Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. In spite of the Democratic majority leader on the other side of the rotunda's shutdown plan, the fact is every Republican wants the government to stay open. We've passed several bills over to the Senate and asked them to take them up that would have kept the government operating. And at last we said, okay, you won't go for our plans; let's go to conference and talk about it. But, no, they wouldn't even do that, wouldn't even go to conference to talk with us about it. It was shut it down. That's exactly what they wanted. In fact, all the time leading up to this, the only people talking about shutting down the government were my friends on the other side of the aisle. Republicans did not want to shut the government down, and so now what we're trying to do is to open up parts of the government and see if we can get some consent on that. I would have thought my friend from Virginia who loves the national parks just like I do and loves the Smithsonian and knows the importance of it, particularly to this area, would have been persuaded by the $200 million in revenue that comes in because of the Mall and the tourists that come here. But, apparently, that's not good enough. What you need to do is quit holding the national parks, the Smithsonian, the Holocaust Museum and others hostage to your desire to shut down the government. That's what's going on here. You think we're holding the Affordable Health Care Act hostage. You're holding our national parks hostage. And remember, we've got millions of people that have sat down, made plans to visit their national parks. They may have been planning for 6 months. They may have been planning for several years to save the money to visit Washington, D.C., to visit our Nation's history, or to go to Yosemite or to Glacier National Park or the Grand Canyon. If you've never been there, you need to go to them; but all of a sudden now they can't go. Do you find it strange that, as Mr. Hastings said during his debate, the World War II Memorial is open to the public. There are no doors. There are no gates. You can walk through that at any time, day or night. It is just on the Mall. Yet when the government is shut down, the Obama administration decided to put a barricade around it. For the first time they put a barricade around it so that you couldn't even walk through it. We've got World War II veterans planning to come here tomorrow now asking--average 85 years old--they're asking the airline if they can refund their ticket and get them at another time. If they do it another year, a lot of those 85-year-old people won't be with us. They're coming here because they want to visit their memorial, the World War II Memorial. But, no, the Obama administration has put barricades around it. Does that sound to you like maybe they're trying to make this as painful as they possibly could? I think so. All we're trying to do is reopen the national parks, the Holocaust Museum, the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art because they're important to the people that want to come here. Are the other institutions that were mentioned during this debate important? You bet they are. We would like to open every single one of them; and we will keep trying, in spite of the opposition from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, as I mentioned, this is not the way to run the government, absolutely not the way to run the government. Everyone on this side of the aisle agrees with that. But the fact is we have a difference between the House and the Senate. And what do you do when you have a difference between the House and the Senate? Should it have been done 2 months ago? Sure. It wasn't. We are where we are today, and now we need to sit down and work out the differences between the House and the Senate, and I suspect we have a difference of opinion of how we came to this point.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all my Members to support this to keep our national parks open so that the families and their children can enjoy these national parks, and we will work on the rest of the government, trying to make sure that we get it open and get around this Democratic shutdown of the government. Mr. Speaker, I urge this bill's passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 70) making continuing appropriations for National Park Service operations, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 70 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just respond. The gentleman from Virginia is correct in that this is no way to run the government. I would remind the gentleman from Virginia that we did pass resolution after resolution, and we sent them to the Senate to keep the government operating. Unfortunately, they were rejected by the body on the other side. Now, I suspect that you might have a different take on why that was done. So, finally, we said let's go to conference to try to work out our differences. No, they wouldn't even do that. They rejected that. So is it fair to punish those people who have planned for months, sometimes years, to bring their families to Washington, D.C.? They've saved. They've put aside money so that they could come out here to show the American people our National Capital or to go to the Yellowstone National Park or Yosemite. Is it fair to punish them? This opens them and keeps them open for those people so that they can enjoy those natural things that you and I both love. There is absolutely no reason to punish them.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman. I appreciate him yielding. Madam Speaker, I have to tell you that I agree with the statement of my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). In fact, most people sitting on the Floor are on the Appropriations Committee and agree with him that we need to get back to regular order. I can tell you that our chairman and the ranking member have been trying to get us back to regular order where we pass individual appropriations bills and get them done. So far we haven't been able to do that, so it's necessary to do a short-term CR. I can tell you that we've heard over the last couple of days a lot of talk about Republicans trying to shut down the government. That's the last thing we want to do. If we wanted to do that, we wouldn't be doing a short-term CR. The reason we're doing a short-term CR instead of a long-term CR is because we need to allow the Appropriations Committee to do their work--to finish their bills, to work with the Senate and get conference reports done, and do our individual bills. And that's what we're working on. We can't fall into the abyss of a long-term CR. I will give you an example. As many of you know, the West has been on fire this summer--in fact, our chairman was out in Idaho reducing the number of fish in our streams out there this summer. He saw the effects of the fires and what it's having in Idaho and throughout the West. We were able to get into this short-term CR 636 million additional dollars to fund the Forest Service and the BLM in forest firefighting costs. If we do a long-term CR, we lose that $636 million. If we do individual bills, we will be able to keep it. But we need to get to where we do individual appropriations bills so that we can have our priorities met. Some people think doing a long- term CR actually reduces spending. I will tell you that if you look at where we were last year--with our bills that we almost got done and then ended up with a long-term CR--the EPA is spending about $75 million more dollars this year than it would have under the bills that we would have passed. So if you think that's the way to save money, it's not. We need to do our job. While I was talking about forest firefighting service, I have to tell you, since I've got the floor for a minute, how proud I am of the work that the Forest Service did, the contractors with the Forest Service, with hotshot crews from across the country. I met with some of them from Tennessee--I knew they were from Tennessee because they spoke funny. But they did an amazing, amazing job. We ought to be proud of the work they do, and we ought to make sure they have the resources to fight these wildfires. Let's pass this short-term CR, keep the government operating, and let Appropriations finish their job.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, Mr. Moran and I have had this discussion six or seven times on this very amendment over the past few years; and, once again, I rise to oppose it. Contrary to what the gentleman from Michigan just said, I do understand the issue; and, frankly, understanding it is why I am opposed to it. In 2006, the Supreme Court determined that the EPA and the Corps of Engineers did not have the authority to regulate nonnavigable waters under the Clean Water Act. Now, you might disagree with that Supreme Court decision. Tough luck. They made the decision, and we follow the decisions of the Supreme Court. In accordance with this decision, the term ``navigable waters'' has long been the phrase used to limit Federal intrusion with regard to the Clean Water Act's authority. Nonnavigable waters are currently regulated by the States. Everybody who stands up and talks assumes that if it is a nonnavigable water that nobody is regulating it. In fact, the States are regulating those things. However, last year the Corps of Engineers and the EPA issued guidance that would expand the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to nonnavigable, intrastate waters, effectively resulting in a massive expansion of the Federal Government's authority to increase the number of waters subject to the water quality standards--including irrigation canals, ponds, drainage ditches, and other things. Deciding how water is used should be the responsibility of State and local officials who are familiar with the people and local issues. If all intrastate waters are regulated by the Federal Government, the language could be broadly interpreted to include everything within a State, including groundwater. As a result, the reach of the Federal jurisdiction would be so broad that it could significantly restrict landowners' ability to make decisions about their own property and local government's ability to plan for their own development. The language in the bill protects the authority of the States to prevent the Army Corps from expanding its regulations to include intrastate bodies of water under the Clean Water Act for any reason other than drinking water standards. Clarity is needed on this issue, and the gentleman from Michigan mentioned clarity. But I will tell you, clarity simply for clarity's sake is not an answer. Death is a clarity. It's not necessarily the outcome you want, though. So doing this just so you have clarity in it is not the right direction to go. Congress does need to provide that clarity, but not the agencies through the regulatory process. The Supreme Court has already determined that the Army Corps does not have the authority to do what it is proposing, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran). I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 876, the Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act. This bipartisan, noncontroversial legislation is a technical fix intended to enable the Forest Service to authorize and permit existing historical water diversions within the Idaho wilderness. A few years ago, one of my constituents came to me for help with a problem. The Middle Fork Lodge has a water diversion within the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area that existed before the wilderness area was established and is protected under statute. The diversion was beginning to leak and was in desperate need of repairs to ensure that it did not threaten the environment and watershed, but it turned out that the Forest Service did not have the authority to issue the lodge a permit to make the necessary repairs. As we looked into this issue, we discovered that the Forest Service lacked this authority throughout both the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, where there are 22 known water developments, and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, where there are three. These diversions are primarily used to support irrigation and minor hydropower generation for use on non-Federal lands. While the critical situation at the Middle Fork Lodge brought this issue to my attention, it is obvious to me that this problem is larger than just one diversion. At some point in the future, all 25 of these existing diversions will need maintenance or repair work done to ensure their integrity. H.R. 876 authorizes the Forest Service to issue special use permits for all qualifying historic water systems in these wilderness areas. I believe it is important to get ahead of this problem and to ensure that the Forest Service has the tools necessary to manage these lands. For these reasons, I have introduced H.R. 876. This legislation, which was passed by the House during the last two Congresses, allows the Forest Service to issue the required special use permits to owners of historic water systems, and it sets out specific criteria for doing so. Providing this authority will ensure that existing water diversions can be properly maintained and repaired when necessary and preserves beneficial use for private property owners who hold water rights under State law. I have deeply appreciated the cooperation of the Forest Service in addressing this problem. Not only have they communicated with me the need to find a systemwide solution to this issue, but at my request, they have drafted this legislation to ensure that it only impacts specific targeted historical diversions--those with valid water rights that cannot feasibly be relocated out of the wilderness area. H.R. 876 is bipartisan and noncontroversial. It is intended as a simple, reasonable solution to a problem that I think we can all agree should be solved as quickly as possible. I am hopeful that we can move this bill through the legislative process without delay so that the necessary maintenance to these diversions may be completed before the damage is beyond repair. I urge my Members to support this legislation.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Laurel Sayer, a member of my staff and one of the finest public servants I have ever met. While I am happy for Laurel that her long career as a Congressional staffer has culminated with her well-earned retirement from this body, I am equally concerned by the hole her absence will leave in my office and the challenge my remaining staff faces in filling the void. Laurel began her service in my office not long after my election to Congress in 1998. She had served with then-Congressman Mike Crapo for several years and I consider my successful effort to lure her away from his office one of my earliest, and finest, achievements. For the last 14 years, Laurel has been the anchor of my staff in eastern Idaho where she led my outreach efforts regarding natural resources, arts, and conservation issues. She was also my lead staffer on issues related to the Idaho National Laboratory and its talented workforce. Her compassion, insight, knowledge, and reliability were often critical to my constituents dealing with the peaks and valleys of the federal government's support for nuclear energy and the work of the laboratory. In a district that spans almost two dozen counties and roughly half of the State of Idaho, you spend a lot of time driving back roads, visiting small communities, talking politics in farmer's fields, and marveling at the stunning geography of the American West. Laurel has always been the best traveling companion a Congressman could ask for on those long trips across the state. We've been backpacking and fishing in the Boulder-White Coulds. We've worked together to open a wheel-chair accessible trail in central Idaho and to assist Custer County in their economic development needs. Laurel is a great advocate for the arts, and will remain so in her life after Congress. A few years ago we visited Idaho's rural communities with National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Rocco Landesman and watched Idaho's Shakespeare Festival share its talents with schoolchildren. Laurel and I have spent many hours in book stores large and small and have been in perpetual pursuit of the best chicken fried steak in Idaho. And we think we found it in Salmon, Idaho. Laurel and I have shared a lot of laughs, many successes, a few failures, and a tremendous friendship over the past 14 years. Laurel has been loyal, fair, honest, and dependable. She has provided wise counsel, constructive criticism, and the not-so-subtle nudges those of us who work in this body need from time-to-time. She has been a fierce advocate for my priorities but the source of measured advice when things didn't go our way. In short, she has been a valued adviser, supporter, and friend for as long as I have been in Congress. What more could any of us ask of our staff? Laurel's presence in the office and in the communities of eastern Idaho will be deeply missed by me and by everyone who works in my office. While we are going to miss her, we are comforted by the fact that she vows to remain in the Boise area and visit us often. We're going to lean on her frequently for the same advice, constructive criticism, and gentle nudges she always offered and hope to see her regularly on the trail, in the museum, or at a play. In closing, I would simply like to thank Laurel for her hard work, her tenacity, her good counsel, and most of all, her friendship.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 125, on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1765, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment today to recognize and honor Robert Earl Holding, a man who throughout his life influenced Idaho and the West significantly. He was a veteran, a civil engineer, a businessman, a husband of 64 years, and a father of three. He passed away on April 19th, at age 86, after a long and rewarding life. Among his many accomplishments, Earl Holding turned a struggling motel into a hugely successful chain of ski resorts and hotels, and owned Sinclair Oil Corporation. He acquired Idaho's Sun Valley Resort, and turned it into a world-class destination and a pillar in Idaho. He also was a key figure in attracting the 2002 Winter Olympics to Salt Lake City. Most of all, however, he loved the West. Perhaps his most positive impact in Idaho began in 1977 when he bought the Sun Valley ski resort in central Idaho. He invested millions of dollars into Sun Valley, making it one of the most famous ski resorts in the United States. Today Sun Valley remains one of the most popular destinations in Idaho and a first-class resort for all seasons. Mr. Holding is a true example of the American dream, rising from the hardships of the Great Depression to become one of the most successful business people in the world. Although we have lost a famous entrepreneur, a family man, and an American, we won't forget Robert Earl Holding, nor his many contributions to Idaho and the West.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great public servant, a trailblazer in Idaho politics, and a close personal friend--Donna Jones. Donna was born in Colorado, but has called the State of Idaho home since she was in elementary school. She grew up in Middleton, Idaho and has spent the vast majority of adulthood in Payette, Idaho where she and her husband owned a thriving auto parts business and where she was a very successful realtor. In 1987, Donna, a Republican, was appointed to an open seat in the Idaho House of Representatives by Democrat Governor Cecil Andrus. Donna served with distinction in the Idaho House of Representatives for twelve years. I am proud to say that in 1997, as the then-Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, I had the distinct honor to appoint Donna as the first female Chair of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee. She was an outstanding Chair--tough but fair, patient but determined. It was one of the best appointments I ever made. In 1998, after just one term as Chair, and in no small measure as a result of having to work too closely with me, Donna resigned her seat in the Legislature and accepted a position as Executive Director of the Idaho Real Estate Commission. In 2006, Donna was elected to the position of Idaho's state Controller by a wide margin. She was easily re-elected in 2010. Regrettably, following a very serious automobile accident in 2012, Donna decided to resign her position as State Controller and was succeeded in office by her Chief of Staff, Brandon Woolf. I am pleased to say that Donna has made tremendous progress in her recovery from that accident. Throughout her career, Donna has held many leadership positions and worked tirelessly on behalf of the offices she held and the people she represented. She has served on the Board of Directors and as Treasurer for the Association of Real Estate License Law Officials. As a State Legislator, she was the State Chairman for the American Legislative Exchange Council and served on its Board of Directors. She was also recognized by the Idaho March of Dimes as its Outstanding Woman of the Year. In addition, Donna has served on the Idaho Hispanic Commission, the Idaho Housing and Finance Association Advisory Board, the Idaho Permanent Building Fund, and the Multi-State Tax Commission. She has served in a variety of capacities as well for the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, including as Vice Chairman of the International Committee. Donna married her husband Don in 1956. They have three children, Dawn, Lisa and Stuart; seven grandchildren and two great grandchildren. Don passed away in 2000. I rose today not just to recite a long list of Donna's accomplishments, but to thank her for her outstanding service to the people of Idaho and to honor her contributions to our state in my own small way. I do so on a day when the Idaho Association of Realtors is presenting Donna with its second annual Max C. Black Award for exceptional public service to the people of Idaho, and outstanding leadership on business and industry issues--an award she richly deserves. I want to thank the Idaho Association of Realtors for honoring Donna's outstanding record of public service in this way and congratulate Donna for this well- earned recognition of her work. Donna is a very good friend, a trusted former colleague, and someone for whom I have a great deal of admiration. She is one of the most respected public servants in the State of Idaho and a person whose name is synonymous with integrity, loyalty, professionalism, and courage. I am proud to call Donna Jones my friend and pleased to be able to share her many qualities and accomplishments with the House of Representatives.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with my friend and colleague from California, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, to introduce the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2013. This legislation would reauthorize critical federal programs that assist states in improving and expanding their newborn screening programs, supporting parent and provider newborn screening education, and ensuring laboratory quality and surveillance. Over 4 million babies will be born across the United States this year, and each and every one will be touched by newborn screening. Most screenings are done using a simple ``heel stick'' blood sample collected before the newborn leaves the hospital. These screenings test for serious genetic, metabolic or hearing disorders that may not be apparent at birth. Approximately 1 in every 300 newborns in the United States has a condition that can be detected through screening. If left untreated, these conditions can cause serious illness, lifetime disabilities and even death. Without early interventions, these infants and their families suffer enormous emotional and economic burdens. Imagine the burden of knowing that your child died or is suffering from a disease that could have been prevented if identified through newborn screening. No baby should suffer or die if a screening test can prevent it. Newborn screening not only saves lives but, it also saves money. As a former dentist, I know well the importance of diagnosing and treating a condition early in a child's life. According to a 2012 study on severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID)--one of the 31 core, treatable conditions recommended for state newborn screening programs--the Medicaid cost of treating a baby with SCID in the first two years of life can cost more than $2 million dollars. Yet, an infant diagnosed early can be cured through a simple bone marrow transplant--costing just $100,000 if performed in the first three months of life. In 2008, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard and I introduced the original Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act (P.L. 110-204), which encouraged states to uniformly test for a recommended set of disorders and provided resources for states to expand and improve their newborn screening programs. Prior to passage, the number and quality of newborn screening tests varied greatly from state to state. In 2007, only 10 states and the District of Columbia required infants to be screened for all of the ``core conditions'' recommended by the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. Today, 44 states and the District of Columbia require screening for at least 29 of the 31 treatable core conditions. The Newborn Screenings Saves Lives Reauthorization Act builds upon the foundation laid by the original legislation and will ensure that infants continue to receive comprehensive and effective screenings. The legislation reauthorizes programs at the Health Resources and Services Administration to assist states' efforts to improve their screening programs, educate parents and health care providers, and improve follow-up care for infants with conditions detected through newborn screening. The legislation also renews the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, which maintains and updates the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel that states use to adopt and implement new conditions. Improvement of data quality is also needed to track the clinical outcomes of children more effectively and to refine protocols for short-term and long-term follow-up of children with conditions identified through newborn screening. That is why the Reauthorization Act establishes a grant program within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assist states in developing follow-up and tracking programs. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join with me in supporting this critical legislation--because no baby should die or suffer the devastating health consequences of a condition that could have been treated or prevented if identified through newborn screening.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on this day in 1863, 150 years ago, President Abraham Lincoln signed a congressional act creating the Idaho Territory. Twenty-seven years later, part of that territory would become the 43rd State, the State of Idaho. The Idaho Territory was initially much larger than the borders of Idaho today; it included most of what would later become Montana and Wyoming. The territory, to be governed by William H. Wallace, an old friend of Lincoln's, was previously part of the Washington Territory. Western Washington politicians moved to discard large tracts of land in eastern Washington Territory partly because the population in those areas was increasing rapidly and they wanted to assure Olympia would remain the capital of the region. That population increase was mostly gold miners seeking out their fortunes in the Clearwater region, now Idaho's panhandle. This goes to show you, Mr. Speaker, gerrymandering is not a new phenomenon; it is in fact one of the reasons the Idaho Territory was created in the first place. However, the land mass for the Idaho Territory was so expansive that within a year Montana broke away, and four years later Wyoming did the same, leaving the Idaho Territory looking very much like the State does today. In 1890, after 27 years as a territory, Idaho became the 43rd State. However, much of what distinguishes Idaho today came about during its territorial years, including the creation of its main highways, many of its public schools, its tax system, its tribal laws, its universities, its water laws, and indeed, its eventual Constitution, written in the summer of 1889 in Boise. Idaho's Constitution remains today almost exactly how it was written, and it still forms the basis for all Idaho laws to this day. The citizens of Idaho have always demonstrated a unity and sense of pride in their traditions and history, and this rich history is what makes them who they are today. From the Canadian border to Yellowstone, from Craters of the Moon to Coeur d'Alene Lake, Idahoans celebrate today. It is my privilege today to commemorate Idaho's territorial sesquicentennial.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce Chaplain Ronald Derrick for today's invocation. Chaplain Derrick serves as the national chaplain of the American Legion. He is a U.S. Army veteran and a 40-year member of the American Legion, serving 18 years with Post 95 in Driggs, Idaho, and the subsequent 22 years in Post 20 in his current home of Rigby, Idaho. Mr. Derrick's Legion duties have included terms as post commander, district commander, and Department of Idaho vice commander. For the past 6 years, he has acted as the Department of Idaho's chaplain. Mr. Derrick is a retired printer and mail clerk, a former county coroner, Driggs Chamber of Commerce president, and EMT and firefighter. Recognizing this latter service, the American Legion named Mr. Derrick Idaho's Firefighter of the Year in 1987. Mr. Derrick was ordained into the ministry in 1979 through the Solid Rock Pentecostal Church and continues to serve in various aspects of ministry. Mr. Derrick and his wife of 45 years, Bird, have two sons, a daughter, and nine grandchildren. I would like to welcome Chaplain Derrick and thank him for his dedication and outstanding service to God and country.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate Madison County on its 100th anniversary as an organized county in the great state of Idaho. Significant events over the past century have made for a colorful history, and this commemoration is a noteworthy event for both past and present residents of Madison County. Madison County, located in Idaho's Upper Snake River Valley, was officially established February 18, 1913, by signature of Governor John Haines, with its county seat at Rexburg. The new county was named for President James Madison, fourth president of the United States. The region was first settled by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (Mormons) from nearby Utah. Early families were industrious farmers who built the first irrigation system in the state. Madison County is now the eighth largest potato growing county in the nation and also grows significant acres of grain. Brigham Young University Idaho, formerly Ricks College, now the second largest university in Idaho, was named after one of the early settlers, Thomas E. Ricks. Madison County was declared a national disaster area after the ruinous Teton Dam flood of June 5, 1976. Sugar City is another thriving city in Madison County, located only a few miles from the county seat. The four federally protected areas in the county are: Caribou Targhee National Forest, Cartier Slough and Deer Parks Wildlife Areas, and the volcanic Menan Twin Buttes. Visitors to Madison County can tour two buildings listed on the National Historic Register: The Rexburg Tabernacle and the Madison County Courthouse. Other attractions include the Teton Dam Flood Museum, Yellowstone Bear World, Brigham Young University Idaho Campus, the Idaho Centennial Carousel, and the famous International Dance Festival. The citizens of Madison County demonstrate unity and a sense of pride through their deeply sown roots. Family traditions, farms, entrepreneurship, and a willingness to extend a helping hand to others appropriately characterize this community and its time-honored Idaho lifestyle. It is a privilege to represent Madison County and the people who structure its prominence.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 31 on Motion to Suspend the Rules and pass H.R. 225, the National Pediatric Research Network Act of 2013. I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 32 on Motion to Suspend the Rules and pass H.R. 297, the Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2011. I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 613, on H.R. 6429, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, to eliminate the diversity immigrant program, and for other purposes, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say thank you to Dave Hill for his exceptional service at the Idaho National Laboratory and to wish Dave and his wife Georgia all the best as they begin the next chapter of their life in Boise, Idaho. Dave Hill came to the United States by way of the United Kingdom where he received his doctorate degree in mathematical physics from Imperial College, London University. As an expert in nuclear reactor and fuel cycle issues, Dave assumed leadership positions at Argonne National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In 2005, Dave joined the Idaho National Laboratory as deputy lab director for science and technology. Dave brought a wonderful vision and talent to INL and his imprint is visible in the new and improved facilities that INL scientists and engineers now use. Dave saw the unique role INL can play as our National Nuclear Laboratory and he helped demonstrate how INL's capabilities could support important nuclear energy, nonproliferation and national security programs. Dave also helped bring an unmatched collection of world-renowned technical experts to Idaho to lead the Nation's nuclear energy programs. While serious budget challenges are staring every federal program in the face, Dave will leave the Idaho National Laboratory with a firm foundation. I also understand we will continue to benefit from some of Dave's time and talents in the future. While Dave Hill's leadership skills and vision have made INL a stronger lab, Dave's good humor and his laugh have made INL a better place to work. On his many trips to Washington, DC, Dave would often come by my office, at my request, to update me on nuclear energy programs and issues. Dave would always paint me the picture I needed to see along with a laugh and a smile at the challenges we were tackling together. I always enjoyed working with Dave Hill and I will miss those meetings.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 590, to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act of 2012, my vote didn't register. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the career and advocate for one of Idaho's most distinguished professional football players, Jerry Kramer. Jerry graduated from Idaho's Sandpoint High School and attended college at the University of Idaho on a football scholarship. He was a standout player there, garnering selections to both the East-West Shrine Game and the College All-Star Game. Over a dozen professional football teams courted Kramer and after being drafted 39th overall, he signed on to play guard for the Green Bay Packers in 1958. The Packers of that era, with help from Kramer, are the only team to win three championships in a row. Jerry Kramer made the ``Packer Sweep'' famous. Jerry Kramer is perhaps most famously known for ``The Block'' where he led quarterback Bart Starr into the end zone as time ran out in the 1967 NFL Championship game, defeating the Dallas Cowboys in what is known as the ``Ice Bowl.'' Jerry Kramer was a five-time All-Pro, a member of five championship teams, including the first two Super Bowls, and a member of the NFL's 50th Anniversary All-Time team. He was named to the NFL's All-Decade Team of the 1960s at offensive guard and led the NFL in field goal percentage in 1962. Surprisingly, Jerry Kramer is the only player selected to the NFL's 50th All-Time Anniversary team who has not been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio It is time, Mr. Speaker, for this oversight to be corrected. Jerry Kramer is so highly regarded that seventeen current members of the NFL Hall of Fame, many who played against Kramer, have endorsed his nomination and election to the Hall. That list of players includes such greats as Roger Staubach, Frank Gifford, Alan Page, Bob Lilly, Jan Stenerud, Gino Marchetti and Coach Joe Gibbs, to name just a few Besides his contributions on the football field, Jerry is a highly regarded citizen of Idaho who gives his time to worthy causes including serving on the selection committee for the World Sports Humanitarian Hall of Fame. Idahoans are proud of his accomplishments and football fans throughout the state support his induction There is no doubt in my mind that Jerry Kramer's NFL career clearly qualifies him for induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame