Election Day is fast approaching and voters in Idaho's Second Congressional District have a decision to make. Do they send longtime Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) back to Capitol Hill, or is it time to make a different choice?
Simpson has represented the district since 1999, and before that, he served in the Idaho Legislature.
He's now asking voters to give him another two years in Washington, D.C.
We've been talking with the candidates in this race about the issues facing Idahoans, their priorities, and why they believe they're the right person for the job.
He joined Idaho Matters to talk about his record, his priorities, and why he believes he deserves another term.
In order to focus our interviews of statewide candidates, click here to see the rules that guided our outreach efforts. To see the full interviews for those who responded, click here.
Read a transcript of the entire conversation below:
Gemma Gaudette: From the studios of Boise State Public Radio News. I'm Gemma Gaudette. You're listening to Idaho Matters. Election day is fast approaching, and voters here in Idaho Second Congressional District have a decision to make. Do they send longtime Republican Congressman Mike Simpson back to Capitol Hill, or is it time to make a different choice? Simpson has represented the district since 1999, and before that he served in the Idaho legislature. He is now asking voters to give him another two years in Washington. And we'll be talking about his record and his priorities and why he believes he deserves another term in office. Congressman Simpson, thank you so much for taking time to join us today.
Mike Simpson: Thank you, I appreciate it. It's good to be with you.
Gemma Gaudette: So, as I mentioned, you've represented Idaho in Congress since 1999, and you have seen a lot of changes in Washington over the years, as well as changes in Idaho. What do you think is the biggest challenge facing Idahoans right now, and what can Congress actually do about it?
Mike Simpson: Well, I think the biggest change, the challenge facing Idahoans and Americans in general is affordability. That's what you hear all the time from people that things cost too much, groceries cost too much. Obviously gas and diesel cost too much. Homes cost too much. To me, it's amazing how much a starter home costs anymore. If you can get one. It used to be that people would buy a starter home and then they would, uh, start paying on it, and then eventually they would move up into their better home or their dream home or whatever, and that home would become a starter home for someone else. Well, nobody's doing that anymore because they can't afford the interest rates and they can't afford how much it's costing to do that. We can change some of that, and we've been working on doing that. I like the idea of actually allowing if you if you bought a house several years ago or say, 20 years ago and you want to move into a better one, it has acquired a whole lot of value and you're going to be paying taxes on that acquired value.
Mike Simpson: I think you ought to be able to write off at least half or maybe more of that acquired value from your taxes to make it more affordable and make you want to move into that next home up. So, there's things we can do along those lines. There's things we can do, obviously, about gas prices. And one of them is trying to get the, uh, Iran conflict over with and, uh, reopen the Straits of Hormuz and get oil flowing around the country again. I think that would be a huge thing that we could do. And that's also going to affect your, uh, your food prices because the input cost that farmers have to pay in producing that food makes the price of food go up. So, all of it's interrelated. We can do better than we've been doing. We've been working on it. We've been trying to put money back into people's pockets so that they have more money to buy the things that they want. Uh, and we've done that over the last couple of years, but more needs to be done.
Gemma Gaudette: I want to get to the Iran conflict in a minute. But first, I do want to ask you this. You've been in Congress for nearly three decades. What do you say to voters who might think, you know what? We need somebody new. We need some different perspective to represent us in Washington.
Mike Simpson: Well, you know, some people will say that and some people have said that after the first two years I was there that we needed somebody new. But, uh, you got to remember that Congress is a seniority-based system. You move up the longer you're there. And I don't know how else to do it, frankly. Uh, if you didn't have a seniority-based system, if you had term limits, what would happen is all of the chairmanships of both committees and subcommittees would go to people from California, Texas, Florida, New York, because they would have the numbers to be able to vote them in. And states like Idaho and Montana and North Dakota would be lucky to get on a committee that, uh, that was important to us. So, seniority is an important thing. I've acquired that seniority. I can address a lot of the problems being chairman of the Interior Appropriations Committee. I fund things very important to Idaho. Uh, I have chaired in the past the Energy and Water Committee, which is very important to the Idaho National Lab and what they do. I still serve on that committee as well as the labor, Health and Human Services Committee. So, it takes a while to get the seniority to be able to do the things that you want to be able to do. And that's why I've stayed, frankly.
Gemma Gaudette: You voted for President Trump's big tax and spending bill last year, and supporters say that it really does deliver important tax relief. But the legislation also did make some significant changes to Medicaid as well as food assistance. What do you say to Idahoans who are now worried about losing their health care coverage, or maybe other benefits because of that vote?
Mike Simpson: Well, you know, you're absolutely right in that there was a lot of, uh, tax relief for, uh, average Americans. And in fact, you won't hear this from anybody else, but the percentage. They always say this was tax relief for the billionaires and so forth. Those people in the top 10% of the tax categories, top 10% of payers in our federal income taxes paid a higher percentage after the big, beautiful bill than they did before. And more people were let off on the lower end of the of the tax paying system. So it really was for middle income America. And when you have no taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime, uh, taxes on, uh, reduced taxes on Social Security, when you have what I think is the most important part of that bill, that is the Trump accounts and then the doubling of the child tax credit, those are all for middle Americans. I don't know of many billionaires that work for tips, uh, or work overtime. So, you know, uh, people will criticize that. Yes, there were some changes that were made in the Medicare program. We also put a $50 billion fund to help address rural hospitals so that they could address the challenges that that was going to create.
Mike Simpson: And Idaho is going to get its share of that and has gotten its share of that, and we'll address those needs. But I'll tell you one thing that will make it impossible to get the health care you need. And that is when you, uh, if you were to adopt what our Democrats want to do, and that is Medicare for all that is going to drive. I think the last statistics I saw would be like a $43 trillion cost over the next ten years, or $335 billion dollars for every or. Yeah, $335,000 for every family. Uh, that's and you and you don't have the choice of the doctor you go to. I think it's a terrible idea if you think the government runs everything so efficiently. Uh, then I got another take for you. You look at the waste, fraud and abuse that's going on in this country. Uh, it is it is devastating. And we've got to get after the waste, fraud and abuse to free those resources up for the people that need the services that were appropriated for, whether it's food stamps, whether it's Medicare, whether it's Medicaid.
Gemma Gaudette: You mentioned Iran, and I'd like to talk about that a little bit, because you voted against a resolution back in September that would have directed the president to remove American forces from hostilities with Iran. I'm curious about why you oppose that resolution. And what role do you believe that Congress should play in deciding when the United States, United States, actually goes to war?
Mike Simpson: I think Congress has the responsibility to determine when we go to war or not. The last war that was declared in the United States was the Korean War. We've had a lot of conflicts since the Korean War that have never been declared as wars. Uh, and when President Bush decided to go into to, uh, uh, Iraq after nine over 11, he asked Congress for the what's called the AUMF, the authorization for the Use of Military force. That is still in effect. That's what the president is using right now. Is that same AUMF to go after our enemies in Iran. And if you don't think Iran is our enemy, then I think you haven't been reading the news or hearing what they've been saying, but we've been at war with them, essentially, or conflict with them for the last 47 years. Uh, and if you think this is hard now. Where would we be if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon? How would you like to deal with them now? It would be a whole different story. And the president is absolutely correct in making sure, as every president of both parties has said since 1980, Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, and they are the major funder of terrorist groups around the world. That's what Iran does. And so, they've been at war with us. We didn't start this war. They started it 47 years ago. So, I think the only way to end this war is to get it over with and get it over with the way that we intended to. That is, we win. They lose.
Gemma Gaudette: You are in a really powerful position on the House Appropriations Committee. And, you know, you mentioned, um, how seniority benefits Idaho. So, I would like if you could, could you give us a specific, a specific accomplishment that you can point to. That would not have happened without your experience and your influence in Washington over almost three decades on Capitol Hill.
Mike Simpson: Sure. I think if you go and look at the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, not on the site, but you can go out there to where you see the real difference is it used to be a field, and now it's buildings that I've advocated for and research buildings and so forth. That is, uh, is amazing. The INL is growing very, very rapidly. If you go down to Fort Hall, we advocated for and got funding for a new fire station in Fort Hall. I just took my staff down there last August and we toured it. It's a beautiful facility. They actually had a fire station in Fort Hall. They had two fire engines. They only had room to park one indoor. So, in the winter, if the fire came and they needed that second engine, they had to wait till they could fill it up with water because it was parked outside and overnight it would freeze. So, I mean, they needed a new fire engine, but I could go throughout the whole district, whether it's in the Twin Falls area, what we've been able to do for the dairymen, uh, and, uh, over in, in the Boise Valley and what we've done for the city of Boise, uh, the Dixie drain that's over there, that saved the Boise, uh, ratepayers a whole bunch of money. Those are things that we've been able to do through the appropriations process.
Gemma Gaudette: You have been a big advocate for keeping public lands in public hands, and I think both sides of the aisle can agree with that. The Trump administration, though, has also pushed for expanding energy and mineral development on federal lands. How do you balance those priorities, and is there a point where you would push back against this administration when it comes to public lands?
Mike Simpson: If I thought that they were going to, it was going to harm the public lands. But, you know, one of our biggest things we found out in Covid is that our supply chain, we are reliant on countries that don't like us for a lot of things, and we need to bring that supply chain home. And a lot of that is in the critical mineral minerals and rare earths. The reality is we have those rare earths, we have those critical minerals in this country, but most of them are on public lands. We can mine differently than we did in 1859. We don't have a fire hose to blow the side of, blow up the side of a mountain away in order to find gold or something. Today we mine in much more environmentally friendly manners than we ever did in the past. And in fact, you can go to where they've had a mine before, where they've done restoration. You can't even tell they had a mine there. So, we've got to recognize that. But are there places where we shouldn't be mining? Sure, I could, I could agree with that. Uh, but I'd have to see what those are and evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. But keeping public lands in public hands is one of my highest priorities, because that's what the people of Idaho want. And I think that's what the people of this country want.
Gemma Gaudette: You've supported much of President Trump's agenda. In fact, if you look at an analysis of your voting record, it was found that you voted with the president about 99% of the time when he's taken a position. I mean, you're a Republican. No one should be surprised by that. How do you balance supporting the president with your responsibility to independently represent the people of Idaho? And I want to make it clear, when I say the president, I mean, you have been in Congress long enough that you have also been in Congress with other Republican presidents. So, I don't want to make this necessarily a conversation about the current president, because your voting record is similar. If you look at other Republican presidents.
Mike Simpson: I look at every bill that comes before us and say, first of all, is it good for the country? Is it necessary for the country? Secondly, is it good for Idaho? Third, is it good for my district? But that's the important thing to me is how a bill is going to affect Idahoans and whether I think it is a sound bill or not. I voted to override a couple of President Trump's vetoes as an example, just because I didn't think that he had he didn't present us with a good enough reason to override my original vote in favor of those bills. So, it's not, uh, it's not whether I support a Republican president or oppose a Democratic president. It's the principle that you're voting on and the specific legislation. And if you think it's good for the country, then you vote for it. If you don't, and sometimes, you know, there's seldom a bill that is either all one way or all the other. Uh, most of them have things in them that you might not like, but overall, you look at it and say, yeah, overall, this is a good bill. So, it's a balancing act. It always is, always will be.
Gemma Gaudette: We have interviewed quite a few candidates, um, over the last couple of weeks. And one of the recurring themes is this two-party system is broken. And whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you are aligning yourself with a party and with power. You are not aligning yourself with the people you are supposed to represent. How do you answer that question to the average Idahoan who might be floundering right now on who to vote for or to vote at all, frankly.
Mike Simpson: Well, I will tell you that since I first came to Congress, when I first came, there were on the Democratic side. I'll use that as an example. There were what they call Blue Dog Democrats. There were 70 of them that were conservative Democrats. I worked with a lot of those. In fact, I voted for a bunch of their budget resolutions when I thought they were better than the Republican budget resolution. You know how many blue dogs there are now? None, because they have either retired or gotten, uh, gotten beat in primaries. The same can be said of the Republican side of the aisle. Back when the Tea Party started and all that, we started electing more and more conservative members. And consequently, the parties have grown apart. And it's more and more difficult to work together. But I will tell you, on the Appropriations Committee, I think the Republicans and Democrats work together well. Uh, when I write the Interior Appropriations bill, my ranking member is Chellie Pingree from Maine. Doesn't have a lot to do with public lands and stuff, but she has a great deal of interest in in the interior bill, but I don't ignore what she wants and what she needs.
Mike Simpson: But the bill's going to lean in the direction that I want to go because we're in the majority. If they take the majority, the bill is going to lean in the direction that Shelley wants to go. But it's she's not going to forget what I want. So, I wouldn't say that the two-party system is broke, but I do think we need to work together more than we have in the past. Some of my best friends are on the other side of the aisle. I don't vote with them a lot. Steny Hoyer was the majority leader for a long time, uh, or the minority leader in, uh, on the Democratic side. He's one of my best friends. He's a good, good legislator. He comes from Maryland. Same people that elect him would never elect me. The same people that elect me would never elect him. So that's kind of the way it's supposed to go. You elect the people that represent you. They come to Congress and they expect you to sit down and work out the problems together.
Gemma Gaudette: Well, Congressman, I really appreciate you taking the time to have the conversation. We've been speaking with Congressman Mike Simpson. He is up for reelection this November election.
