IDAHO REPORTS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION COMMITTED TO FILLING THE FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF IDAHO.

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

>> I MOVE THAT THE FIRST REGULAR SESSION OF THE 66th IDAHO LEGISLATURE RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BUT NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 21st, 2021.

>> THE MOTION TO RECESS IS PASSED AND THE HOUSE STANDS AT RECESS.

FAST FORWARD.

I'M LOGAN FINNEY FILLING IN FOR MELISSA DAVLIN.

"IDAHO REPORTS" STARTS NOW.

>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO "IDAHO REPORTS."

THIS WEEK THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE RETURNED TO DO STATEHOUSE IN BOISE AFTER AN EXTRAORDINARILY LONG LEGISLATIVE SESSION THIS SPRING.

BUT FIRST THE RECONVENING SESSION WASN'T THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN THIS WEEK.

ADA COUNTY FORMALLY FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION CLAIMING ITS DIVIDES IDAHO'S MOST POPULACE COUNTY MORE OFTEN THAN NECESSARY.

I SPOKE WITH ADA COT COMMISSIONER ROD BECK ON THE "IDAHO REPORTS" PODCAST.

>> THE MAIN CONCERN IS THE MULTIPLE SPLITS.

THEY'RE TAKING AND CUTTING OFF THREE SECTIONS OF ADA COUNTY AND INCLUDING THEM WITH OTHER COUNTIES.

ONE IS THEY'RE HOOKING UP EAGLE WITH ALL OF JIM COUNTY.

THEY'RE HOOKING UP A STAR WITH MIDDLETON AND THEY'RE HOOKING UP THE SOUTHERN HALF OF TUNA WITH CANYON AND OWYHEE COUNTY AND THEY DON'T NEED TO DO THAT.

THERE'S ENOUGH POPULATION IN DAY A-DAY -- ADA COUNTY TO 2 HAVE NINE DISTRICTS.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE BEEN CANNIBALIZED AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE COUNTRY.

>> THE LEGISLATIVE HAPPENINGS STARTED MONDAY MORNING WHEN THE HOUSE TOOK UP A RECOMMENDATION AND REPORT FROM THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE WHICH DEEM THE REPRESENTATIVE PRIS SIN WHAT GID DINS CONDUCT UNBECOMING A LEGISLATOR.

>> THIS DOES IMPUGN A MEMBER.

THIS REPORT IN ITSELF IMPUGNS A MEMBER OF THIS BODY.

TO ACCUSE A MEMBER OF REPEATEDLY LYING, HALF TRUTHS, TOTAL DISRESPECT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW DISRESPECT BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN HERE I DON'T RESPECT COMPLETELY.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW DISRESPECT IS A PART OF ETHICS.

IF WE START GOING DOWN THIS ROAD I THINK WE ARE IN GRAVE DANGER RER.

>> A VOTE APROOF THIS COMMITTEE REPORT IS AN AFFRONT TO THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE PROCESS, WHICH I SAY IS BROKEN.

IT'S AN AFFRONT TO INTEGRITY.

IT'S AN AFFRONT TO FREE SPEECH.

SHE SHARED A LINK TO A NEWS STORY.

SHE SHARED A LINK.

IN COMMITTEE SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT IT.

SHE WAS ASKED IF SHE HAD POSTED IT.

SHE DID NOT POST.

SHE SHARED A LINK.

HER RESPONSES WERE ACCURATE.

THEY MAY NOT BE WHAT THE COMMITTEE WANTED.

BUT THEY ARE ACCURATE.

>> WE HAVE STANDARDS.

AND WE RECOGNIZE BAD BEHAVIOR.

THIS WAS BAD BIR AND IT WAS WRONG.

THE GOOD LADY FROM DISTRICT 7 KNOWS IT WAS WRONG.

SHE WAS TAUGHT BETTER AT THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY, THE SAME PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS OF RESPONSIBILITY AND CHARACTER I WAS TAUGHT AT WEST POINT.

>> I WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM AND THE NATION THAT IS SLOWLY LOSING IT.

I WOULD NOT HAVE DONE ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY.

I THINK MY INTENT WAS PURE.

BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THIS IS SO MUCH BIGGER THAN ME.

I KNOW BUT NOTHING I SAID HERE TODAY OR ANYTHING THAT I HAVE SAID IN THE PAST IS GOING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND.

SO VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE.

AND WE WILL MOVE FORWARD.

AND I WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM.

GOT BLESS YOU ALL.

>> AFTER A NEARLY TWO HOUR DEBATE, THE HOUSE VOTED 49-19 TO FORMALLY CENSURE REP. GIDDINGS AND REMOVE HER FROM THE COMMERCE AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE.

A CENSURE IS A FORMAL REPRIMAND AND STATEMENT OF DISAPPROVAL FROM THE HOUSE.

THAT SAME DAY, A TOTAL OF 36 BILLS RELATED TO COVID-19 REGULATIONS WERE INTRODUCED BY LAWMAKERS.

NOT ALL OF THEM MADE IT.

HOUSE HEALTH AND WELFARE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN REP. FRED WOOD DECLINED TO HEAR NINE BILLS THAT WERE ASSIGNED TO HIS COMMITTEE, SAYING HE PROFOUNDLY DISAGREED WITH ALL OF THEM.

BUT SOME BILLS DID MAKE IT OUT OF THE HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS AND BUSINESS COMMITTEES, LEADING TO LENGTHY DEBATES.

THEY RANGED FROM PARENTAL RIGHTS TO RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION.

FOR OVER FOUR HOURS ON TUESDAY, REPRESENTATIVES DEBATED ON THE HOUSE FLOOR ON THE VARIOUS BILLS.

>> IF YOU AS AN EMPLOYER ARE MANDATING A VACCINE AND YOUR PREMIUMS GO UP, WELL, GOOD.

THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO GO UP.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT, THEN DON'T MANDATE THE VACCINATION.

>> YOU KNOW, OUR BUSINESS PEOPLE, OUR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF BUSINESSES HAVE REALLY BEEN BROUGHT THROUGH THE RINKER AS WE HAVE ALL BATTLED THIS PANDEMIC.

I DO NOT THINK WE ARE DOING THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE BY PUTTING OUR BUSINESSES IN A QUANDARY WHERE THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN BREAKING STATE AND BREAKING FEDERAL LAW.

>> RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DOES MATTER.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I AM OPPOSED TO THIS BECAUSE WE'RE USING IT AS A PAWN ON A POLITICAL GAME ON AN ISSUE THAT WILL BE GONE IF FIVE YEARS TO UNDERMINE A RIGHT THAT'S BEEN INBORN FROM OUR SOULS FROM THE BEGINNINGS OF CREATION.

WE ARE USING IT CHEAPLY.

I BELIEVE WE MUST DO EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO PROTECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO.

AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO SEND A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE TO THE BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO DO BUSINESS HERE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO.

WE BELIEVE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

AND WE BELIEVE EMPLOYEES HAVE A RIGHT TO EXERCISE THAT RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

>> PEOPLE RUN FOR SCHOOL BOARD BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT LOWEST LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT THAT HANDLES SCHOOL POLICY P. THIS TAKES THAT AWAY FROM THOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

THIS MANDATES US TAKING CARE OF THINGS THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD BE HANDLED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

>> WE HAVE HAD EXEMPTION LANGUAGE FOR VACCINES FOR CHILDREN AT AND IN OUR CODE FOR OVER 40 YEARS WITHOUT A LEGAL CHALLENGE.

THAT INCLUDES THE EXACT LANGUAGE AND EXEMPTIONS THAT I AM PROPOSING HERE.

SO THOSE ARE MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS, RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS, PERSONAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS EXEMPTIONS WITH THE TWO POWERFUL WORDS "OTHER GROUNDS."

RELIGIOUS AND OTHER GROUNDS.

AND FINALLY NATURAL IMMUNITY.

>> REPRESENTATIVE SAGE DIXON, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE BUSINESS COMMITTEE, WHICH HEARD EIGHT VACCINE-RELATED BILLS ON MONDAY, JOINED ME ON THURSDAY AFTERNOON TO TALK ABOUT WHAT TRANSPIRED OVER THE COURSE OF THE WEEK.

WHAT WERE YOUR GOALS COMING INTO THIS RER CONVENED SESSION?

MY GOALS FOR TO GET LEGISLATION OUT TO OFFER PROTECTIONS FOR BODILY AUTONOMY, WHICH IS A TERM WE HEARD A LOT IN THESE COMMITTEES BECAUSE WE DO THINK OF A PERSON BEING ABLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES ABOUT WHAT IS INPUT INTO THEIR BODY OF THERE WAS A LOT OF FEAR AND CONCERN IN MY DISTRICT AND IN DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

AND SO I WAS HOPEFUL WE WOULD BE ABLE TO AGREE ON SOME LEGISLATION THAT WOULD OFFER THAT TO THE CITIZENS OF IDAHO.

>> AND THEN WHAT WERE SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS COMING IN?

>> CONCERNS OF GOVERNMENT OVERREACH.

SPECIFICALLY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND HOW EGREGIOUS THAT APPEARED OF THEM FORCING EMPLOYERS TO REQUIRE VACCINES OF THEIR EMPLOYEES UPON THE LOSING THEIR LIVELIHOOD.

THAT'S A SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.

TRYING TO RECTIFY THAT CONTRADICTION BETWEEN PRIVATE BUSINESS AND PERSONAL RIGHTS, IF YOU WILL, IN THAT SENSE.

AND THAT'S A TOUGH ASK SOMETIMES.

PHILOSOPHICALLY WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE FREE MARKET.

MANY OF US DO.

THEN THERE'S ALSO WHAT DOES A HIGHER VALUE?

THE PRIVATE RIGHT OR THE BUSINESS RIGHT?

AND I WAS LANDING ON THAT PRIVATE RIGHT IN THAT SENSE.

I THINK THAT WAS WERE SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES COMING IN OF JUST TRYING TO BALANCE ALL INTERESTS AS BEST WE COULD.

>> AND YOU WERE VERY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS THIS BEAK.

YOU WERE THE K45EUR78 OF THE HOUSE BUSINESS COMMITTEE WHICH HEARD A TOTAL OF EIGHT BILLS ON MONDAY.

ALL FOCUSED AROUND VACCINE.

AND OF COURSE YOU DON'T HAVE TIME HERE TO GO THROUGH ALL FIVE HOURS OF TESTIMONY.

BUT ACROSS THOSE BILLS AND ACROSS THE MANY HOURS OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY, WHAT THEMES EMERGED TO YOU?

>> MOST OF THE THEMES WERE WHAT I JUST STATED REALLY.

A LOT OF IT WAS THE DEEP CONCERN AND FEAR THAT PEOPLE HAD ABOUT LOSING THEIR JOB OR SOMETHING BEING FORCED ON THEM OR THEIR FAMILY MECHANICS THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO.

AND THEN THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT WHAT THAT POLICY WOULD LOOK LIKE GOING FORWARD THAT WE HAD HEARD EXPRESSED FROM LEGISLATORS AFTER PEOPLE TESTIFIED OR WITH THE SPECIFIC PIECES OF LEGISLATION WE HEARD IN DOING THAT.

VACCINES AREN'T SOMETHING WE HEAR ABOUT IN THE BUSINESS COMMITTEE QUITE A BIT BUT BECAUSE THOSE SPECIFIC PIECES OF LEGISLATION TOUCHED THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT WE DEAL WITH IT CAME THROUGH OUR COMMITTEE WHICH WAS SORT OF INTERESTING.% I THINK MOST OF THE LEGISLATORS WERE AWARE OF WHAT WAS AT STAKE AND WERE TRYING TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS AND IT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO ME THAT THE PUBLIC IS HEARD.

SO THAT MAY HAVE BEEN WHY IT WENT ON A LITTLE LONGER.

I DO NOT LIKE CUTTING OFF PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND I TRY AND BE AS GENEROUS AS POSSIBLE WHILE MINE TAKENNING THE COMMITTEE'S ATTENTION AND MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT LOSING PEOPLE.

>> THOSE MARATHON SESSIONS CAN GO ON FOR A WHILE.

ULTIMATELY, YOU ENDED UP PASSING I BELIEVE IT WAS THREE BILLS ON TO THE FLOOR.

AND A NUMBER WENT FOR AMENDMENTS.

>> CORRECT.

>> SO OF COURSE, THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS.

BUT DO YOU EXPECT SOME OF THESE PROPOSALS TO COME UP AGAIN COME JANUARY WHEN THE SESSION RECONVENES ?

>> I DO THINK SO.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE -- WELL, THEY WILL ALWAYS BE PERIOD MEANT.

IF ARE POSED A WEAKNESS IN OUR LAWS AND SOMETHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS BUT A LOT OF THE BIG PUSH THAT WAS COMING UP ON DECEMBER 6 FOR THE CMS PORTION OF THE FEDERAL MANDATE AND WHAT THAT WILL MEAN FOR A LOT OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS HERE IN THE STATE AND HAVING TO MAKE THAT CHOICE BETWEEN TAKING THE VACCINATION THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE OR LOSING THEIR LIVELIHOOD IN THAT SENSE.

THERE WAS A PUSH TO GET THINGS DONE BY THAT POINT.

THAT WILL BE SOMEWHAT MOOT BY THE TIME WE GET BACK HERE.

I THINK GOING FORWARD WE STILL NEED TO PUT SOME PROTECTIONS IN.

>> AND SO THE HOUSE DID PASS A COUPLE OF BILLS.

BUT YOUR NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE ROTUNDA IN THE SENATE ULTIMATELY DECIDED NOT TO PASS ANY BILLS.

WERE YOU DISAPPOINTMENTED THAT MORE BILLS DIDN'T MAKE IT THEIR THE PROCESS ON THE SENATE SIDE OR THAT NOTHING WAS PASSED?

>> I WAS.

I WAS HOPEFUL WE WOULD GET SOMETHING DONE, EVERYBODY WOULD SEE THE NEED OF DOING SOMETHING.

MAYBE LOWER LEVEL BUT GIVING SUGGEST PROTECTION TO THE CITIZENS OF IDAHO AND GIVING THAT CONFIDENT.

BUT AS WE WERE TALKING EARLIER THAT'S PART OF OUR PROCESS.

AND WE ARE NOT DESIGNED TO MOVE QUICKLY ALL THE TIME.

AND WHEN WE DO MOVE QUICKLY SOMETIMES THERE'S ERRORS OR THE WRONG THING COMES OUT.

OUR ELECT THE REPRESENTATION DEMANDS DELIBERATION AND OF EVERYTHING HAVING THEIR INPUT IN WHAT'S COMING OUT TO GOVERN THE STATE.

I HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT.

IT'S FRUSTRATING.

BUT THAT'S THE WAY OUR BUSINESS IS DONE WITHIN OUR LEGISLATURE.

>> SO PHILOSOPHICALLY EVEN THOUGH NOT A LOT OF NEW LAWS WERE PUT IN PLACE OR A LOT OF OFFICIAL ACTIONS WERE TAKEN, YOU THINK THERE WAS VALUE IN GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS THIS WEEK?

>> I DO.

WHEN WE ARE USING THE PROCESS AS IT SHOULD BE USED I THINK THERE'S VALUE.

WE ARE SERVE, THE CITIZENS IN THAT SINCE.

THE HOUSE MOVED ON SOME THINGS.

AND THE SENATE CHOSE NOT TO.

AGAIN, THAT'S OUR SYSTEM.

AND IT IS FRUSTRATING AND I THINK WE NEED TO DO THINGS.

BUT WE HAVE TO TRUST WHAT OUR FOUNDERS OF THIS STATE AND THE COUNTRY GAVE US IN THIS PROCESS AND IT'S MAINTAINED US FOR SO LONG.

>> THE SENATE WAS FINISHED UP FOR THE YEAR AND WASN'T INTENDING TO COMING BA.

THE HOUSE DID HAVE SOME UNFINISHED BUSINESS TO ADDRESS THIS WEEK.

YOU WERE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE WHICH AUTHORED A RECOMMENDATION TO CENSURE REPRESENT IF I HAVE PRISCILLA GIDDINGS EARLIER THIS AUGUST.

THAT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE HOUSE AFTER A VERY LONG DEBATE ON MONDAY.

CAN YOU GIVE ME AN OVERVIEW OF THIS INCIDENT AND WHAT SORT OF MESSAGE THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE WANTED TO SEND?

>> IT WAS DIFFICULT.

IT'S NOT EASY.

WE DON'T ASK TO BE ON THAT COMMITTEE.

OUR PEERS ELECT US TO THAT COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THE TRUST THEY HAVE FOR US AND OUR ADJUSTMENT.

AND IT'S NEVER ANTICIPATED TO GO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE HAD TO GO TO THIS YEAR.

AND THAT RECOMMENDATION CAME AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF DELIBERATION WITHIN THE COMMITTEE.

AND WAS SOMETHING THAT SEEMED TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR MAINTAINING TRUST AND HONESTY WITHIN THE BODY IN DOING THAT.

ULTIMATELY THAT DECISION IS UP TO THE BODY.

THAT'S HOW OUR HOUSE RULE IS STRUCTURED.

THAT IT'S NOT ONE PERSON OR ONE GROUP BUT IT COMES BEFORE THE BODY.

IS THIS HOW WE WANT TO BE PERCEIVED TO THE PUBLIC?

THAT'S HOW I READ THAT RULE.

AND SO WE AS A COMMITTEE ARE THE FIRST FILTER IN MAKING THAT DECISION BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S THE BODY.

AND DO WE THINK THAT MEMBER'S CONDUCT IS UNBECOMING AND WOULD REFLECT 234EGLY TO THE PUBLIC?

THAT'S AGAIN PROCESS.

WE FOLLOW THE RULES AND WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THAT'S WHAT I'M PLEASED WITH REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME.

>> AND DURING THE DEBATE ON THE FLOOR, SOME REPRESENTATIVE'OR TRYING TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PROCESS YOU REFERRED TO.

BUT SOME, THE MECHANICS OF THE COMMITTEE DECLINED TO TAKE THOSE QUESTIONS DURING THE DEBATE U KIND OF REFERENCED, THIS WAS A REALLY FRAUGHT, EMOTIONS WERE HIGH.

AN INCIDENT THAT THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE TYPICALLY DOES NOT END UP DEALING WITH.

NOW THAT THE REPORT HAS BEEN ADOPTED AND THINGS ARE STARTING TO MOVE FORWARD, HOW ARE THE RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN YOUR CAUCUS FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT?

>> I THINK THEY'RE WHERE THEY WERE THERE, LOGAN.

I'LL SAY THAT.

I HAD SOME MEMBERS THAT COME TO ME THAT VOTED AGAINST THE RESOLUTION AND FELT THEY HAD TO EXPLAIN THEIR VOTE.

BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO.

THAT'S WHAT I LET THEM KNOW THAT.

THAT'S UP TO THEM.

THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR VOTE AND IT'S NOT FOR ME, WELL, WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ON IT BUT I DIDN'T -- WASN'T HOLDING NICK ACCOUNTABLE FOR SOMETHING.

THAT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN TALK TO THERE ARE CONSTITUENTS ABOUT.

I DON'T QUESTION THAT.

SO I THINK THERE WERE PROBABLY SOME 48ED RELATIONSHIPS -- FRAYED RELATIONSHIPS PRIOR TO THAT VOTE BUT I DON'T THINK THOSE HAVE BEEN FRAYED ANY FURTHER MEANING THAT THEY'RE PROBABLY STILL DIFFICULT RELATIONSHIPS THERE GOING FORWARD.

BUT I THINK THERE IS A CELEBRITIES OF RELIEF FROM THE BODY IN GENERAL THAT NOW THAT IT'S OVER WITH BECAUSE IT WAS KIND OF LOOMING OVER US FOR A LITTLE BIT AND THE FACT WE WERE COMING BACK TO TAKE ON A VERY BIG TOPIC FOR ALL OF IDAHO AND WE HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS ALSO.

IT ADDED A VERY DIFFICULT DYNAMIC TO THIS WEEK.

>> REPRESENTATIVE DIXON IS ALSO THE CO-CHAIR OF THE REGULAR INTERIM COMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM WHICH MET ON THURSDAY, INVESTIGATING HOW FEDERAL ACTIONS COMPLY WITH CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

YOU CAN HEAR MY FULL INTERVIEW ON OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL AT YOUTUBE.COM/IDAHOREPORTS.

ONCE THE BILLS PASSED THE HOUSE, SENATE COMMITTEE CHAIRS DECLINED THREE HOUSE BILLS WERE HEARD IN THE SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY MORNING.

NONE OF THEM MADE IT TO THE SENATE FLOOR.

BY THE TIME THE DUST SETTLED, ONLY ONE JOINT MEMORIAL PASSED BOTH BODIES.

SENATE MINORITY LEADER MICHELLE STENNETT AND MAJORITY LEADER KELLY ANTHON SPOKE TO "IDAHO REPORTS" PRODUCER RUTH BROWN ON WEDNESDAY AFTER SINE DIE.

>> SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR JOINING ME TODAY.

CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT YOU EXPECTED COMING IN ON MONDAY TO THIS EXTRAORDINARILY LONG SESSION?

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT COMING INTO IT?

>> WELL, I WILL BE HAPPY TO START.

YOU KNOW, FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, THE MAJORITY SIDE, FIRST HERE.

SO WHEN WE LEFT THE SESSION LAST SPRING WITH THE MOTION TO ISAIAH DIE WE ANT WAITED WE WOULD NOT BE COMING BACK TO BOISE.

THAT WAS REALLY THE PLAN.

WHAT CHANGED THAT PRIMARILY FOR THE REPUBLICANS AND THE IDAHO SENATE WERE THE ORDERS OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

AND SO THOSE MANDATES THAT REQUIRE PRIVATE BUSINESSES TO DO VACCINATIONS AND THE OTHER MANDATES ON FEDERAL WORKERS AND SUCH REALLY CHANGED A LOT OF THE THINKING OF SOME OF OUR MEMBERS.

AND SO THEY ANTICIPATED THAT WE COME BACK AND WE ADDRESS THAT PRIMARILY.

WE DID ISSUE A PRESS RELEASE THAT SAID AS MUCH.

WE REALLY DIDN'T ANTICIPATE DOING A LOT OF OTHER WORK THAN ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS THAT IDAHOANS HAVE ABOUT VACCINE MANDATES.

>> WE CAME BACK, WE SIMILARLY DIDN'T THINK THAT WE NEEDED TO COME BACK.

THAT WE HAD ADJOURNED SINE DIE AND WHEN IT BECAME AN EVENT THAT WE WOULD, IT WAS A MATTER OF QUESTIONING.

AND WE HAD LIKE THE MAJORITY PARTY, WE HAD GONE IN FRONT OF THE PRESS AND SAID IS THIS INSTITUTIONALITY?

THERE'S STILL AMBIGUITY.

WHATEVER WE DO MIGHT END UP BEING NULL AND VOID ANYWAY.

THERE'S NOT THAT SECURITY.

SO IS IT PROPER TO COME BACK OR SHOULD WE IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF OF TIME COME BACK IN JANUARY AND ADDRESS IT THEN?

THEN WE KNOW WE WON'T HAVE TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS PASSED, THAT WE WERE MEETING THE RULES.

THERE WAS THAT QUESTION WHY WE MADE THE MOTIONS WE DID ON THE FLOOR ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS PROPER.

BECAUSE THERE WERE COMPETING COURT DECISIONS ON THAT.

THAT SAID, WE ALSO WERE CONCERNED THAT THERE'S THE PERCEPTION WE ARE A FULL-TIME LEGISLATURE.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT ONE BODY ONLY HAVING RECESSED AND THE OTHER ONE ADJOURNING, TECHNICALLY WE ARE IN THE LONGEST SESSION EVERY AT 311 DAYS.

AND SO TO THE PUBLIC, THEY'RE SCE VERNED THAT IF WE ARE ALMOST A FULL-YEAR, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING HABITUALLY?

THERE'S THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT IS COMING BEFORE THE VOTERS NEXT YEAR ABOUT WHETHER IT WOULD BE WISE FOR US TO HAVE THE AUTONOMY TO CALL OURSELVES BACK INTO SPECIAL SESSION FOR THINGS.

BECAUSE WE WOULD ARGUE, WE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEN HERE, WE COULD HAVE WAITED TO A SESSION.

WE ARE ALREADY INTO OUR 311th DAY.

IS THAT WHAT THE FACE OF WHAT WE WANT TO HAVE THE LEGISLATURE LOOK LIKE GOING FORWARD?

AND SO WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY WHEN WE ARE HERE DURING SESSION.

IT'S $35,000 TO CONVENE.

AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF WE PASSED A JOINT RESOLUTION, WHICH IS THE LETTER TO CONGRESS ABOUT THEIR OVERREACH, WHICH IS THE ONE THING THAT WE GOT ACCOMPLISHED, WE SPENT $100,000 TO SAY THAT.

IS THAT APPROPRIATE?

IS THAT GOOD USE OF MONEY?

IT IS SOMETHING WE COULD HAVE SAID WITHOUT COMING, IN A DIFFERENT FASHION.

SO THESE ARE VALID QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD AND THE PUBLIC HAS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.

>> JUST MY TWO CENTS, I AGREE.

THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

I THINK THAT ALL OF US AS IDAHOANS NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE IS MEANT TO BE A PATIENTED-TIME CITIZEN LEGISLATURE.

IF WE STRAY FROM THAT I THINK WE ARE MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE FOR IDAHO.

THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE SENATE DECIDED TO GO HOME AFTER A VERY, VERY LONG SESSION LAST WINTER.

I DO ALSO AGREE THAT WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF WHAT'S GOING ON FOR OUR TAXPAYERS.

IT GOES WITH THE SAME ARGUMENT WHICH IS, IF WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT IN A SHORT PERIOD OF OF TIME IN THE WINTER, WE NEED TO DO THAT.

AND EVERY SESSION YOU HAVE, THERE ARE MEMBERS WHO GO HOME AND SAY, I DIDN'T ACCOMPLISH ALL THAT I WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH.

THAT'S NORMAL.

AND SO WE NEED TO ACCEPT THAT AS THE PROCESS.

THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, THE MINORITY LEADER AND I HAVE JUST SPOKEN ABOUT THIS BUT THERE WAS VALUE IN THIS SHORT THREE DAYS WE WERE IN BOISE AND WHAT THAT VALUE WAS FOR ME IT DEMONSTRATED HOW IMPORTANT THE PROCESS IS FOR IDAHOANS.

IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT THEY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING, TO WEIGH IN ON THAT, AND TO BE A PART OF THAT PROCESS BEFORE WE MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE LIFE-ALTERING OR ALTER HOW BUSINESS IS DISUN IN IDAHO.

SO IT'S HARD TO PUT A PRICE ON ANY PIECE OF LEGISLATION BUT THE WHOLE PROCESS I THINK REALLY SHOWED HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT WE DO THAT FOR IDAHOANS.

>> SO WE ENDED UP HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY, SINCE WE WERE HERE, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE VERY ROBUST DISCUSSIONS AND A VERY MOSTLY IN OUR COMMITTEE, THE SENATE STATE AFFAIRS, TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THEIR WORRIES, THEIR CONCERNS, THE MEDIAN SEE OF THE CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE AGAINST THEM.

GOOD THINGS THAT WE LEARNED FROM BOTH SIDES.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME AWAY FOR ME WAS THE LACK OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT'S ALREADY IN STATUTE?

WHAT'S ALREADY THERE THAT PEOPLE CAN GO TO.

WE ALREADY HAVE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM STATUTES.

WE ALREADY HAVE HEALTH FREEDOM STATUTES.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT.

THERE IS A PATH FORWARD THAT THEY HAVE GOOD POLICY OUT THERE.

THEY MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT.

BUT FOR SOME IT WASN'T WORKING FOR THEM.

SO IT'S A MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT.

CAN WE DO SOMETHING THEN TO HELP MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE HAVE THERE IS ADHERED TO, IS ENFORCED.

THAT IT IS SERVING THE PEOPLE IT WAS INTENDED TO SERVE.

AND SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WILL COME BACK IN JANUARY TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT WAS EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT TO DO THAT.

THAT SAID, MUCH OF WHAT CAME TO US WAS ALREADY BEING DEBATED IN FEDERAL COURT.

AND AS WAS NOTED TODAY, WHILE WE WERE DEBATING ALL THIS, THERE WAS A SUSPENSION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF POLICIES, AND A STAY BEFORE THAT.

AND SO EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE MAY NOT THINK THAT THAT IS IMPORTAN¶ IMPORTANT, IT WAS IN OUR FAVOR IF THE STATES BELIEVED THAT THAT WAS THE COURSE THAT THEY WANTED TO TAKE.

THE COURTS SO FAR HAVE ALREADY MADE THAT DETERMINATION.

SO DO WE COME BACK AND UNNECESSARILY BECAUSE IN THE END IF WE FIGHT IT WE ARE SPENDING TAXPAYER MONEY ON SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY NOT WINNABLE AND WE COULD USE IT FOR SOMETHING MORE, EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, INFRASTRUCTURE, WHATEVER THAT IS.

AND SO WISE USE OF RESOURCES, WISE USE OF TIME.

BUT IN THE END, ALSO IF WE ARE GOING TO BE HERE, WE NEED TO EDUCATE BOTH WAYS AND ABOUT WHAT WE DO IS IMPACTING AND HOW WE CAN INVOLVE PROBLEMS.

>> SENATOR, YOU MENTIONED THE PROCESS THIS MORNING IN STATE AFFAIRS.

WE HEARD SYSTEM FOR MORE THAN THREE HOURS REGARDING SEVERAL BILLS THAT WERE ADDRESSING HE HAVE COVID VACCINATIONS IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

DID YOU LEARN ANYTHING FROM THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD?

AND ANYTHING THAT MAYBE YOU HOPED TO ADDRESS IN JANUARY, EVEN THOUGH YOU COULDN'T ADDRESS IT BEFORE TODAY?

>> WELL, I ABSOLUTELY LEARNED NEW THINGS.

AND SOMETHING I DID NOT LEARN NEW IS THAT POLITICS AND POLICY MAKING CREATE STRANGE BED FELLOWS.

SO AS YOU LISTEN TO THE TESTIMONY IN SENATE STATE AFFAIRS TODAY WHAT YOU REALIZED WAS THAT THE PREDICTABILITY SOMETIMES THAT WE ASSIGN LEFT-LEANING GROUPS OR RIGHT-LEANING GROUPS ON POLICY WAS NOT THERE.

THERE WAS, IN MANY INSTANCE, UNIVERSAL ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM REJECTION OF SOME OF ADVANCED TO THE SENATE FOR US TO CONSIDER.

AND THAT WAS A BIT OF A SURPRISE TO ME.

SO I THINK THAT THE ANSWER TO YOUR SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION IS, WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF THESE POLICY QUESTIONS TO TACKLE GOING FORWARD.

THIS WAS CERTAINLY NOT A RESOLUTION OR AN END TO A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT IDAHOANS HAVE ABOUT MANDATES, POTENTIALLY LOSING THEIR JOBS BECAUSE THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS ADVANCED THESE MANDATES.

AND THE RELATED ISSUES THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT.

SO YOU WILL SEE THOSE ISSUES COME BACK IN THE NEXT SESSION.

>> SO POLICY IS HARD TO EXPLAIN.

YOU CAN GET PRETTY WONKY WITH IT.

BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW IN THIS DIALOGUE CAME UP IN OUR STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING TODAY AND YESTERDAY, IS, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT FROM A 30,000-FOOT LEVEL.

WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHATEVER WE PASS CAN'T BE FOR A SMALL FACTION OF PEOPLE.

NOBODY ENRIGHTS OR ANY MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANOTHER PERSON'S RIGHTS.

THAT'S LARD TO CREATE GREAT POLICY FOR.

WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT THAT YOU AND I MAY DISAGREE ABOUT WHAT THIS POLICY SHOULD DO FOR ME BUT THEY'RE VALID, EQUALLY VALID.

AND SO WHEN WE GO FORWARD, WE HEAR YOU.

BUT YOU CAN'T MOVE FORWARD SAYING, BUT MY RIGHT IS SO IMPORTANT, WHY DON'T YOU HEAR ME AND UNDERSTAND THAT THEN YOU TAKE IT AWAY FROM SOMEBODY ELSE.

THERE'S NO PERFECT SOLUTION.

BUT IF WE ARE TRYING TO DO POLICY THAT WILL IMPROVE AND BE USEFUL TO AT LEAST THE GREATER WHOLE, IT CAN'T BE JUST A SMALL MARGINALIZED GROUP.

IT HAS TO BE THE GREATER WHOLE.

BUT EVERYBODY DESERVES TO BE HEARD AND EVERYBODY DESERVES TO BE REPRESENTED.

SO THIS BLEND OF LINES IN ORDER TO DO POLICY THAT ISN'T TRYING TO "WE WIN OR YOU LOSE" OR IT'S US OR THEM, WHICH POLITICS THE IT'S A MUCH MORE COLLABORATIVE CONCESSIONARY PROCESS WHERE WE ARE GOING TO AGREE ON PIECES AND DISAGREE ON PIECES AND WE WILL AGREE WHETHER THAT IS USEFUL OR NOT USEFUL.

YOU HEARD THAT IF YOU LISTENED TO TESTIMONY IN OUR COMMENTS TO IT, TRYING TO MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT HERE TO HURT YOU.

WE ARE HERE TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S USEFUL TO YOU.

SO I THINK PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE, I LIKE TO TELL THE MAJORITY LEAD, PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE ABOUT YAIRT% OF WHAT WE DO IN THE LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS WE DO VERY WELL TOGETHER.

WE DO IT ACROSS PARTY LINES, ACROSS HOUSES.

BUT ABOUT 20% IS WHAT YOU HEAR ALL THE TIME BECAUSE IT'S WHERE WE DIFFER.

AND THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE HAPPENING IN GOOD DEMOCRATIC PROCESS BECAUSE WE DON'T COME FROM THE SAME DEMOGRAPHICS, WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME RELIGION, WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME ISSUES THAT WE CARE PASSIONATELY ABOUT.

WE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE AT ODDS ABOUT A CERTAIN DEGREE TO A CERTAIN PER SAYS.

GIVE US CREDIT FOR THE WORK WE ARE TRYING TO DO WELL FOR THE PERTMENT OF OUR CONSTITUENTS.

>> WELL, AND THE PROCESS THAT ENTAILS AND ENCOMPASSES CIVIL DISAGREEMENT IS A PROCESS THAT PRODUCES GOOD POLICY.

I MEAN, SOME.

WORST LAWS I'VE EVER SEEN, ORDINANCES, POLICIES THAT HAVE EVER BEEN WRITTEN HAVE BEEN WRITTEN TO THESE NARROW SET OF FACTS THAT THEN ONCE YOU GET DOWN THE ROAD YOU REALIZE, GOLLY, WE DIDN'T THINK OF THAT.

AND SO AGAIN BACK TO THE PROCESS THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT, WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT IT IS, NOT ONLY DO YOUR LEGISLATORS GET TO HEAR ABOUT CONCERNS PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, BUT THOSE WHO ARE ADVOCATING A SERVE POSITION GET TO HEAR THEIR OPPONENTS ARGUE THOSE POSITIONS THAT ARE CONTRARY.

AND IF YOU REALLY WANT GOOD LAW, GOOD POLICY, AND A GOOD WAY FORWARD FOR THE IDAHO PEOPLE, THAT'S WHAT YOU DO.

AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE MANDATES.

BECAUSE THERE IS A FEELING THAT THEY'RE UNILATERAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS WITHOUT THAT PROCESS.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHY IT WAS SO IMPORTANT FOR IDAHO'S SENATE TO GET TOGETHER FOR THESE LAST THREE DAYS.

>> BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER MUCH WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WAS ALREADY NOT A MANDATE.

SOME OF THOSE PIECES WERE, YOU ARE MISINFORMED OR WE NEED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS PIECE OF IT ISN'T MANDATED.

THOSE ARE CHOICES.

BUT WHAT I WAS VERY PLEASED TO SEE, BECAUSE IT'S A VERY PASSIONATE.

PEOPLE WERE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO THEM AND SHOULD BE.

THAT IT WAS SO CIVIL AND RESPECTFUL.

SO GRATEFUL TO SEE THAT PEOPLE COULD HAVE REALLY, REALLY PASSIONATE, GOOD DIALOGUE AND STILL UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE ALL TRYING TO DO OUR BEST WORK WHILE WE'RE SITTING IN THE SAME ROOM.

>> THE LEADERS ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF CIVILITY AND RESPECT WHEN LEGISLATING.

YOU CAN HEAR THE WHOLE INTERRUE ON YOUTUBE.COM/IDAHOREPORTS.

THERE'S A LOT MORE DETAIL COVERED FROM THREE DAYS AND MANY HOURS OF HEARINGS ON OUR PODCAST.

RUTH BROWN AND MELISSA DAVLIN JOIN ME JUST AFTER JOURNALMENT WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON TO DISCUSS THE EXTRAORDINARY WEEK.

AND WE HAVE MORE ONLINE ABOUT THE WEEK'S EVENTS ON THE "IDAHO REPORTS" BLOG.

YOU CAN FIND ALL OF THOSE LINKS AND MORE AT IDAHO PTV.ORG.

SIGN UP TO RECEIVE OW NEWSLETTER.

THE SESSION BEGINS IN LESS THANNIVES MONTHS ON JANUARY 10th.

HAVE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY.

>>> PRESENTATION OF IDAHO REPORTS ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION COMMITSED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE AND BETTIS FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING OF GREAT STATE OF IDAHO.

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