PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 31, 2009
Salmon Solutions and Planning Act - Directs the Secretary of Commerce to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences for scientific analysis of federal salmon recovery efforts, including a review of Snake River dam removal (Washington state) and other actions necessary to achieve recovery of endangered or threatened salmon and steelhead populations of the Columbia and Snake River Basin.
Directs: (1) the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to conduct a peer-reviewed analysis of which rail, highway, and Columbia River barge infrastructure improvements would be necessary to ensure a cost-effective and efficient transportation system for shippers who currently use barge transportation between Lewiston, Idaho, and the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers and who would be unable to do so if the four lower Snake River dams were removed; (2) the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to conduct a peer-reviewed analysis of options to replace the power currently generated by such dams if they were removed; (3) the Army Corps of Engineers to analyze riverfront revitalization and restoration opportunities and costs in the event of such removal; and (4) the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a peer-reviewed analysis of the options and costs regarding any needed modifications to affected irrigation systems, cooling systems, and private wells if the dams were removed.
Sets forth the congressional determination that the Secretary of the Army may remove the four lower Snake River dams.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to reevaluate and update the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Final Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement (February 2002) pursuant to new information.
People & committees
Rep. McDermott, Jim [D-WA-7] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to House Energy and Commerce
Referred to House Natural Resources
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3503 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3503 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3503 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3503 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.