Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I was not present during the rollcall votes number 630-631, on June 25, 2011. I would have voted:

On rollcall vote No. 630 I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 631 would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, pipeline safety is not a subject that we can afford to take lightly. On September 10, 2010, last year, a natural gas explosion in San Bruno, California, just north of my congressional district in Congresswoman Speier's district, killed eight people, injured dozens of others, and destroyed 55 homes. This was from a natural gas explosion.

Since 1938, Congress has attempted to promote natural gas pipeline safety, but the horrific explosions, like the one in San Bruno, California, continue to occur every year someplace in our country. It is a dangerous business under the best of circumstances.

To move forward with the tar sands pipeline, which we have little experience regulating, without a solid understanding of the safety issues is an enormous and, I think, dangerous mistake. We have heard strong, well-informed concerns that pipelines carrying tar sands and the chemical bitumen may pose greater safety risks than even those pipelines carrying conventional or synthetic crude.

On June 16 of this year, during an Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing on pipeline safety, Cynthia Quarterman, administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, known as PHMSA, testified that this agency, specifically tasked with researching and administering pipeline safety, has not analyzed the risks of these new pipelines. But Ms. Quarterman replied, when asked, that the agency would be pleased to make such a review. I think the American people would be safer if they did.

My amendment would require PHMSA to complete a comprehensive review of the properties and characteristics of bitumen and the hazardous liquid pipeline regulations before a final Presidential permit is issued.

I think this study is very, very important for the safety of all Americans, and it will determine whether current regulations are sufficient to regulate pipelines used for the transportation of tar sands crude oil. This approach I think makes sense because it is far less costly to build pipelines correctly than to try to fix or replace a line that is already built.

The explosion that occurred in San Bruno, California, and the recent oil spills that have occurred, particularly the spills from TransCanada's Keystone pipeline, which leaked 21,000 gallons of crude in North Dakota--I want to repeat that--leaked 21,000 gallons of crude in North Dakota, is a warning to all of us that we need to get this right. So let's protect lives, money, property, and take the proper precautions now.

For these reasons, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, to respond to my friend and colleague, Mr. Terry, with all due respect, I didn't come to the floor today with a tactic. I offered this, I raised this in the committee. We had a very good discussion about it there. It's my understanding that an EIS is being conducted, but an EIS on the entire pipeline is very different than what I am raising.

And the head of the agency, of PHMSA, when she appeared before the committee, understanding that there had not been an examination in particular about the tar sands crude oil and bitumen, said that her agency would be pleased to undertake that study.

So I'm here today, obviously, to offer this amendment. I think it is based on good common sense that we examine this before we go ahead with it. I raised something that is very real and that is just a handful of miles from where I live, even though it is outside my congressional district, where lives were lost--eight people were killed, dozens were injured, and 55 homes destroyed. So this is not a tactic. This is not to delay. This is to get this right before the permit is issued. I think the agency can do this on an expedited basis. I'm not seeking to delay and blow up anything. I'm here relative to public health and public safety.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Audrey Rust, a highly distinguished constituent, a nationally recognized leader of land preservation and a cherished friend on her 24 years as President, CEO and Executive Director of Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST).

Under her exceptional leadership since 1987, Ms. Rust has led POST, the Palo Alto, California based nonprofit land trust and has worked successfully in partnership with public agencies and private landowners to bring permanent protection to thousands of acres of open space lands in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. Recognized across the country as a conservation innovator and champion, she has helped protect local landscapes that are now part of the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, the California State Parks, as well as county and city parks, regional open space preserves and private farmlands.

Before coming to POST, Ms. Rust worked with the Sierra Club, Yale University and Stanford University. She has served on the boards of numerous local, State and national organizations, primarily in the conservation and housing arena. She has received the Times Mirror- Chevron National Conservationist of the Year Award; the League of California Voters Environmental Leadership Award; the Cynthia Pratt Laughlin Medal; the Garden Club of America's top environmental honor; and the Jacqueline Kennedy Award from JFK University for her achievements in land conservation. Ms. Rust is a graduate of the University of Connecticut at Storrs.

I've been privileged to know and work with Audrey Rust for many years. She has been a friend, a mentor, and an inspiration to me and to thousands more. Audrey is one of the great environmental heroes of our Nation. Her determination and focus have shaped an extraordinary legacy and our entire Nation is grateful to her for leading the way in saving and preserving the world-class beauty and natural integrity of the Peninsula, South Bay and Coastside of California for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to have my Bay Area colleagues--Leader Nancy Pelosi; Representative Sam Farr; Representative Mike Honda; Representative Zoe Lofgren; Representative Jerry McNerney, and Representative Jackie Speier join me in honoring Audrey Rust. I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in honoring and thanking Audrey Rust for her unparalleled record of leadership and wish her a joyful retirement. Audrey Rust is indeed a national treasure and it is a privilege to represent her and call her my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present during the rollcall vote numbers 601 and 602, on July 18, 2011.

I would like the record to reflect how I would have voted:

On rollcall vote No. 601 I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 602 I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2354, the Fiscal Year 2011 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.

The bill slashes funding for clean energy efficiency and research programs. It also makes steep cuts to flood control and environmental cleanup programs. In short, the legislation fails to protect our communities and it jeopardizes American innovation and job creation.

The last place to cut is in the area of investments in clean energy technologies. In my Silicon Valley District, innovation is the coin of the realm. I've seen dozens of burgeoning companies who are at the cutting edge of clean energy technology. Our nation has the capacity to lead the world in clean energy technology, and there are domestic industries poised for economic explosion if we help, not hurt them.

According to the Brookings Institution, the nation's clean energy economy, defined as goods and services with an environmental benefit, employs about 2.7 million people, more than twice the size of the fossil-fuel industry.

Investments today will lay the foundation for our future.

I oppose H.R. 2354 and urge my colleagues to do the same because hobbling our future is neither smart fiscally or policy-wise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I thank the chairman.

I rise once again in strong opposition to Representative Cole's amendment to block transparency and disclosure for taxpayers. That's what this issue is about.

It is with continuing curiosity that when I listened to the gentleman, Mr. Cole, present his view, if in fact you believe in disclosure, bring a bill to the floor. The reason that the House has passed what you keep offering is the House is not presented with an opposing view because my amendment is continually blocked and not accepted to be debated on the floor.

What this is about is the following: there are businesses large and small that receive billions of taxpayer dollars for services and products in doing business with the Federal Government. In return for this public money, they should have the obligation, which is not burdensome, to simply disclose how they use it. That's all this is. When they spend it in our elections, they know it, the recipients know it, but the taxpayers don't know it. That's one hell of a deal. For those who want to keep it in a dark corner, it's a great deal for them.

The American people have spoken clearly. Last year, a CBS/New York Times poll found that 92 percent of the American people support requiring campaigns, independent groups, businesses to disclose how much money they've raised, where it came from, and how it was used.

I am going to offer my own amendment again, for the fourth time, to require the disclosure which Representative Cole's amendment forbids. I expect, once again, that the majority is going to block it. It's an unfortunate turnaround, I think, from just a few years ago when Republicans led the fight for disclosure. They were for it before they decided to be against it. Does that tag line ring some bells for you? You were thinking that it would be better than restricting contributions. That was the thinking at the time. But now that the Supreme Court allows unlimited corporate spending, they're against any restrictions whatsoever.

We should oppose any amendments that are designed to keep the public less informed rather than more informed about what happens with their tax dollars. That's what this is about. The majority has made a big deal and talked incessantly about spending. What about this spending? Does this not mean something in terms of the Federal Government and the taxpayers? I think with public dollars comes public responsibility.

This does not present any constitutional issues, no freedom of speech issues. It is not burdensome. It is simply disclosure. If you want to stand with the uber-lobbyists who are representing lobbyists in support of the gentleman from Oklahoma's amendment, be my guest. I didn't come to Congress to do that.

I think that the President's Executive order is sensible, I think it should be put into place, and I think that any legislation brought to this floor to prevent that from happening is really on the wrong side of history.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise for the fourth time this year to call for transparency in our political system. I maintain the view shared by the overwhelming majority of the American people that transparency in the use of our tax dollars is absolutely critical.

There are thousands of companies that do business with the Federal Government, receiving billions of public dollars for their services and their products. Our constituents deserve to know whether they spend any of these dollars to influence our elections. My amendment will accomplish this, and I once again urge my colleagues to support it.

Now, some say, as we just heard a few moments ago, that this disclosure requirement will politicize the procurement process. It's difficult to maintain that view with a straight face. As I've said before, when a business contracts with the Federal Government and spends money in elections, the process is already politicized. Even in the Citizens United decision legalizing corporate expenditures, eight out of nine justices specifically endorsed prompt disclosure of expenditures. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, ``Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.'' This is not an onerous burden. As Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant.''

I want to share an example from my home State of California that illustrates the importance of disclosure. Last year, in 2010, Proposition 23 was on the ballot. It was an effort to kill the State's tough new global warming rules. The airwaves were flooded with ads, but because California requires disclosure, voters were informed. The oil companies financing the ads had to stand by them each and every time the ad aired, stating that they had paid for them. So voters were informed. They made up their minds. Prop 23 lost by 23 percent in November because voters knew who had paid for the ads and what and whom were behind them. It wasn't just someone skipping through a field, it was going to have an effect on them. It was disclosure.

As he has a half-dozen times this year, my colleague, Tom Cole, has offered an amendment to prevent the very disclosure I'm asking us to endorse. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it. Preventing transparency puts us all on the wrong side of history every time.

Republicans supported disclosure before they were against it, and the record is very clear on that. So I urge those from both the other side of the aisle and my colleagues on this side--I don't believe this is a partisan issue--I believe that disclosure is good for America, it's good for our system. It is not burdensome, it is not anti- constitutional, and it's simple. The voters should know, taxpayers should know.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Donald Kennedy, Ph.D., a highly distinguished American and treasured friend on his 80th birthday.

Dr. Kennedy was born in New York on August 18, 1931. He earned his A.B. and Ph.D. degrees in biology from Harvard University, but left the East to spend his academic career at Stanford University, a jewel in the crown of the 14th Congressional District. He joined Stanford in 1960 and was named Chair of the Department of Biology in 1964. In 1972, he became the Director of the Program in Human Biology, where he served until 1977.

In I977, Don Kennedy was appointed Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration by Health Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano. After giving our nation the benefit of his wisdom and considerable talents at the FDA, he returned to Stanford in 1979 and succeeded Richard Lyman as President of the University in 1980. He served with dignity and distinction until his resignation in 1991. He was Editor-in-Chief of Science from 2000 to 2008, and is now the Bing Professor of Environmental Science and President Emeritus of Stanford.

I've been privileged to know Don Kennedy for many years. He has been a friend, a mentor, and an inspiration to me and to thousands more. Generations of students have been the beneficiaries of his wise counsel and his scientific knowledge. We've been blessed with his ability to see the `big picture' and to make connections across disciplines. His early attention to the health consequences of environmental degradation was visionary and his commitment to changing policies to benefit the health of our planet is nothing short of extraordinary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in wishing Don Kennedy, a patriot in the highest sense of the word, a joyful, family and friend-filled 80th birthday. May this milestone be just the beginning of more productive, creative and prolific decades. Don Kennedy is indeed a national treasure and it is a privilege to represent him and his wonderful wife Robin, and call them my friends.

Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2011, surrounded by his family, my friend Ralph Calcaterra of Atherton, California, passed away. He leaves his wife Ferne, two children, Melissa Freeman and Richard Calcaterra, and three grandchildren.

For almost forty years, my family was blessed with the friendship of Ralph Calcaterra.

He made us laugh across the decades and generations.

He rode his bike to our house on Saturdays for almost twenty years-- smiling and calling out, ``anybody home?'' and ``what's going on?''

We learned more about Iron Mountain, Michigan, and Las Vegas, than anybody else in Atherton.

We saw how much a man can love his wife, his children, and his grandchildren.

We learned the latest prices of real estate in Atherton--including who had bought what, and at what price.

Most of all, we saw close up and personal, what loyal friendship was. Ralph embodied it.

Today, heaven is a better place. Saints and sinners alike are laughing and learning as we did because Ralph is there.

Thank you Ralph, for being our loving, smiling and loyal friend.

You enriched our lives just by being wonderful you, and we are already missing you.

Happy bike riding across heaven, and know we will love you across eternity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in offering our condolences to the family of Ralph Calcaterra, a proud citizen and a true patriot of our country.

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise for the third time this year to call for transparency and disclosure in our system and throughout our government. This appropriations bill will spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars next year; and a huge portion of it, a portion that's impossible to quantify, will go to contractors. Some are small, others rank among the world's largest companies. As we meet today, the workforce of contractors in Afghanistan is the same size as the workforce of the uniformed personnel there; and since 2005, we've spent approximately $12 billion on contractors in Afghanistan. Today, there are more private contractors than uniformed personnel in Iraq, and we've spent $112 billion on contractors in Iraq since 2005.

The Federal Government does business with thousands of contractors who receive billions of dollars in taxpayer

money. They should be required to disclose their political spending, and that's what my amendment will accomplish.

In 2002 when we voted to pass the historic McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, most Republicans voted ``no,'' saying we needed disclosure, not soft money restrictions. They said we needed to put spending out in the open and let the voters assess it. Today, when the President proposes requiring contractors to simply disclose their spending, not to limit it, Republicans are up in arms. They say it will politicize the contracting process; but when contractors can spend money in elections, the contracting process is already politicized.

My amendment is modest and it's simple: It will bring this information out into the open and let the public decide for themselves. The public deserves to know what happens with their tax money.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a revolutionary idea. For the last 17 years, the SEC requires bond dealers to limit their campaign contributions to the officials in the cities that issue bonds. It requires them to disclose their contributions, providing the public with transparency. The rule was challenged and upheld in court, and my amendment really adheres to the same principle. To quote Senator Mitch McConnell from 2003: ``Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?''

I agree with Senator McConnell. With public dollars come public responsibilities. Disclosure would fulfill this responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I just listened with great curiosity to the comments that were made about the so-called intent of the legislation. I don't see my colleagues on the other side bringing forward legislation that you have the power to pass given the number of votes that you have for full disclosure.

So if you're opposed to a draft executive order, if you're opposed to my coming to the floor and blocking every time I offer an amendment for disclosure in transparency, change it. You were for it before you went against it, the Republicans were. That's what the record is. So I rise in opposition to Representative Cole's amendment which blocks disclosure of contractor political spending.

Now, this is not to create any kind of list. You can come up with all kinds of things about why you're against something and then try to label it. This is about disclosure. This is about sunshine. This is about disinfectant, and you're against it. I think that's a bad place to be. In fact, I think it's the wrong side of history.

The draft of the President's order would require disclosure requirements for contractors who do business with the Federal Government. Now, any business that does business with the Federal Government is paid with taxpayer dollars. Why shouldn't there be transparency, accountability, and disclosure relative to those dollars? This amendment, your amendment, would prohibit disclosure, which I think is the exact wrong thing to do.

We should oppose any amendment--we should oppose any amendment, Republican or Democrat--that's designed to keep the public less informed about what happens to their tax dollars. We know who supports this amendment. It's the American League of Lobbyists, the lobbyists for the lobbyists. Surprise, surprise.

They're trumpeting their opposition to the President's draft order. We should be fighting for the taxpayers, not for the uber-, superlobbyists. What are we here for? We are here for the public interest, for the people. And yet there is an amendment on the floor that would destroy any attempt at disclosure.

Again, I remember when the Republicans supported disclosure. When we wanted contribution limits, Republicans said, no, we need disclosure instead. Now that we are asking for disclosure, you're opposed to it. As I said, you were for it, now you're against it.

The American people were very clear on this late last year when there was a CBS/New York Times poll, and that poll found that 92 percent of Americans support requiring outside groups to disclose how much money they have raised, where it came from and how it was used.

Now we are going directly to taxpayer dollars, those that do business with the Federal Government. It's very simple to disclose. We should be listening to the American people, and I would ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

This is a bad amendment. It's not good for the country. It's not good for our system. I don't believe it's why the people sent us here. And of all things to be stomping on and trying to snuff out, disclosure should not be one of them.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a very important issue which has generated much debate and misinformation in recent weeks. When President Obama articulated his vision for U.S. policy in the Middle East on May 19th at the State Department, he laid out an historic call to support the democratic aspirations of people living under decades of autocracy and tyranny.

President Obama also reaffirmed our commitment to finding a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. He restated the need for a negotiated settlement, and he opposed the Palestinian attempt to unilaterally seek UN recognition of their statehood. He also called for a resolution of the disputed lands based on the ``1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.''

President Obama's call to use the borders that existed before the Six Day War as a basis for future borders was also made by President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton. This is an almost two-decade old U.S. position. This policy position is well understood as the mainstream position by every diplomat, pundit, and scholar familiar with this issue.

The position is shared by Israel's own Defense Minister, and by Israel's former Prime Minister. It is shared by Israel's Opposition Leader, and it is shared by a majority of the Israeli public.

The issue of a negotiated peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians is far too important to cede to those who criticize the President for their own political aims. We must emphasize the facts. Support for Israel as a secure Jewish democratic state is a bipartisan priority, and this Administration has done at least as much as any other to expand and improve our security cooperation and diplomatic ties with her.

I call on each of my colleagues to refrain from distorting or misrepresenting this issue, and to join together in support of a negotiated settlement that will bring peace and prosperity to a region riddled with conflict for far too long.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This bill, H.R. 2021, contains a rather extraordinary provision. It says that any appeal of an exploration permit decision can only be heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a fundamental change to longstanding law and precedent governing the venue for judicial review of challenges to EPA action.

Over 40 years ago when Congress adopted the Clean Air Act in 1970 and established venue for judicial review, Congress made a very sensible distinction. That distinction was that local

and regional EPA actions would be reviewed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Nationally applicable actions would be reviewed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

This distinction has worked well for the past 40 years. If a major new industrial source will have significant local air pollution impacts, nearby communities will want to weigh in. Local businesses will want to ensure that a new source doesn't force more stringent cleanup requirements for existing sources. State and local authorities will have views. And the industrial source itself may disagree with EPA's decision. All of these stakeholders may want to appeal EPA's decision. Under the Clean Air Act, they can do so in the nearest court of appeals, without traveling to Washington, D.C. And for permits issued by States or localities, the decision is reviewed by State courts.

But this bill creates a new regime for exploration permits. In fact, under this bill, even for an exploration permit issued by a State or local permitting agency, all appeals would have to go to the Federal court here in Washington, D.C.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to criticize centralized government; bash Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C. lawyers. They extol the virtues of local control. They cite the 10th Amendment. But this legislation centralizes control in Washington, D.C. In fact, it's a boon for Washington, D.C. lawyers.

This provision makes it far more difficult for regular folks to appeal a decision that can directly affect them. It took one of our Energy and Commerce Committee witnesses from the North Slope of Alaska 16 hours to travel to Washington, D.C., at a cost of at least $1,000 for that ticket.

This provision forces State and local authorities to fly to Washington, D.C. to defend a challenged permit decision. That's a huge burden in terms of money, and particularly so in these tough economic times.

The premise of this bill is that the oil industry needs faster permit decisions. Moving review from one Federal circuit court to another does not expedite permit decisions, and the committee that I'm a part of received no testimony identifying any actual problems with review in the relevant circuit courts.

I encourage Members to support this amendment, which would preserve local control, which would preserve community participation and really speaks to some fiscal common sense.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present during the rollcall vote Nos. 420-459, on June 15-16, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted: on rollcall vote No. 420 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 421 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 422 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 423 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 424 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 425 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 426 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 427 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 428 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 429 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 430 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 431 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 432 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 433 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 434 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 435 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 436 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 437 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 438 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 439 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 440 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 441 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 442 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 443 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 444 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 445 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 446 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 447 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 448 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 449 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 450 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 451 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 452 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 453 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 454 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 455 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 456 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 457 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 458 I would have voted ``yes''; and on rollcall vote No. 459 I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker. I was not present during the rollcall vote No. 417-419, on June 14, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall vote No. 417 I would have voted, ``yes;'' on rollcall vote No. 418 I would have voted, ``yes;'' on rollcall vote No. 419 I would have voted, ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished woman, Doris Moorad Nadder. A lifetime member of Illinois' Carter-Westminster United Presbyterian Church, an extraordinary wife, mother, grandmother, cousin and friend, Doris is beloved for her spirited community involvement.

A native of Chicago, Illinois, Doris Nadder attended Lake View High School and later Northwestern Business College and Jones Business School. In 1983, she joined Kraft Foods, and spent the next 15 years contributing her considerable energy and talents to the company, rising to become Account Executive for Major Accounts. In her spare time, she wrote a play about the food service business for which she won a Prestigious Achievement Award. That's just how Doris Nadder sees life . . . a wonderful stage on which so many people interact.

Apart from her professional career, Doris Nadder has devoted herself to her church community, serving as an Elder and Financial Secretary. She can always be found mingling

with friends in the pews, or leading the Carter-Westminster Exercise Group. She was recently chosen as Carter-Westminster's ``S.Y.S.K.'' (Someone You Should Know), an honor she has earned and richly deserves.

Above all, Doris Nadder loves her family. She and her husband Dick were married in 1956, and raised three beautiful children--Claudia, Allison, and James. Her three grandchildren, Colin, Adam, and Jason are the lights of her life, whom she rates as ``Ten Pluses.''

Doris and Dick Nadder are avid readers and world travelers, having visited Spain, Austria, England and France. She has brought new meaning to the word `retired', walking three miles daily, painting beautiful watercolors, practicing her calligraphy, and occasionally even working part-time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring my very special cousin, Doris Nadder. She enriches the lives of everyone who knows her, and she brings constant joy to her family and wide circle of friends. I'm proud to pay tribute to a woman who lives her faith every day of her life, strengthens each of us with her integrity, and makes her community and our country stronger and better with all she does.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present during the rollcall vote No. 413-416, on June 13, 2011. On rollcall vote No. 413 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 414 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 415 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 416 I would have voted ``yes.''