived by his wife Carol; his children Troy, Todd, and Dana; his brother Michael; his sister Janet; and his seven grandchildren. I extend my deepest sympathies to his entire family.

Professor Takaki was widely considered to be the father of multiculturalism. His trailblazing spirit and love of life was evident in everything that he did, and his many years of service as an educator, writer, and activist will not be forgotten. We take comfort in knowing that future generations will benefit from his tireless efforts to make America a better place to live.

Madam President, I would like to recognize World Environment Day, which takes place every year on June 5. This day was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1972 and has been a reminder each year that protecting our planet is a global issue.

As countries around the world work toward the historic global warming negotiations in Copenhagen later this year, it is fitting that the theme for World Environment Day 2009 is ``Your Planet Needs You--Unite to Combat Climate Change.''

As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I am working with my colleagues to address global warming here in the United States. The world is looking for American leadership, and they are watching closely what we are doing here in Congress.

We must demonstrate our commitment to take real action to cut our own greenhouse gas emissions. When we act, we will renew our leadership on this issue in the international community. Legislation to curb U.S. global warming pollution will also put us on a path toward a new clean energy economy that creates millions of American jobs and breaks our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. It's time to harness the greatest source of power we have in this country--American ingenuity. This country can and should be a leader of the clean energy revolution.

I am proud to say that for the second year in a row, a student from California has been selected as the winner of the United Nations' Environment Programme's International Children's Painting Competition on the Environment. This year, Alice Fuzi Wang, from Palo Alto, was honored for her creative and moving work of art, which will be recognized on World Environment Day at the North American celebration in Omaha. I met Alice when she was here in Washington to receive her award on April 22, Earth Day.

It is wonderful to see people of all ages, from all over the world, participating in the festivities honoring World Environment Day. I want to thank the organizers of World Environment Day for their important contribution in working to combat one of the greatest challenges of our generation--global warming.