PRESENTATION OF "IDAHO REPORTS" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE YOU THERE THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION, COMMITTING TO FULFILLING THE MOORE AND BETTIS FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF IDAHO.

BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELLVATION, AND BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

>>> AFTER DECADES A DWINDLING SALMON POPULATION AND ENDLESS LITIGATION, AN IDAHO CONGRESSMAN HAS UNVEILED A CONCEPT TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.

BUT THE PLAN HAS AN UPSTREAM BATTLE BEFORE IT BECOMES REALITY.

I'M MELISSA DAV LIN.

"IDAHO REPORTS" STARTS NOW.

.

| .

>>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO IDAHO REPORTS.

THIS WEEK JOURNALIST ROCKY BARKER AND CONGRESSMAN MIKE SIMPSON JOIN ME TO DISCUSS SIMPSON'S WIDE-RANGING CONCEPT TO SAVE SALON IN THE PACIFIC -- SALMON IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST.

IDAHO IS ONE OF SEVEN STATES THAT HAS NO SALES TAX EXEMPTION OR LOWER RATE ON GROCERIES.

WHILE THE STATE DOES OFFER AN ANNUAL GROCERY TAX REBATE, SOME LAWMAKERS HAVE BEEN TRYING FOR YEARS TO GET A FULL REPEAL ON IDAHO'S GROCERY TAX AND IN SWIEFN LEGISLATION GOT TO THEN -- 2015 LEGISLATION GOT TO THE THEN-GOVERNOR'S DESK.

GOVERNOR LITTLE HAS SAID HE'S OPEN TO A REPEAL.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY.

REPRESENTATIVENATE.

CAN YOU TELL ME HOW YOUR GROCERY TAX PROPOSAL IS ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE MANY LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS THIS HAS COME UP BEFORE?

>> WELL, THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE TO IT.

IT WOULD TAKE THE TAX OFF ALL GROCERIES ACCORDING TO THE SNAP DEFINITION, WHICH IS ALREADY USED FOR WELFARE RECIPIENT WHEN THEY BUY GROCERIES.

SO IT'S NO BIG LEAP FOR GROCERY STORES TO BE ABLE TO JUST APPLY THAT EXEMPTION TO ALL GROCERIES.

AND THE ONE DIFFERENCE I WOULD -- I WOULD SAY THIS YEAR IS THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE THE TAX RELIEF FUND, WHICH HAS BEEN BUILT UP FROM THE INTERNET SALES TAX, WHICH IS DEDICATED ONLY FOR TAX RELIEF.

UTILIZING THAT MAKES IT SO THAT WE CAN DO A GROCERY TAX REPEAL WITHOUT REALLY HARDLY AFFECTING THE GENERAL FUND IN THE STATE.

WE CAN MEET ALL OF OUR OTHER BUDGET PRIORITIES, INCLUDING EDUCATION AND HEALTHCARE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, AND STILL PROVIDE THE TAX RELIEF THAT A LOT OF HARD WORKING FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES NEED.

>> WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM LEADERSHIP ABOUT YOUR PROPOSAL?

>> THEY ARE HESITANT TO BRING IT FORWARD, WHICH IS SURPRISING TO ME, BECAUSE IT HAS BROAD SUPPORT HERE IN THE LEGISLATURE AS A BODY.

IT HAS BROAD SUPPORT ACROSS THE STATE AS WELL.

SO IT'S A LITTLE FRUSTRATING THAT ONE OR TWO OR THREE LEADERS HERE IN THE HOUSE GET TO DICTATE TAX POLICY FOR THE ENTIRE STATE, WHEN IT'S REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE MORE OF A REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

REALLY, CONSTITUTIONALLY THERE'S ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL IN THE STATE THAT HAS VETO POWER.

BUT IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY HERE IN THE HOUSE.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ONE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, PROBABLY AT THE DIRECTION OF LEADERSHIP, HOLDING UP ON THIS -- ON THIS GREAT TAX -- TAX RELIEF.

WE'VE PASSED IT BEFORE WITH SUPERMAJORITIES.

IT GOT VETOED BY GOVERNOR OTTER BEFORE.

BUT THIS GOVERNOR, GOVERNOR LITTLE, TO HIS CREDIT, HAS SAID THAT HE WOULD SIGN GROCERY TAX REPEAL IF IT GOT TO HIS DESK.

AND THERE'S ONLY ONE ROADBLOCK TO THAT RIGHT NOW.

>> YOU KNOW, YOU WROTE IN A NEWS LETTER TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS THAT GROCERY TAX CUTS AREN'T THE ONLY TAX CUTS THAT IDAHO COULD AFFORD RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE BUDGET SURPLUS THAT WE HAVE.

YOU KNOW, YOU SIT ON THE JOINT FINANCE AND APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.

IN YOUR MIND, IS THERE ANY ROOM FOR STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS IN THAT BUDGET AS WELL?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THE UPDATE JUST A FEW DAYS AGO WAS THAT WE HAVE 662.5 MILLION DOLLARS OF SURPLUS.

AND YOU KNOW, FOR PERSPECTIVE, THAT IS HUGE COMPARED TO THE BUDGET.

OUR WHOLE BUDGET IS $4 BILLION.

SO 662 MILLION IS A GREAT SURPLUS.

WE COULD -- WE CAN EASILY MANAGE THIS GROCERY TAX REPEAL, WHICH COMES TO ABOUT $43 MILLION.

AND STILL HAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THOSE PRIORITIES, LIKES FIXING ROADS AND BRIDGES, MAKING SURE OUR EDUCATION IS FULLY FUNDED, AND DOING OTHER TAX RELIEF LIKE INCOME TAX CUTS, PROPERTY TAX CUTS.

THOSE SHOULD ALL BE ON THE TABLE.

>> WE HAVE MUCH MORE WITH REPRESENTATIVE NATE ONLINE, INCLUDING WHY HE AND OTHER LAWMAKERS ARE UNHAPPY WITH BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY AND ITS BUDGET.

YOU'LL FIND A LINK TO THE "IDAHO REPORTS" YOUTUBE CHANNEL ON OUR WEBSITE, WBZ -- AND WHILE YOU'RE THERE, HIT SUBSCRIBE.

>>> THIS WEEK HOUSE MEMBERS DEBATED A BILL THAT WOULD MAKE IT A FELLY TO -- FELONY TO DELIVER MORE THAN TWO ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO THE POST OFFICE OR COUNTY.

MIKE MILE WHO SPONSORED THE LEGISLATION SAID IDAHO DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BALLOT HARVESTING, BUT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRACTICE IN OTHER STATES.

HIS PROPOSAL DREW OPPOSITION FROM DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE.

>> I WILL STAND HERE AND CONFESS BEFORE YOU ALL, IT HAS HAPPENED IN IDAHO BECAUSE I'VE DONE IT.

I HAVE KNOCKED ON PEOPLE'S DOORS SHORTLY BEFORE THE ELECTION AND ON A FEW INSTANCES, THERE WAS AN ELDERLY PERSON WHO COULDN'T DRIVE.

THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER THEIR BALLOT WAS GOING TO ARRIVE IN TIME BY THE MAIL.

AND THEY SAID, HERE, COULD YOU DROP THIS OFF FOR ME.

EVERYTHING THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL IS ALREADY ILLEGAL.

IT'S ILLEGAL TO TAKE SOMEBODY'S BALLOT OUT OF THEIR MAILBOX AND STEAL IT OR DESTROY IT OR ALTER THEIR VOTES OR THROW IT OUT OR FILL OUT THE BALLOT FOR THEM.

ANY OF THE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL ARE FELONIES UNDER IDAHO LAW.

WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS CRIMINALIZE DELIVERING SOMEBODY BALLOT AT THEIR CREDIT.

>> BECAUSE YOU DELIVER 20 MILES OUT OF UP TO, WHAT -- OUT OF TOWN, DO MA'AM AND DAD GO?

DO YOU THINK WE GET IN THE RIG AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FUN TRIP?

NOW, I SEND YOUR KID.

EVERY TIME YOU SEND YOUR KID.

WHY DID WE USE THE DROP BOX?

BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE 100% FAITH THAT THE MAIL WAS GOING TO WORK AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS IN THAT ROOM THAT UNDERSTAND THAT.

I GET THAT IT'S AN OPTION, BUT THERE'S SOME SERIOUS COMFORT TO DROPPING THAT AT THE COURTHOUSE, HANDING IT OVER, KNOWING -- AND KNOWING THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED YOUR BALLOT W. THIS LEGISLATION, MY BAWRT IS A FELON.

>> I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE GOOD LADY FROM 18.

CAN SOMEBODY -- DID SOMEBODY PAY HER TO DELIVER THOSE VOTES?

DO YOU KNOW?

DETHIF GEM -- DID THEY GIVE HER AN EMPTY BALLOT?

I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE LADY FROM GENT 3.

-- FROM 203.

SO YOU HAVE TO MAKE TWO TRIPS TO THE POST OFFICE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN.

BUT VOTING SHOULDN'T BE EASY.

YOU COULD PUT IN IT THE POST OFFICE BOX AND NOT HAVE TO DRIVE IN TOWN.

THIS BILL NEEDS TO PASS TO PROTECT THE VOTES IN IDAHO.

>> ON THE PODCAST THIS WEEK BEV AN INTERVIEW DISCUSSING CLAIMS OF VOTER FRAUD AND OTHER ISSUES SURROUNDING THE 2020 ELECTION, WITH ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR BENJAMIN COVER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO COLLEGE OF LAW.

YOU CAN FIND THE PODCAST ON ALL MAJOR PODCAST PLAYERS.

>>> EARLY SUNDAY CONGRESS MIKE SIMPSON UNVEILED A DAM AMBITIOUS PROPOSAL TO SAVE SAIL MON, INCLUDING REMOVING FOUR DAMS IN EASTERN WASHINGTON, RELEASING POWER GENERATED FROM THE DAMS, AND LOCKING IN EXISTING DAMS THAT GENERATE MORE THAN FIVE MEGAWATTS OF POWER.

THE 33.5 BILLION-DOLLAR PROPOSAL INCLUDES MONEY FOR WATERSHED PARTNER SLPS, AGRICULTURE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND MUCH MORE.

>>> JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR ACROCKY BARKER HAS BEEN FOLLOWING EFFORTS TO SAVE SALMON FOR YEARS.

AND JOINED ME ON THURSDAY TO DISCUSS THE DETAILS OF SUBPOENA'S PROPOSAL.

THIS IS -- SINCE'S -- SIMPSON'S PROPOSAL.

>> AT THE END OF THE DAYS, WHAT PROBLEMS IS IT TRYING TO SOLVE?

>> THE MAIN THING IS, WE'VE BEEN FIGHTING OVER THE SALMON FOR 30 YEARS.

AND THEY'VE BEEN IN COURT SINCE FRANKLY IDAHO STARTED THIS IN COURT BACK IN 1994.

GOVERNOR ANDRES.

AND -- AND THEY'VE WON THE -- THE SALMON ADVOCATES HAVE WON IN COURT EVERY SINGLE TIME BECAUSE THE FEDERAL AGENCIES, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY, $17 BILLION OR MORE, TRYING TO MEET THE COURT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SALMON THAT ONCE -- ONCE THERE WERE EIGHT TO 16 MILLION SAL MOP THAT CAME UP THE COLUMBIA.

A THIRD OF THOSE CAME UP THE SNAKE.

AND THEY'VE BEEN ENDANGRED SINCE THE EARLY '90S.

I THINK IN TWIEM ONLY -- 2019, ONLY LESS THAN 4,000 SPRING -- SNAKE RIVER SPRING CHINOOK BACK TO IDAHO.

THEY'RE HEADING TOWARDS EXTINCTION DESPITE THE CENTER ON THE EIGHT DAMS BETWEEN IDAHO AND THE OCEAN.

SO THERE'S BETWEEN FOR -- I WOULD SAY 20 YEARS, THE STATES AND THE TRIBAL SCIENTISTS HAVE HAD A CONSENSUS, THAT THE ONLY -- THAT THE BEST WAY TO -- SOLVE THIS PROBLEM WAS TO TAKE OUT THESE FOUR DAMS.

THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DEPENDED ON THESE DAMS, THE WHEAT FARMERS WHO SHIP -- ON THE BARGES, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF -- DAMS PRODUCE ABOUT 11 TO 1200 MEGA WALTS OF POWER -- WATTS, OF POWER, ENOUGH FOR SEATTLE, BUT IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THERE'S -- WE HAVE A SHORTAGE OR WE HAVE A COLD SNAP OR SOMETHING, THEY CAN PRODUCE AS MUCH AS 3,000 MEGAWATTS.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE REPLACED, IS THAT FULL POWER.

SO -- >> RIGHT.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE IF REMOVING THE DAMS WERE AN UNCONTROVERSIAL OR INEXPENSIVE PROJECT, AN INEXPENSIVE SOLUTION, THEN THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED HEN IT WAS FIRST PROPOSED.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT POTENTIAL RIPPLE EFFECTS ON SOME OF THESE EASTERN WASHINGTON COMMUNITIES.

SO WHAT PROBLEMS MIGHT THIS CAUSE?

>> WELL, SEE, THIS IS THE THING THAT'S -- REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON HAS REALLY -- HE'S SPENT MOSH TWO YEARS PUTTING THIS -- MORE THAN TWO YEARS PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.

AND HE ACTUALLY HAS LOOKED AT EVERY ONE OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

NOW, OF COURSE, THERE ARE GOING TO BE THINGS THAT COME UP.

THE -- ALWAYS THE FEAR HAS BEEN THAT THIS WOULD HURT THE ECONOMIES OF LEWISTON AND EASTERN WASHINGTON, BECAUSE PERHAPS THEY COULDN'T SHIP AS CHEAPLY ON -- ON RAIL AND -- IN TRUCKS.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE OPPONENTS EVEN NOW SAY IS, YOU KNOW, ALL THE TRUCKS AND RAIL THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY CAUSE MORE GREENHOUSE GASES.

AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S STILL OUT THERE, THAT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM.

BUT OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD BE PUTT -- A LOT OF THAT POWER IS GOING TO COME FROM WIND AND SOLAR, AND SO THAT'S GOING TO REDUCE -- THAT'S GOING TO BE LOW CARBON.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'RE AT LEAST TALKING ABOUT IS -- IS NUCLEAR POWER.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE ECONOMIC PARTS OF THIS PACKAGE, IT -- YOU KNOW, IT'S IMMENSE FOR THESE COMMUNITIES.

>> WE HAVE MUCH MORE WITH ROCKY ONLINE.

I'M FIND OUR ENTIRE CONVERSATION ON THE YOUTUBE CHANNEL.

>>> ON FRIDAY CONGRESSMAN SIMPSON JOINED ME TO DISCUSS HOW HE PLANS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS AMBITIOUS PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY, CONGRESSMAN SIMPSON.

CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE LEAD-UP ON THIS PROPOSAL, BECAUSE THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT YOU CAME UP WITH JUST OVERNIGHT.

>> NO, IT'S VERY COMPLEX.

AND DETAILED PROPOSAL.

WE HAVE WHAT -- WHAT WE'VE RELEASED SO FAR IS JUST A CONCEPT.

IT HAS VARIOUS IDEAS IN IT AND WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO TO PROVIDE CERTAINTY FOR COMMUNITIES, FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION, FOR -- FOR AGRICULTURE IN THIS PROPOSAL.

AND WE'VE HAD -- WE'VE BEEN WORKING FOR THREE YEARS.

WE'VE HAD OVER 300 MEETINGS WITH STAKEHOLDER GROUPS, INDIVIDUALS, AND SO FORTH TRYING TO LOOK AT -- AND ASK THE QUESTIONS, IF THE DAMS CAME OUT, WHAT WOULD THE CONSEQUENCES BE AND HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE IMPACTS THAT IT WOULD HAVE ON THOSE STAKEHOLDERS.

SO WE'VE DONE A LOT OF -- A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS.

YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT ALL SORT OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO TRY TO SAVE SALMON.

TRY TO RECOVER THE SALMON RUNS IN IDAHO.

WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IS MANAGING THE STEADY DECLINE OF SALMON TO WHERE THEY'RE EVENTUALLY GOING TO GO EXTINCTION IF YOU DON'T DO SOMETHING ALONG THESE LINES.

WE LOOKED AT WAYS YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO RECOVER SALMON WITHOUT REMOVING DAMS.

COULDN'T FIND AN ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD WORK.

THE REALITY IS WE TRIED EVERYTHING ELSE.

AND WE CAME DOWN TO THE DONE COLLUSION -- CONCLUSION AND MOST FISH BIOLOGISTS WOULD AGREE WITH US, IF YOU'RE GOING TO RECOVER SALMON, YOU HAVE TO REMOVE THE DAMS.

SO THAT -- THAT HAS CONSEQUENCES.

WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES, IT LOOKS AT THE FACT THAT THE DAMS HAVE A VALUE.

AND HOW ARE YOU GOING TO COMPENSIONATE FOR THAT VALUE IF YOU REMOVE THE DAMS?

BY, AS I SAID, BY RESTORING THE -- MAKING THE STAKEHOLDERS WHOLE, WHETHER IT'S AGRICULTURE, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PROPOSAL, AGRICULTURE BENEFITS FROM THIS GREATLY.

RELIEVES THEM OF THE LAWSUITS, PROVIDES CERTAINTY FOR THEM IN THE FUTURE.

IT PROVIDES FOR REPLACING THE ENERGY.

THESE DAMS PRODUCE 3,000 MEGAWATTS OF POWER.

IT ENDS THE SALMON WARS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON IN THE WEST THE LAST 30 OR 40 YEARS.

THAT IS A VERY COMPLEX AND COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL.

WHICH MAKES IT THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.

>> YOU KNOW, THIS IS AS YOU SAID, A BIG ASK, AT LEAST $33 LEAF BILLION.

AND THAT'S AN -- $33 1/2 BILLION.

THAT'S AN EXPENSIVE GAMBLE WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO SAVE THE SAL MOP AND OFFSET SOME OF THE -- SALMON AND OFFSET SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF REMOVING THE DAMS WITH AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRY, AND POWER.

HOW SURE ARE YOU THAT THOSE INVESTMENTS WILL WORK WHEN IT COMES TO WATER STORAGE, WHEN IT COMES TO REPLACING THE HYDROPOWER?

>> WELL, WHAT THE $33 1/2 BILLION, THE WAY WE WOMEN UP WITH THAT, IS THAT'S THE VALUE OF THE DAMS IF YOU LOOK AT TRYING TO MAKE THE STAKEHOLDERS WHOLE.

IT WILL TAKE ABOUT YOU $33 AND A HALF BILLION.

AND IT IS -- I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU THAT I'M CERTAIN THAT IF WE DO THIS, AND IMPLEMENT THIS, THE SALMON WOULD BE RECOVERED.

I CAN'T DO THAT.

IT'S A COMPLEX BIOLOGY SYSTEM -- BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM AND CERTAINLY IS NOT IN THE CARDS.

BUT IT'S THE BEST CHANCE WE HAVE OF RECOVERING AND RESTORING THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST AND GIVING SALMON A CHANCE TO SUCCEED AND RECOVER.

>> ARE YOU ANTICIPATING JOB LOSSES IN THE SHORT TERM BECAUSE OF THOSE DAM REMOVALS?

>> NO, WE'RE NOT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS -- DAM REMOVAL DOESN'T START UNTIL 2030, ANYONE YEARS FROM NOW.

AND THEN HALF OF THEM COME OUT IN 2030.

THE OTHER HALF IN 2 WHITER 1 -- 2031, I BELIEVE IT IS.

WE WOULD HAVE TO REPLAYS THE POWER BEFORE THEN AND WE DO THAT BY GIVING THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION THE RESOURCES THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO REPLACE THE POWER.

WE ALSO TAKE AWAY THE LAWSUITS IN THAT WE RELICENSE ALL THE DAMS THAT ARE FORN FIVE MEGAWATTS IN POWER.

WE RE -- RELICENSE THEM FOR THE NEXT 35, 40 YEARS.

THAT'S A BIG DEAL FOR POWER T POWER COMPANIES.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THAT BEFOEHAND AND WE WOULD HAVE TO IMPLEMENT MANY OTHER PROGRAMS BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY STARTED REMOVING THE DAMS.

>> I KNOW, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE BALANCE OF POWER, IF YOU WILL, HERE.

YOU KNOW, YOU'VE MENTIONED OCEAN CONDITIONS THE -- POOR OCEAN CONDITIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE RAISING THE RESERVOIRS AND WATER.

WITHOUT THE CLEAN HYDRO POWER THAT'S CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY THE DAMS, WHAT CLIMATE CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN WHEN YOU ARE REMOVING A CLEAN POWER SOURCE?

>> WELL, YU CAN REPLACE THAT WITH OTHER CLEAN POWER SOURCES.

YOU CAN REPLAYS IT WITH PUMP STORAGE, WITH SMALL MODULAR REACTORS, BY MAKING THE DAMS THAT WILL REMAIN MORE EFFICIENT IN THEIR POWER PRODUCTION.

I'M NOT THE ENERGY EXPERT IN THE WORLD, BUT I KNOW THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION IS.

AND REPLACING THE ENERGY IS NOT THE MOST DIFFICULT PART OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS.

REPLACING THE BARGING THAT OCCURS FROM LEWISTON TO THE TRI-CITIES THAT GETS OUR GRAIN DOWN THE RIVER BY RAIL -- OR TRUCK, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

WE'LL ASK THEM TO DESIGN THEIR OWN SYSTEM OF HOW THEY WANT TO GET GRAIN DOWN THE RIVER AND ENHANCING THE BARGING FROM THE TRI-CITIES DOWN TO THE END OF -- OF THE COLUMBIA TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN.

BUT YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY CAN POINT TO -- LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY.

THERE ARE MANY FACTORS THAT AFFECT SALMON RECOVERY.

OCEAN CONDITIONS IS ONE OF THEM.

WATER TEMPERATURES IS ONE OF THEM PREDATORS IS ONE OF THEM.

DAMS ARE ONE OF THEM.

AND EVERYBODY HAS THE ABILITY TO POINT TO SOMETHING TO SAY, NO, THAT'S THE CAUSE OF IT, SO LET'S ADDRESS THAT.

YOU KNOW, AND WE'VE DONE THAT FOR 45 YEARS.

-- 40 YEARS.

OCEAN CONDITIONS ARE BAD FOR THE SALMON.

WE HAVE THE PACIFIC OSCILLATION THAT OCCURS AND THAT HAPPENS EVERY 30 TO 40 YEARS, WHERE SALMON RUNS GO DOWN IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST AND THEY COME BACK UP AS OCEAN CONDITIONS CHANGE.

YOU CAN POINT TO THAT AND SAY IT'S OCEAN CONDITIONS, WE SCANT DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT, SO LET'S JUST THROW UP OUR HANDS AND NOT WORRY ABOUT IT.

IT IS A COMBINATION OF ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

DAMS ARE THE BIGGEST FACTOR.

A SALMON COMING FROM THE HIGH MOUNTAIN, CLEAN WATER HABITATS OF IDAHO GOING TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN HAS TO CROSS EIGHT DAMS.

IT TAKES THREE TIMES AS LONG FOR A JUVENILE SALMON TO GET FROM IDAHO TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN THAN IT USED TO WHEN WE HAD A FREE-RUNNING RIVER.

THE REALITY IS WE DON'T HAVE A FREE-RUNNING RIVER ANYMORE.

WEWE HAVE A SERIES OF SLACK WATR POOLS BEHIND DAMS.

THAT MEANS IT TAKES LONGER TO GET TO THE OCEAN.

IT MEANS THE WATER TEMPERATURES ARE HIGHER.

THEY'RE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO PREDATORS IN THAT CASE.

AND WE LOSE ABOUT 15 -- 10 TO 15% OF THE JUVENILES DIE EVERY TIME THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TURBINES OF A DAM AND STUFF.

WHEN YOU TIMES THAT BY EIGHT DAMS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH, IT'S JUST AN UNSUSTAINABLE SITUATION.

>> ONE OF THE OTHER PARTS OF YOUR PROPOSAL IS A 35-YEAR MORATORIUM ON LITIGATION.

HOW DOES THAT WORK?

AND IS THERE ANY PRECEDENT FOR THIS IN OTHER PIECES OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY PRECEDENT.

CERTAINLY LEGISLATATE IT THAT WE EXEMPT THOSE DAMS THAT -- WE RELICENSE THOSE REMAINING DAMS FOR 35 TO 50 YEARS.

AND THEY WON'T BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LITIGATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT, UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

SO THAT IT PROVIDES SOME CERTAINTY.

AND FRANKLY, THE PEOPLE THAT AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN THE MOST ACTIVE IN PURSUING LITIGATION HAVE AGREED TO THAT.

AND THINK THAT'S A GOOD MOVE.

BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE, AND I AGREE WITH THEM, THAT WE WILL SEE SALMON RETURN TO IDAHO AND REMOVE THE GREATEST BARRIER TO THEIR COMING BACK BY REMOVING THE DAMS.

>> YOU KNOW, THAT'S A SNAPSHOT IN TIME RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, WITH THE GROUPS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN LITIGATION.

AND 35 YEARS IS A LONG TIME.

SO WHAT IF IN 20 YEARS ANOTHER GROUP COMES ALONG AND SAYS I SEE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THIS.

WILL THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SUE?

>> NOT UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT OR UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

>> YOU KNOW, I -- I HAVE TO ASK, THERE ARE SO MANY REGION THAT IS THIS AFFECTS.

EASTERN WASHINGTON AND IDAHO'S FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

WHY IS THIS PROPOSAL COMING FROM THE CONGRESSMAN FROM IDAHO'S SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT?

>> WELL, WE STARTED LOOKING AT -- LOOKING THREE YEARS AGO ABOUT IMPACTS OF THE DAMS ON SALMON RECOVERY AND MOST OF THE HIGH ALTITUDE, CLEARWATER HABITAT FROM THE SALMON IS ACTUALLY IN THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

IT'S UP IN THE STANLEY BASIN WITH MARSH CREEK AND LOON CREEK AND OTHER PLACES.

SO IT AFFECTS MY DISTRICT, THE SECOND DISTRICT.

OBVIOUSLY AFFECTS THE FIRST DISTRICT AND EASTERN WASHINGTON.

SO YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING THE REACTION KIND OF WHAT WE EXPECTED FROM GROUPS.

THERE'S CONCERN, THERE'S OPPOSITION.

ALL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF.

WHAT WE WANT PEOPLE TO LOOK AT IS THIS IS A SERIOUS PROPOSAL TO RECOVER SALMON.

YOU GOT TO ASK YOURSELF ONE QUESTION.

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO RECOVER SALMON OR DO YOU WANT TO LET THEM GO EXTINCT?

THAT'S THE DECISION WE HAVE TO MAKE, BECAUSE AS I SAID, WE'VE JUST BEEN MANAGING SALMON FOR EXTINCTION.

AND -- I THINK WE OUGHT TO RECOVER SALMON.

THERE'S THE MOST ICONIC SPECIES IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST.

BUT IN DOING THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME CERTAINTY FOR THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS GOING FORWARD.

>> THIS PROPOSAL COMES IN THE AFTERMATH OF A BRUISING IMPEACHMENT DEBATE THAT WASN'T JUST BI -- PARTAN.

IT SPLIT -- PARTS WRAP.

IT SPLIT YOUR OWN PARTY.

I READ THAT REGIONAL BIPARTISANSHIP IS OUT OF STYLE RIGHT NOW.

IN THIS CLIMATE, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THIS DONE?

>> WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS HOPING THAT PEOPLE WILL SIT BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.

I UNDERSTAND FIRST REACTIONS.

GUT REACTIONS THAT COME WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING.

BUT THEY WILL SIT BACK AND LOOK AT THE FULL PROPOSAL AND WHAT THE BENEFITS ARE IN CREATING THAT CERTAINTY THAT'S NECESSARY, PARTICULARLY FOR AGRICULTURE, GETTING RID OF THE SALMON LAWSUITS AND SO FORTH.

AND THEN WORK WITH A DELEGATION, THE GOVERNORS OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, AND THE TRIBES TO TRY TO IMPLEMENT THIS.

WE ARE LOOKING AT THE BIETION AS PUT -- BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AS PUTTING TOGETHER AN INFRASTRUCTURE AND JOBS PACKAGE, WHICH I HAVEN'T SEEN YET EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROPOSE, BUT THEY TEST ME IT'S UPWARDS TO $2 TRILLION.

SO 35, 33 BILLION DOLLARS WOULD BE A LITTLE LESS THAN 2% OF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE.

IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION TO REDO OUR ECONOMY AND -- AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF OUR ECONOMY?

I DON'T THINK SO.

SO HOPE TO WORK IT INTO A PACKAGE LIKE THAT.

WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH SENATOR WIDEN OVER IN THE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE IN THE SENATE.

I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

AND THEN WE'VE TALKED WITH -- WITH ALMOST ALL OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE REGION AND THERE'S -- YOU KNOW, KIND OF A QUIET PAUSE FOR MOST PEOPLE THAT WON'T CONSIDER IT AND SEE WHAT THE REACTION IS IN THE PUBLIC BEFORE THEY DECIDE WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO OPPOSE IT OR SUPPORT IT OR BE HELPFUL IN TRYING TO GET THIS DONE.

>> DO YOU HAVE A FIRM ANSWER ON WHETHER OR NOT RUSS WILL SUPPORT THIS?

>> HE REPRESENTS THE FIRST DISTRICT AS YOU WELL KNOW.

AND HE'S -- I UNDERSTAND HIS CONCERNS FOR HIS CONSTITUENTS.

AND LEWISSTON AND SO FORTH.

I THINK IF WE CAN GET GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS OR SUPPORTIVE OF MOVING IN THIS DIRECTION, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL LET RUSS -- HE REPRESENTS HIS CONSTITUENTS AND THAT'S ALL I CAN EXPECT HIM TO DO.

>> YOU ALSO MEMSED THE TRIBES AND OF COURSE, DIFFERENT TRIBES HAVE DIFFERENT CONCERNS.

ARE THEY ON THE SAME PAGE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PROPOSAL?

>> ALL OF THE TRIKES THAT WE'VE TALKED TO.

-- TRIBES THAT WE'VE TALKED TO.

AND I MET ON A ZOOM CALL WITH THE 16 TRIBES IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST.

THEY'RE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.

MOST OF THEM PUT OUT -- SUPPORTING THE CONCEPT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.

>> YOU MENTIONED THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

HOW DIFFERENT WOULD THE TIMING OF THIS HAVE BEEN HAD TRUMP WON A SECOND TERM?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THE TIMING WOULD HAVE BEEN -- BEEN DIFFERENT.

WE WERE GETTING READY TO RELEASE THIS REGARDLESS OF WHO WON THE ELECTION.

AND LET ME EMPHASIZES, THIS IS A CONCEPT.

AND WE ARE PUTTING IT OUT THERE AND WE ARE -- WE WANT PEOPLE TO COMMENT ON IT AND TO TELL US IF THEY HAVE BETTER IDEAS, OF THINGS THAT WE COULD DO DIFFERENTLY OR HOW WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THE IMPACTS AND STUFF.

AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR RIGHT NOW IS THE RESPONSE OF PEOPLE SO THAT WE CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WE START DRAFTING LEGISLATION TO ENACT IT.

>> HOW ARE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION GOING?

ARE YOU GETTING ANY SORT OF FEEDBACK FROM THEM YET?

>> I HAVEN'T HAD ANY CONTACT YET WITH THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

THEY HAVE OTHER THINGS ON THEIR MIND RIGHT NOW.

BUT AS THEY WORK TOWARD DOING A JOB -- RIGHT NOW THEY'RE WORKING ON THE COVID RELIEF PACKAGE.

WHEN THEY START WORKING ON JOBS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE, WE'LL BE IN CONTACT WITH THEM.

>> YOU'VE BEEN CRITICAL OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE IN THE PAST.

I THINK YOU'VE CALLED HER CRAZY IN ONE INTERVIEW.

[LAUGHTER] >> ARE YOU IN A PLACE TO APPROACH THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY WITH SUCH AN EXPENSIVE PIECE OF LEGISLATION?

>> I HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH -- WITH THE SPEAKER AND THE MAJORITY LEADER.

ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS IN CONGRESS IS HOYER, THE MAJORITY LEADER RIGHT NOW.

AND I GET ALONG WELL WITH ALL THE -- ALL THE DEMOCRATS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE.

IN SPITE OF WHAT YOU SEE ON TV AND SOME OF THE RHETORIC, THAT GOES OUT, SOME OF THE RHETORIC FROM ME, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT WE ACTUALLY GET ALONG PRETTY WELL ON OUR COMMITTEES WHEN WE SIT AND WORK TOGETHER AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT, CONGRESSMAN MIKE SIMPSON, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU, MELISSA.

>> THANKS FOR WATCHING.

WE HAVE MUCH MORE ONLINE.

FOLLOW OUR REPORTS ON "IDAHO REPORTS."

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

>> Announcer: PRESENTATION OF "IDAHO REPORTS" ON IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LARA MOORE -- LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION.

BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION, AND BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.