Cleared Hot - Powered By BRCC - Representative Ryan Zinke - Big Beautiful Bills and Public Land Sales

Episode Date: July 1, 2025

Ryan Zinke is a fifth generation Montanan who serves as Representative for Montana's First Congressional District covering 16 counties in western Montana including the cities of Bozeman, Butte, Missoula, Kalispell. First elected to Congress in 2014, and serving as U.S. Secretary of the Interior between noncontiguous terms, Zinke has built a track record of accomplishments in energy, conservation, tribal and military issues. Now in his third term, Zinke is a member of the House Committee on Appropriations, focusing his legislative agenda on restoring accountability to federal spending, restoring American energy dominance, and bolstering national security at our borders and beyond. Ryan began public service in 1985 when he joined the U.S. Navy and graduated from Officer Candidate School. He was recruited to join the U.S. Navy SEALs where he went on dozens of deployments targeting terrorist cells in Asia, war criminals in Bosnia, and combatting the rise of radical Islamic terrorists in the middle east. During his military career he held a number of leadership positions including as Ground Forces and Task Force commander at SEAL Teams SIX oversaw the U.S. Navy SEAL BUD/S training after 9/11, and was Deputy/Acting Commander of Joint Special Forces during the Iraq war. In 2006 he was awarded the Bronze Star for his service. Commander Zinke retired from active duty in 2008 after serving for 23 years. Following his military service, Ryan was elected to the Montana State Senate and was twice elected as Montana's sole member of the U.S. House of Representatives. During his first two terms as Congressman, Zinke served on the House Armed Services Committee and Natural Resources Committee. As a leading member of the Natural Resources Committee, Ryan challenged the Obama Administration on their policies that locked Montanans out of public lands and introduced legislation to strengthen public access and conservation. In December 2016, Congressman Zinke was nominated to be the United States Secretary of the Interior by President Donald J. Trump and later confirmed by a bipartisan vote in the Senate.

Okay, got the red smoke. Gun runs. North and south. West of the smoke. West up of smoke. Okay, copy, west of the smoke. I'm looking at danger close now. Come on wind it, man.

They give it to me. Copy, clear not. Where do we begin? Where do we begin? And where do we are? Mr. Zinky, what in the actual fuck is going on with our government right now? currently a 900 plus page bill is being forced to be read on the Senate floor, I believe. How is this even possible?

Well, we can back up. How do we get here? Right. How did we end up with a 900 page? How did we get here? Well, well, some of it is, I can tell you, 36 trillion reasons why, and that's our national debt. And I'll say up front is that we just didn't pay attention. And I'm still an optimist.

I really am. It is absolutely 100% fixable. But you're not going to fix it from one side of the aisle or the other. Our problems stem from our spending problem. It's not revenue. Revenue has been pretty consistent over the years. It's our spending. And I sit on appropriations.

And if you read the Constitution, which I think everyone should read it, at least once a month, it's holding eight pages, not very long. But Article 1, Section 9. And Article 1, it must have been important because they put in Article 1, is that no money should remove the Treasury unless by consequence of appropriations. So that sounds great. And because our founding fathers were merchants, right, and they set it up with checks and balances. But so I sent in our appropriations.

I appropriate less than a third of the budget. 20 years ago, it was just opposite. And then what's the third? A third is what's called discretionary. spending. That's our parks, our military is over half of that. It's the face of American government on the services. The other side, which is the big three, the big three ships that are all sinking, by the way, are Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Those three ships have now eroded in the spending, not eroded, but have expanded into spending where now they're 70% of the

budget and growing discretionary is actually shrinking on GDP. When did that start? When did that ratio start going from it was 70% discretionary to 30%? If you go back 30 years ago, it was 70% was on what's called the non-discretionary mandated spending. Those are the three. And over time, Medicaid has been expanded. You have Medicaid, which is for seniors and elderly, but you have Medicaid advantage. We're paying for ski trips and we're paying for passes and dog food sometimes. Medicaid, which has got a lot of attention recently. We're paying for people that aren't working at all. And then you have the process is chips for kids. Then there rolls over to Medicaid for those that need some help. And then it rolls over to Medicare. That's socialized medicine all the

way through one's life. And then Obama Care was supposed to solve a lot of it. It hasn't solved a lot of it. And we're going to look at services where we're at. Look, I'm all four people that need it. You know, hand up, not a handout. I think you're in the same place. But the abuse, the fraud, waste, and abuse has got to stop. And we've got to focus on that. What reconciliation did is over in the Senate side, it takes 60 votes. They have a filth. Bullabuster 60 votes that gets things across the floor. On the House side, we're a simple majority. So simple majority.

We have 218 is the majority get 218 votes you're in. But in order to move things forward, if you're going to block in the Senate, then it's a reconciliation. And interesting, on reconciliation, not to get into detail a little, but there's a Byrd's rule from Senator Byrd. which puts sideboards on what can and cannot go in. Mostly it's mandated spending, and mostly it's a budget reconciliation and not policy.

So things that are policy get set aside, but it's an opportunity to look at the spending side of it, and one will say that a criticism will say that the spending is not enough. The advocates will say that, hey, we're not going to get stiffed with the largest tax increase in the history of this country. And from Montana, there's some good things in it. I will say it doesn't go further enough in savings. But look, if you have a family ranch or a farm or a business

and you're facing a death tax, you know, there's no margin for if you have to recapitalize a farm at 30%, right? You'll lose the farm. It seems like they're living on a razor's edge. It's not, although people don't really, realize the TV show Yellowstone was largely shot in Park City. On the first two years, absolutely it was. Like, I think I recognize that building and that's certainly not Bozeman.

So people should go to Park City. Point being, you know, from my experience with ranchers, and I've actually now had to go out, not had to, I've had a great opportunity to go around and meet a bunch of them. They're not flying around in like helicopters and Bentley's. They're working their asses off for margins that are tight. They're not, they're not, they don't have a printing press of money like people would think if you watch the Yellowstone TV show. Just spitting out $100 bills. Well, yeah, and there's a saying is that, hey, there's no money in cattle.

You pay for the lifestyle. You know, it goes up and down. But you're right. I mean, the average size of farms now on the east side is something like 10 or 15,000 acres. Because you need a lot of land to produce. Small family farms, organic farming, just don't pay the books. Although there is a saying in the house, kind of tongue in cheek, that the Latin name for agriculture is I exempti.

Because they're exempt from a lot of things. But no, it's not an easy life. They're having problems with labor. You know, the machines are so much more expensive. These combines now are, you know, three quarters of a million dollars, just enormous amount of capital required. But it's hard.

But then other things, you know, if you're a small business in Montana, in which most businesses are. Unless Congress did something, you'd be paying almost double in taxes. Research and development, if you're a company out of Bozeman, a lot of research and development

out of Bozeman, photonics. Very interesting technologies, but it requires a lot of investment up front. And if you can't write that off, you're just not going to be competitive. So on the tax side, I think there's a lot of goodness on there. Some of the things I don't agree with,

But, you know, overall, it's government. So government by nature is imperfect. So you've got to look at overall. But one thing that I was absolutely opposed to that I would have voted against the bill had there been the sale of public lands. Talk to me about, well, it leads to so many questions. You know, you say you're an optimist and I am too. Is it possible, do you think, to write the ship under our current structure? And I'm like, I'm talking about through the lens of, so the big, beautiful bill, when it first came in, what was it, a couple hundred pages?

And now there's a 900 page version, right, that they're reading on the floor. Under that structure, I mean, I had to use chat GPT. And I'm assuming a lot of people do this as well to look into it. And I was specifically trying to, in the original bill, use light search terms to see how deep I would have to go to find that land sale. because there's nothing about what that bill is pitched at that has anything to do with public land sales. I had to specifically target chat GPT to find those terms to do it. Page 2 or 2. That's what I'm saying.

It was stuffed in there. Oh, yeah. How do we get to a place where that can't happen? Because in this structure, these not, like, there is so many things. There was AI regulation in there. There was energy regulation. A lot of things that people, if they just, most people would say the big, beautiful bill is about taxes. It's like, yes, asterix, page 200, 2.5 million acres.

How does this happen? And how do we, I don't know if we'll be able to write the system if that is allowed to continue. Well, here's, just in context, we talked about the two sides, discretionary, non-discretionary. The fix is this is, in my judgment, Congress over the period of time, you're asking them, when did this happen? Congress over the period of time invented these terms, mandated spending, discretionary. spending, omnibuses, continuing resolutions. In my judgment, all of them were invented so Congress could take a buy, a pass, a punt, didn't have to make tough decisions. If you don't have to make a tough decision, you know what? You won't. Isn't that their job, though? Isn't that our job? Make the

tough decision. Yeah. But once you give a benefit, oh my gosh, you try to take it back out. Yeah. And a lot of these benefits were COVID-based, right? So you've got to make tough decisions. I want to save Social Security. I really do. And Social Security should be for those people that need it and have worked their life and then want to enjoy the last parts of their life. Yeah. But under the system, it's sinking.

And so you have to make some corrections in order to make sure that the system stays healthy. On reconciliation, you're right. These bills, a lot of it is templates. Now, this is the template. And you read it and you go, you know, what is it? refer to, refers to section 145 of the U.S. Code, you know, 1711, et cetera. Which I'm sure everybody getting ready to vote on these things knows exactly what you know. So you need a Rosetta Stone, right?

All right, that's Greek. All right. What does that mean? Yeah. But also on the reconciliation, you had these committees of now jurisdiction and appropriations wasn't one of them because we're in the discretionary side. is that they may sew these together. So in the case of public lands,

Senator Lee is chairman on the Senate side. So he has a whole staff. And so out of that committee, you know, they look for savings. And then hidden in there was a public lands. One is the idea that you're going to get out of debt by selling public lands is just folly. We didn't get into debt because of public lands.

we ain't going to get out of it selling it. You could sell everything, and it wouldn't even come close to $36 trillion. Well, especially if you don't change your spending. Spending. You got it. It's the spending side. Yeah, it's like, okay, hold on. We're going to sell these public lands over the next few years,

but we're not going to change our spending going forward. So we'll throw a shovel full of dirt into a hole. It's actually just going to keep getting bigger. And I would say, and I understand the frustration on public lands. Look, if you're in Libby and you're... You're living in us around a sea of trees and can't harvest one. These catastrophic fires that are burning up our forests, we burn more two-by-fours last year than we ever harvested.

There are more dying trees out of age and maturity than we are harvesting. And that's what sustainable harvest and responsible harvest would look like, is that you look at what the sustainable growth is, and that's what you harvest to or close. But I understand the frustration. But it's kind of like running a hotel. If you don't like the management of a hotel, then fire the management, but don't sell a hotel.

And on public lands, they talk about grazing because we're talking about food production. The Taylor Grazing Act ensures, number one, you have lower cost grazing. So if you're on federal land, you're going to pay a cut rate as opposed to state or certainly private land. But the intention is, one,

is to make sure we have a strong food supply. And secondly, to make sure that our Grange lands are healthy over time. Mining. right, when you have a lease on federal property, you have to have a bond, you have to have a mining plan. And then that mining plan has to be executed so you don't what? So you don't get a superfund site that this public has to clean up. Now, one can say absolutely our permitting process needs to be changed.

We shouldn't be waiting for a permit for 25 years in Troy, Montana for Montaneer. That does sound a tad excessive. Excessive. Make the call in two years. Or no, but you can't... It's like a quarter of a century. I mean, come on. Let's be patient.

Yeah, it's just like, come on, make the call. Is it a good mine or is it a bad man? In two years, you can pretty much get, you know, a plus or minus, right? On whether it should go forward or not. But to drag it out or have these radical judges in a case of mine and Troy, they are mandating a study on windshield strikes for bumblebees. So if you go forward to mine, you're going to have more mining traffic. So they're mandating a study on the impact of bumblebee strikes on a windshield.

And a judge is mandating this? Yeah. Yeah. Come on, guys. Where does a judge even come up with an idea for that? Well, it's just, you know. Or is that money behind the judge via a supporter? Like, why would a judge say bumblebees?

This is my issue. Well, or, or grizzlies. Jim Grizzlies have recovered, right? Yeah. And these radical judges, and the Supreme Court, you know, most recently has finally put these district judges in a box. Yeah, they're smack them out of control. And it will have an effect to on an environmental law because these judges were ruling a nationwide on injunctions what you can and cannot do. Keystone Pipeline is an example, probably some of these mines,

based on their opinion, based on not on law, but based on their agenda. And I'm glad the Supreme Court finally reigned in the district level. Because it was heading to a fight that I would not prefer to have. Because just because the Supreme Court says they're supreme, that's what the court says. It's not what Congress says. It's not what the executive says But more importantly, that's not what the Constitution says They're equal branches of government

Each defined in the Constitution, Article 1 being Congress But when one branch decides that they can be an imperialist As the justice, you know, it's pointed out It's wrong. And it puts our whole system in danger Where you have a district court judge Can be stronger and more powerful than a Supreme Court justice. Because remember it takes four on a Supreme Court justice

to take action, but you have a single judge out there that is shutting down presidential prerogative per the Constitution. That was a problem. So I'm happy to see that Judge Roberts, I think he knew the threat. And I didn't want to go back to Andrew Jackson, who had an issue with the court.

He said, you know what you rule what you want to do? You try to enforce it. Because the enforcement, remember, is Department of Justice. Yeah. So I'm glad we skirted that landmine field and when we're out of it. And now each branch, I think, can operate within the Constitution. We're a lot better off.

I mean, I think our country would probably do better if our government function of the manner was designed. You know, I love that constitution. That's why I thought, you know, people should read it. It's set up delightfully. Many did for the first time shortly after Trump made the decision to bomb Iran. I have never seen more, and not that I'm a constitutional scholar. I'm just aware that I'm not. I have never seen more online constitutional scholars.

Most of them, many of them from government claiming that Trump had just violated the Constitution while utilizing the same permissions that both Obama and Biden did in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, a variety of places. I didn't see that outrage, but all of a sudden the Constitution was being pierced, apparently. Well, I think it's the Trump derangement syndrome. I mean, every time President Trump does something, it's either unconstitutional or blatantly wrong just because Trump did it. You know, and you're a frogman, so am I. You served my opinion on Iran.

Remember, they're the principal sponsor of terrorism. In the world. Yeah. In the world. Yeah, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houdis, and they continue it. And they continue to enriching uranium. They haven't changed their motives of operations. rodai. It got to the point where they were very, very close. And look, you know, when you have

535, well, 5,335 pounds of explosive and a shape charge, you know, on a heavy system, and you've done Doug's deep underground systems, and that coming at you, just the overpressure alone is going to put a hole in it. But these centrifuges are enormously sensitive. I mean, They are very, very sensitive. They can't move them. Yeah. Now, they're a lot of problems. But you put overpressure in that, and no doubt that site's contaminated.

I think they dropped like six, just pinhole, like right on top of each other. And these are deep penetrators. So when you do that, just the overpressure is going to kill anyone in there. It's going to disrupt everything in there. But also, whatever material you have now is non-contained. It's in the ground, but it's non-contained. You know, I wouldn't want to go back in there. but those sites are done.

If they don't change their motives of operandi, I think it's going to continue where they're going to lose their Navy. They'll lose their what's remaining part of their Air Force. They'll lose their ability to produce energy, their economy, and probably their leadership will be targeted. Can you imagine a Middle East without a terrorist organization like that? I mean, it would prosper. I mean, Qatar is, our Qatar's doing very, very well.

Saudi's doing very, very well. Without, you know, the leading sponsor of terrorism in the neighborhood, I think that region would prosper. And I don't think the U.S. would have the presence we do with the Fifth Fleet and be there. Because if it was prosperous, there would be no reason why we're there. To the degree we are. Do you ever get to talk to Trump? I do.

You know, he's at work for him, obviously. Can you tell him he's his own work? enemy from a lay person that he really just he's at a 10 if I could get him to a seven with some of the things that he said I think it would really help with the well my cut of the president is this is that the one is there's only one Donald J. Trump right and he is the master of playing to the media and a lot of it is absolutely intentional and he likes chaos You guys, you know guys from New York, right? I'm not saying the president is, but a lot of guys from New York,

you know, probably 30% a little BS, 40% fact, and then 30% unknown. It's the unknown. Is he going to do it? Is he not going to do it? Has he already done it? You don't know. So that uncertainty is leverageable.

And with President Trump, when he says something, you got to take it in consideration. He may not do it, but he certainly said it. Can he at least use less adjectives? You know. Like 78% less adjectives. Clear and concise communication. Like this is a core ethos of like seal leadership.

You know, I'm just saying maybe fear the root. I'm a big Ronald Reagan fan, you know. But also, you know, considering what they throw at him, he is. is tough because they, you know, they, you know, our nation, our intelligence assets, they spied on him before he was president. That's what the Russian collusion was about. And they lied about it. Let me ask you this. How widespread do you think that is? Because if that was actually happening to him, I have a hard time believing it doesn't happen to others. Well, it certainly happened to me, not in the scale that happened to Trump. But you look at Trump, he was

spied on by our intelligence assets before he was president. Which directly violates their charter. They're supposed to be externally looking, not internally. Yep. And then they spied on them during the presidency. That was the Ukrainian collusion. And they spied on them post-president. That was Morlaugo.

So you have, when I say a deep state, there really is a deep state. And just statistics. 94% of Washington, D.C. voted for Kamala Harris. 94. And I will say that 6% don't worry. working government. So you have an attitude in Washington, D.C. that when there's a, there's an attitude that we're superior. And you see from policies, right? They know more about a Montana River than you do. They know more about agriculture than you do. They know more about

business than you do. Just ask them. That part might be true. I'm kind of an idiot, but. Well, there's a sense of they know more in D.C. And they probably think they're about hunting regulations here. Absolutely. So when I was secretary, it's kind of funny. I put a video arcade in the bottom, the mess hall. Interior is a huge building. It's like eight stories and three blocks long.

No one's in it now, so I think we can consolidate. But anyway, I put this Buckmaster, you know, hunting video arcade, right? And it was free. I said, you know what? we'll have, you know, contest, the top two winners, I'll challenge you. It's kind of a fun thing, right? Oh, my God. The idea in Department of Interior that I was promoting the killing of animals, hunting.

And then we, on a duck stamp, right? Because remember, hunters buy duck stamps. That's how we fund a lot of our conservation. So I put a hunting dog on a duck stamp. the pushback I got because it's a DC model. And they don't understand about hunting, fishing, conservation. They don't understand that, you know, you were Department of Interior. We're the Department of Responsible Hunting or the Department of Conservation.

This is what Department of Interior should be promoting. Our wildlife refuges were set aside to make sure they have healthy flocks to hunt. That's why Teddy Roosevelt started it to make sure we, sure we can promote hunting and fishing for the next generation. They're not a wildlife refuge for birdwatching per se. Yeah. But that's certainly a part of it. But that's not the main purpose of them is make sure the health of the species.

The people who try to regulate that stuff with no understanding of what it looks like in practice, they need to, I mean, I don't know. maybe we need to force people out of D.C. Because I bet those same people would have no problem going to a grocery store standing in front of the steak aisle and selecting a rabbi. It's like... Well, you have to tell you to your point. You know, like you want to sit there and tell me how to live my life

because I happen to live in a Western state where hunting is amazing. And I can feed my family on wild. Like one elk, well, I eat a lot instead of my kids. Those bastards. So one elk may not cut me for the year. Hunt a bigger elk. Hunt a bigger elk. Sometimes it's what's walking.

because I was in front of you here. I limited it on the old calendar. But why do they have an issue with that where I'm getting my tag where conservationist? I mean, I'm friends with a guy who flies the fishing game A-star, and they're out there constantly looking at herd sizes and tracking and seeding lakes. I'm buying my tags from that that goes to conservation. And people have an issue with that because I'm killing the animal. But literally we'll go to a safeway and stand in front of a steak aisle and outsource the killing

of that animal and try to take the moral high. ground. It's like, how about you live your life and I'll live my life? You leave me alone. I'll leave you alone. Don't put regulations on top of me and I won't put regulations on top of you. They don't even know what they're talking about, though. God bless. You know, when I was secretary, I moved BLM, Bureau of Land Management out west because most of the land. That's what most of it is. Yeah. And the other thing is Washington, D.C. is super expensive, especially if you're trying to recruit young talent. You know, child care, for instance, is $2,500

a kid. That means per month. Per month. Damn. All right. So if you have two kids, you've got to be making about $70,000 a year just dedicated to child care. Yeah, that's not covering mortgage car. Or for someone else to raise your kids. Because remember, it's after taxes, right?

So I said, you know what? This move BLM out there. One, better quality of life for the folks. But two, is that get closer to where BLM, is. So you understand the problem of giving a ticket on a county road. You understand a problem of abuse of government, understanding that, you know, public lands are multiple use, especially BLM land, where it's grazing, it's hunting, it's mining, it's conservation, but it's multitude of use and not single use. But from D.C.'s perspective, a lot of times, BLM is their only purpose really is conservation where the problem is you. You're out there in public land. So it should be set aside for

the animals and the fish, but you're the problem. And I keep reminding, even our park system, if you go to Yellowstone engraved in stone over the arch for the benefit and enjoyment of the people. That's why we have a park system. So you can enjoy the park, your kids can enjoy the park, and you'll have a hook. So you'll understand the conservation part of it and the majesty of our beauty. So a lot of times the park system was, again, designed for the people

to make sure that our future generations have the same opportunity to visit and look at the wonders and also, you know, capture why our public lands are so important. Yeah, I don't have an issue, and I actually think it's essential that we look at the public land,

that the government is managing. And if there are things that we can do better, we absolutely should. But there needs to be a process. I don't understand how Mr. Lee is able with his staff to just, hey, make a hit enter on this document and we'll just slide. Does he have to declare that? Or can you just slide stuff in there and hope somebody doesn't catch it? Well, in this case, I think we all caught it.

But you're absolutely right. So when I was secretary, I subtracted land, I added land, I exchanged land. I exchanged land. But there's a process to it. And the process starts mostly in the West where, you know, lands were previously occupied by the nations, our tribes. We're surrounded by them right now. And so you should consult first because a lot of public lands have access,

but those public lands may contain cultural sites, historical sites, that you just need to be aware of and consult with them. Second, he's got to consult with local and state governments. And then there's considerations. Wildlife management, that's wildlife corridors. Are you going to sell the surface? Are you going to sell subsurface? And what's below the subsurface?

Because it makes a difference. Water rights. You have public access issues. You know, a lot of areas around, you know, small towns. That's going to be a trailhead. Certainly it is in Montana a lot. You also have, you know, recreation is what it's used for. And I'm open to look at how.

highest best use and doing an assessment primarily of lands that are smallest, you know, for the change and incompatible use. Affordable housing, for instance. Affordable housing is called an apartment. That's tens of acres. It's not millions of acres. And it's certainly not, you know, luxury ranchettes at a thousand acres, a pop. That's not, that's not affordable housing. And oh, by the way, a law will put in in regulation. If you're going to transfer public land to affordable housing, it's $100 an acre, which makes sense. But even in the housing issue, you know, land is not the biggest cost in housing.

Permitting and infrastructure is about 40 percent because you've got to have water. You've got to have sewer. You've got to have curbs. You've got to have all that kind of stuff. That's about 40%. Then you've got to build it. So then you've got building materials. and then you've got labor costs, and whoever is going to develop is going to have some profit,

generally less than now 5%. So land itself is not going to get you out of the affordable housing problem. I mean, I can look at the coffee shop build we did. It was a quarter city block, and the acquisition cost of the land was, I'm not going to say fractional, but a vast minority of the overhead cost of actually getting that off the ground. Yeah. And the permitting was such a joy. Joy. Joy, joyful, wasn't it? Oh, my God. We had the EPA and we had to do, I forget what

they're called, but we had to dig two different trenches for rainwater. And it was insane the way that they wanted us to set it up. They basically, I am not joking, I wish I could find the PDF. They basically wanted to make it a trip hazard where it was these open cavernous rectangles like this table, two of them on the outside patio with a six inch concrete barrier that somebody would just trip over and take a header in. And I'm in this meeting. I'm like, are you guys accepting liability for somebody who hurts themselves? Because you're forcing me to do this.

They're like, absolutely not. You know, that's your liability. Like, so I don't have a choice as to whether or not I have to do this. And I don't agree with this design. And I'm liable. And they basically are like, oh, yeah, that sounds fantastic. And this is Calispel. Yeah.

Like, imagine if you're in Whitefish. But, you know, but you're, so, you know, permitting, I give an example in, in, in, in Culelewell. Lake. The Sealy Lake doesn't have a car wash. Really? Yeah. The reason why they don't have a sewer system.

Oh, damn. So when that mill went out, there are a lot of reasons why the mill went out. They didn't invest, so it was an older mill. But some of it was affordable housing in Sealy. Well, affordable housing, if you're going to put an apartment complex in there, then you're going to need a sewer system to plug into it because, you know, where Sealy is is, as a CERC, so you put a little straw down, you're going to hit water about 20 feet. But the water doesn't move because it kind of sits in a basin of clay.

So they need a sewer system. Oh, okay, that's this work on a sewer system. But that's infrastructure. And you're not going to be able to put septic tanks everywhere. And then in the valley, let's look at Evergreen, right? Almost everyone on Evergreen is on a septic. Really? Yep.

Even though it's just on the, basically east side of calispell. All septic. So what happens in the valley, about every 25 years, we have a flood. Oh, I know what this story is right. Here it comes. So it's a big, big flush, right? And where does it go? All the lake.

Yeah. So look, basic infrastructure is what we should be working on. And basic infrastructure allows apartments that allows higher density. So you can build affordable housing. Look, in affordable housing, it's a step, right? You get into a small unit first, and then you save, then you can move up the chain, up up the ladder and then get the three bedroom, you know, two-bath house, right? But, you know, when the prices are, you're not going to go from zero to a three-bedroom, two-bath house

at $1 million. You're going to have to work your way up, gain equity. It's a slower process and it should be. But at least there's housing available, but you need a new per conversation. You need the infrastructure behind it so you can plug in. Sewer systems are expensive, but, you know, in a lot of cases, a septic is now, you know, $30,000, $50,000 on a septic, and you've got to get a permit and it's expensive. The pricing, we would get quotes for lumber for the shop, good for 24 hours. 24 hours. Well, we built during COVID, because of course, why not have a great idea and then build

during historically the most expensive time ever? I think we could probably save 40% on the build, but yeah, 24-hour lumber quote. Well, here's a number with public lands, right? You sell public lands. Does that mean you're going to have a sustainable timber? No. You sell your public lands. That's it.

So the public is not going to, and we're not going to be able to lease. And yes, we need to get better on making sure we have harvest. But if you sell the property, guess what? Your long-term timber production on federal lands go to zero because it's not yours anymore. So the idea that selling public lands is somehow going to solve our budget crisis, and then you have recreation. Recreation is a $1.1 trillion industry. Trillion. That's 12 times more than mining, probably mineral extraction combined. I mean, that's how big the recreation industry is. And that's you and I. That's fishing. That's hunting. that's mountain biking, all those type of things that we use the public lands for,

which you got to put in the column of, look, this is an asset. But, you know, again, I agree that there are some buildings and tracks of land that probably should be sold or exchanged or traded. But there's a process to it. And oh, by the way, whether public lands are in Montana or Utah or Maine, they belong to us all. So all of us should have a public comment to it. Yeah.

I mean, that means we should have a say in what highest and best use is. I think that's what pissed people off the most. I think, I don't know if it would have gone through. I suspect it wouldn't have, but by not, and that's why I asked you if they have to declare what they slide in there. I think his reception might have been a little softer had he declared it, but it seems like it was stuffed and hidden. And the language, in my opinion, was intentionally very broad. It didn't mention affordable anything. said up to 2.5 million acres. I'm at a point in time where trusting politicians is like in an

all-time low. I think I'd rather get, you know, a drink from Bill Cosby as a bartender. Congress has a 17% approval rating. I say Congress, we're earning our approval rating every day. I just don't think anything was accidental about that. I don't think the way it was put in there, the language that was put in there. None of that, I feel like it was accidental, but left out of that. that's why a lot of outdoors people or people who care about the land had the reaction that they did. I don't know if it would have been a softer reaction if he had declared it, but he definitely, I think he kicked a hornet's nest by accident. Yeah, and it should have been.

But also, you know, when you say, well, it's just five miles around a town or a municipality, and you go, five miles, what does that mean? You've got to go five miles north, south, east, west. Oh, that's a hundred square miles. That's a hundred square miles around little towns like Stryker. You know, you know, that's an awful big swath of land. It's, you know, far exceeds, you know, affordable housing. And it fringes on this on, you know, on the far right.

It's like federal government should not own any estate. On the left, you know, people should should not do anything on it. We should just preserve it forever and not transit across it, right? But the rest of us, you know, live in the reality is that we enjoy our public lands. if you're in Montana or the West. We live in the West because of access primarily to our public lands. So we enjoy using them. Not all of it is probably, you know, there's dirt out there that probably could be converted for other things.

But, you know, if you're going to expand an airport, if you're going to look at education, you know, when I was secretary, there was a school in New Mexico was adjacent to a BLM land. and they want to expand a gym. Yeah, absolutely. It made total sense. Yeah. There's 30 acres sitting in Lima. That's U.S. Forest Service next to the school.

It's not used for recreation. It's not used for herds of the elk. It's a patch of weeds that there's probably highest and best use. There's 40 acres in the middle of Raggin Ranch in California. That's a BLM land that ought to be able. be probably transferred. Just a little square in the middle of the Reagan Ranch. How did that get there? And there's exchanges, right? And you look at some of these, the patchwork doesn't have public access to it. So you look, you know, how do we, how do we do public access? It's better we exchange it out for a

proper that has better access, better wildlife management opportunities. But these are thoughtful considerations and not hidden in a bill at 1030 at night on page 202. which sounds okay, but when you actually open up the file, it's more extensive. And it's all of a sudden millions of acres of transfer or sale of what I would say is our greatest treasure. America's best idea was the park system. America's public lands is a great idea. How do we get it so there are no more 200-page bills or 900-page bills that are being read throughout the night? Is it possible to have single issue bills versus omnibus bills?

You know, one would think. It's almost as if the people reading it would have a better time understanding it before they voted as well. Well, and some of us, you know, politics, the farm bill, right? The farm bill, wouldn't it be nice if the farm bill was about a farm? Yes. But the farm bill, most of the farm bill is snap. Most of its food stamps.

Most of its other things that are in the Department of Agriculture. And the Department of Agriculture in D.C., by the way, is a larger building than interior. I think it's like six stories and maybe a few blocks long. They don't grow one plant in that department. Most of it is entitlements, its programs, you know, school lunch programs. Not necessarily they're not important, but all of a sudden you have the farmers on one group and you have the food stamps and another group, and somehow they managed to put these huge bills together

in order to pass, because there's something that draws it from both sides of the aisle. I'm a big advocate for single topic bills, even the defense, you know, defense is much more than just arms. What would it take to change the system to that, though? Who would have to agree to that? Well, what I've seen most recently is kind of going back, with appropriations. The way it's the way the system was designed, you have the authorizing

committees. It's kind of like a menu. And the authorizing committee authorizes that you can spend government dollars on this program. Then you have a budget committee that says, you know what, this is how much money you got in the pocket. And then the appropriators, which is on one of it, take the menu. We look at the menu. We look at the, we look at our budget and say, all right, this is how much we have to spend. I'm going to match. the spending to what the menu is. Because our founding fathers were merchants. So there's a checks and balance along the way.

That's the way the system was designed. We've deviated too far from the Constitution, in my opinion. And now you have a lot of programs that aren't authorized or reauthorized, like the Department of State hasn't been reauthorized because Congress hasn't been doing their duty. So to me, I would say a, Appropriators should not appropriate anything unless it's authorized. That makes sense to a logical person.

It does. And there's a budget to it. So follow the budget. You know what? And the budget is the budget. And look, if you don't have enough money, then you've got to cut back on certain things and stay within your operating budget. There's 36 trillion reasons why it's a really good idea. And I would say where we are overall is there's three things that have to happen. One is the economy has to get better because people are struggling out there. There's no doubt. Secondly, this trade war in tariffs, it has to come to a conclusion. Tariffs have to result in a trade deal that is sustainable and known. So the uncertainty goes out of the market.

And lastly, our spending has to show to lower the interest rates. Interest rates are the big killer because just a two-point rule. raise and interest rates can double your mortgage. Yeah. So we focus sometimes on inflation, we focus on taxes. But interest rates are the big cahuda. Because when interest rates and the ability to have capital, they affect your car loan, your house loan, your credit card payments, all that is the big tax.

And I think for this bill, reconciliation, I think the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the report card on it is really the 10-year treasury yield. What is the bond market? The bond market doesn't lie. If the bond market says, you know what, America can control their spending. Then our investment in our T-bills, our investment in America is good,

and you're going to receive, we're going to pay our bills. That 10-year yield is really the report card. And then if the report card is good, you'll see interest rates start to creep back down. And then the accessibility of capital, whether if you're a business, you don't have to pay, look, if you're a business guy, and you've got to borrow at 10%,

if you're lucky. Well, you borrow at 10%. That means you've got to make profit. That means you've got to make 25%. Because you also have profit, overhead, you got to list payments, plus interest. Our government is paying a trillion dollars in interest. A trillion. A lot of it because the bond market is at, I don't know, 4.7 or somewhere, somewhere in there.

That means we've got to pay 4.7 interest. And America is insolvent at the moment. That means we have to borrow money to pay our bills. We're not bankrupt. But when we have to borrow money to pay our bills, that means we borrow more, we pay more interest. That's the problem. We got to stop the spending, excessive spending. And I think the first step is fraud, waste, and abuse. There's a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse. Yeah. So get that. And then deliver services to people that need it.

That's important. And then focus on a long-term investment, infrastructure, those type of things, that helps an economy move forward. Do you think the Doge concept will help with the fraud waste and abuse? It certainly did. You know, it's interesting. When I was secretary, I stopped all grants. I put a hold on them all.

And all they wanted to know is who is getting the grant. Which I feel like as somebody giving grant money is an incredibly reasonable question. Very reasonable. And then I wanted to know, do you have a spending plan? Also reasonable. Yep. And do you agree to an audit? So if you say you're going to use the money for this purpose, do you agree to an audit to make

sure that this verified, right? And is there any conflict of interest that I should know? Sometimes a conflict of interest is bad example, is that a lot of the park, you know, employees, superintendents, they're also married to someone that has a 501C3, which is, which is totally fine. But if you're a superintendent, you should not be giving a grant to your wife's, you know, nonprofit. That decision. government money to your family members. Yeah, that decision needs to go one layer up where you're not making the call.

It doesn't mean that your wife's company or your husband's company or nonprofit is bad. It could be great, but you should just not be making the decision. Yeah, you shouldn't be the guy flipping the switch for the cash flow. It needs to go up one layer of the chain of command. And those things were very reasonable. And you would have thought, my God, it was, it was, I got so much push back. It was like I'm putting a nuclear power plant. in your grandmother's grave.

But with Doge, the difference is he did it at a much, much larger scale. And he came in, the brilliance of it, he came in. There were employees of the U.S. Treasury, by the way, fully badged, fully vetted. There were new hires. But they were able to use AI, just as you did going through that bill, right? And they determined, look, $7 trillion with the transactions, not one rejection. $7 trillion of transactions and not one rejection. And then all of a sudden, what are we spending money on?

Are we really spending money on transgender clinics in India? Well, the answer is yes. Is there really people that are listed with a Social Security number that are older than this country itself? Why, yes. Are we $300 million worth of grants for people that are 120 years old out of the small business administration? Well, yes.

So the abuse, is there one hub distribution center for social security checks that are going to overseas accounts? Why, yes. So what the brilliance of it was, he exposed it. But there's three steps. One is you got to expose the fraud. Two, you got to confirm it. So just because you have an age that's 130 years old and you're in the Social Security. system doesn't mean you got to check. So you got to confirm that the fraud was actually there.

And the last step is you got to take action on it because that money is in an account. When you freeze it, it's still there. It's like you're just saves an account. It's there. Do you rescind it? Do you put it back to Treasury or do you repurpose it for something that is actually worthy? But the three steps, I think, were Elon Musk was brilliant, is he exposed a lot of it. The second step, and harder is to confirm it. And then Congress has to do their job, their administration, and rescinding it or repurposing it.

What do you think the likelihood of those last two steps are going to be? Well, we just rescinded an enormous amount. Well, you know, in the budget, a $7 trillion budget, you know, we rescinded, you know, billions. So that was the first step on it. I think we'll see other rescinds on it.

And I think also the departments are much more aware, they're going through and and you know and they're looking at where the money is going. Here's my question. Why weren't you doing that before? Why were we? Why were we? Why were we?

Oh no, we just got our we just got our pee spanked. Okay, it's time to do our job. How about do your damn jobs so we don't find our help? Well, and there's been a couple really good things on the court. One is the Chevron decision which says

the administration can't do things outside. intent of Congress. For instance, you have a department that is giving grants without congressional intent, certainly in the area. And that is being reigned in, and that's post-Post-Bide administration. And then this injunction was an important thing. The other thing is this, is that some of the grants that affect Montana, a lot of the grants, because the Biden administration was in charge, to write a grant that say even things for reduction of fuels, right? Well, if the Biden administration says, look, you got to look at climate change, you got to look at DEI, those are the litmus test

that your grant will be judged on. Well, obviously, you're going to write the grant that way. Yeah. Even though that a lot of these programs had very little to do with climate change, they're actually just, you know, good practices on fuel reduction, those type of things. So they got caught up. in the all-stop and a lot of these grants are being reworked to actual purpose and and they'll they'll be approved but in on the first blush and everything that said DEI everything that said climate change was scrutinized and stopped but again a lot of those lot of these grants in Montana had less to do with that it had more to do with the administration and what the administration put out is this is what you

need to do to be competitive to the grant and if you're a grant right your goal is to what? Get money. Get the grant, right? So you're going to write it this way. Under the Trump administration, you know, a different set of rules. So you're going to write your grants, you know, more appropriately with the current administration and we're seeing that.

So that's a good thing. The deep state. So I used to think, all right, I'd hear people talk and they'd say it's a group of people, right? And they'd sit down at a table and they'd get their swords out. It's like 12 people in Monaco trying to rule the world. And I'm of the opinion now. I do think the deep state exists, but I think it's more of a mentality.

And I would tie to people in power want to stay. Empower people and influence want to stay in influence. How do we get rid of that in the government? I think you're aware of a Knights of the Roundtable of the deep state. I don't think there's a meeting to Boys Club somewhere in Vienna. But, you know, it's funny because, you know, I knew there was a deep state and kind of tongue and cheek. When I went in, you know, I brought a set of hip waiters because they knew it was a swamp. Should have brought a boat much deeper than I thought.

But it's an attitude. It's an agenda. It is an arrogance. The deep state is oftentimes, because it comes from D.C., a liberal point of view that is in a bubble. It's a point of view that doesn't represent America. It doesn't represent, you know, most people are just trying to get through life and make sure they pay the bills and pay taxes and get the kids to school. The deep state is an arrogance that they know better. And it's an arrogance that has been cultivated.

And to a degree, it's an echo chamber. And there's a resistance to change. There's a resistance. And you've dealt with it as a seal. the divide between ops and Intel. Oh, they're always aligned. Oh, you know, Ops wants to get rid of the cancer.

Intel wants to cultivate it and study it. So you have these tensions in there. And the bureaucracy, a lot of it is overpower. It's that my decision matrix is better than yours. And I want to say in everything that you want, want to do. But how do you change that? It seems so deeply ingrained in our current system. Well, you know, some of it is the decision matrix needs to change where you can have an influence, but you don't get the yes or no. If you have, you know, 30 people in line and

everyone can say no along the way, you'll never get anything done. That means you can comment on it, but the decision should should be the top without you saying yes or no. You can influence a decision by making comment of it, but you can't keep it in the desk. And the president administration, everyone in the executive branch, works for the president, ultimately. And that's the agenda, and that's why we have an election. So you have to make the decision matrix, you know, more streamlined. So it can't be no, no, no, no, no. A sea of and hold up. As an example with Rubio. What do you think the odds, though, even just what you're describing that the people in that system who enjoy their ability to keep it on the desk,

voting to change the system to reduce their input. Well, with Rubio, you know, the reports from the field, right? There was 40 layers from that field report to the secretary. I'm sure he was just getting really good beta. Oh, everyone was manipulated. So he said, no, I want to go back to the raw data. I didn't see that. And all of a sudden, when he's seeing that raw data,

and he's the one in charge, I can tell you, those that were manipulated and in between, it should make them awful uncomfortable because they've been spewing garbage for a long time. Same thing with Tulsi Gabbary. You saw this that the Iranians weren't working on enriching uranium. They had no aspiration for a nuclear weapon. They stopped the program in 2003. So who told her that? It's an intel community that wasn't looking the same sheet that you and I were.

I was in Iraq in in in in in 2004 I can tell you the Iranians were working on it aggressively then and the nuclear deal that Obama signed you know gave them carte Blanc to do to enrich uranium it gave them carte blanche to develop the ICBMs or the ballistic missiles it didn't prohibit one bit on missile technology that's why they were saying death the Israel and the side of their missiles it didn't mean didn't look at that and it didn't allow for sites to be confirmed where he had inspections. So all of a sudden, military bases, like the ones that were just bombed in submission, were off limits for international inspectors. You know, of course they were working on it every day, right? But back to your point,

you know, I think accountability, responsibility, and get as much as you can out of D.C. as you said, Ontario, which I knew a new best, is that I tried to get BLM out. And so BLM left. A new administration came back. They brought them back. But how many actual people came back? Oh, I'm going to say 10%.

Yeah. Yeah. So all of a sudden, this is where the remote came in, right? Yeah. Is that why would you want to go back to D? Especially if you're out, right? And you've been out of D.C. for five years. Yeah. chances of now having a family pretty good, right?

I don't even work here, and I avoid it like the plague. Yeah. So it's a lovely place to visit. When you visit, come by the office, say, well, we'll take you out a tour. A lovely place to visit. But I could say for every hour you spend in D.C., you should take a shower for two. Just feels like it's full of vampires. It's inside the bureaucracy. And there's a lot of people that want to do a good job, that do do a good job.

But there's just this prevailing attitude, as you say, that we knew better. And there's an arrogance to it. know, sometimes they forget who they serve. Who you serve as the public. They're your customer. You know, that's your client. And do right by America. And also understand that states have a say.

You know, our Constitution, we're, you know, United States of America. So, you know, Montana should have a voice. And we shouldn't get overridden all the time by someone that doesn't. doesn't know where the Flathead Valley is or they don't know where the Yellowstone River is. And yet they want to control water flow, water temperature, riparian banks, you know, in and out, all drops going into a Yellowstone river, that the only Yellowstone they understand is from the TV series. Which, again, was filmed in Park City for two years. Yeah, well, as I said here.

Do we say Park City? Go to Park City, Utah. But, you know, what's funny about Yellowstone is that, you know, it's a, I say, because I've gotten to know, Kevin Koster a little and he's a wonderful man and they've done a good job on the writers, the production. Yeah. But it's a drama. It's a drama set in Montana

just like Star Wars is a drama set in space, right? The vistas are great, but the storyline is a drama. So don't get wrapped around the axle although Beth is tough. Beth reminds you of a lot of Montana. For the people who bitch about Yellowstone,

I have to remind them, have you ever watched a little movie called a river runs through it. I mean, arguably the most beautiful man ever, just fly fishing into Montana. I'm like, oh, that didn't have any impact on people wanting to come check this out? Because that was decades ago. Like, let's just

take a wrap up. Well, I was also filmed up ironically. That's what I'm saying. And the bitter root. A lot of us filmed a bitter route were now you know, Yellowstone. The little ranch they have is also in the bitter route by Darby. What are your thoughts on as a Montana and I hear this from mostly

hunters? Public land. that's landlocked private property. What's the solution of that? Well, all right, corners. This is where I sit in corners. I mean, even more than, I mean, there's just like some, there are some swaths of like huge ranches where even the corners wouldn't do it. It's literally pockets of private or pockets of public that are basically circled by private. Well, somewhere, but it's a two-way street, all right? So somewhere on that section of land, there's access. It may not be the corner. the corner might be over a cliff, but there's somewhere that you should be able to have access to that public land.

But the same token is that government sometimes prevents access to private land. So this is a two-way street. If you have land, then you know what? You should have enjoyment of that land. And there should be access both private and public to that land. but to have something land locked, I don't agree with. But there has to be some consideration, too, because if you're a property owner,

you know, you don't want people strutting across your land and violating your cattle and all this kind of things. But there's workaround that needs to be incentives for it to be done. And maybe the best solution is an exchange where you have better public access, where your wildlife management is better. It might be a corridor for, you know, one of our elk herds or something. You know, look at that.

I think it was brilliant the way that the West was saved by the checkerboard. You know, going through time, it probably, you know, I would say protected a lot of the outdoor experience. But, you know, again, specific pieces of property. You can look at exchanges. You can look at how to get public access in there. Wildlife corridors are interesting because, you know, as we kind of, the Montana that I grew up in has changed a little.

There's a lot more fence lines, a lot more people in the river. A lot more challenges on conservation. And so it is fence lines, you know, sheep don't go through fences. Sheep will go around 40, 50 miles. Oh, yeah. And elk will go right over it. Yeah, elk don't get through that thing, right? But cheap are a little different.

And so some of the fence lines you got to work with, we should be working with our ranch owners and make sure you design fences that can provide a corridor. You see a lot more overpasses, wildlife overpasses being developed, which is a good thing. It's a really cool one on the 93 heading down towards Missoula. Yep. And there's going to be one down in Paradise Valley on that one.

but when you did an analysis of corridors, which allow herds to go from, it's kind of like veins in your body, right? You want to make sure they go from winter range to summer range and everyone in between. And a lot of that, the growth and, you know, just ranches and stuff with fences, a lot of times has prevented

and has obstructions to that system of cordial. And the health of herds, especially, you know, elk and our larger underlates, you know, rely on a corridor of movement. And it is a system. So looking at corridors, wildlife corridors, and making sure that system stays healthy in the future is important. And then that's some of us, you know, a lot of us working with ranchers, working with the Department of Transportation to make sure we identify what those corridors are. Now, some of the predators like it, too, because it kind of funnels, funnels them in there. So our mount lines and some guys are getting a little fatter. I've determined helicopters are the answer to the landlocked public land.

It's right over the top of the private. Or you're a frog man, you can jump in. You just got to get out. Yeah, that is the problem. With the helicopter, you can get both in and out. How much longer are you going to work in government? You know, I enjoy doing what I'm doing. You know, I grew up in Montana.

I love Montana. As long as I'm effective, I'm enjoying it. There's frustrations. I get frustrated just like everybody else. But we win some battle. We won the public land battle, at least for now. On appropriations, I'm concentrating on, like, Knoxon Bridge. and the sewer system in Celia Lake.

No one knows where Knoxon Bridge is unless you know where Knoxon is. But a little community that get almost burned to the ground. Their bridge is over 104 years old. It spans the Clark Fork. There's holes in the size of trash can lids. Jesus. And for Knoxin, that little bridge is important.

Yeah. It's like the Anderson Bridge outside of Dillon. So what I'm doing is on, you know, the federal government kind of looks at their stuff and they kind of repair their highways. Probably not as good as they should, but they do. And then the state kind of takes care of their stuff. Well, in some of our counties, especially Mineral County, Lincoln County, Sanders, not a lot of money in those coffers in the county. And they need a little help. And this is exactly what the federal government should be doing

is helping them repair that infrastructure, whether it's a sewer system. And some, it is the regulations from D.C. have cost, you know, repair of a sewer system to be, to be excessive. So some of it is doing our part to make sure we mitigate some of that pain and fix a bridge so Knoxon can maybe have a mercantile there or, you know, Anderson Bridge, how is important? How important is it? Well, it's really important if that's the bridge you use in the sewer system. So I've been focusing on that and, you know, love Montana and our office. We have an enormously talented office. So a lot of what we do is constituent, you know, outreach. Someone either perceives they've been wronged by the government or actually wronged. And we're that kind of a rosetta stone because

in the wall of government, as you say, right? You know, how do you find the right button on there to help people? Or somebody to talk to. Yeah, and sometimes just, you're right, people are just so frustrated. and said, well, let me help you with your frustration on there. And then I enjoy going to Butte for the St. Patty's Day. I've heard legendary things about that St. Patty's Day parade. I love But I get yays and nays along the way. So some of us been generational. They've been nay and Republicans for a long time.

But I go there. I just love But I love Butte, the spirit. And we're trying to get some industry in Butte from power. because... It used to be a mining town, right? Yep. Big mining town, the richest hill on Earth. And then it became a big hole.

And they've struggled. I see Butte bouncing back. There's some industry now coming in. I think one of the constraints is power. And I'll say for Montana, one of the biggest mistakes we ever made was to dissolve and sell Montana power. Because all of a sudden,

Northwestern energy gets power off the market. and that's awful tough and we don't generate it ourselves but we can fix that I'm a big proponent of mini-nuke micro-nuke I think coal is still important

on the east side if coal strip went out to be awful dark on the east side but but but but but but but but but but but but but but butute I think is an opportunity for maybe micro nuke a good community they have some some ground there for for

for industry Bozeman is doing very well in the tech side a lot of A lot of it is University or Montana State University has done really, really good at satellites. My son goes there. He's getting a mechanical engineering degree. Yeah, great, great program. Fantastic. He talks to me about all the stuff that they have there that he can use and CAD and 3D. I'm like, damn, man.

And I say, Seth Bogner, Special Forces guy, who is the president of University of Montana. He's also moving forward out of a straight liberal arts and university, cybersecurity, and they're venturing into some very interesting curriculum. I think he's doing a great job. So there's there's good opportunity academics and when you have good opportunity for academics, then you can satellite it by secondary industries and kind of a hub. And certainly Bozeman has been a great example of that. But you know, overall Montana's doing pretty good. And nice thing about Montana is we're long ways away from D.C. We could be a little farther. Yeah, a little further. A little further. Be nice. But where we are right now, we're about as far away as you can get in the state.

I guess we could do this in Eureka. That's about as far, I think, as we could get away from D.C. Well, I just hope we don't have these catastrophic fires. We got a little rain, which was good. The lake here, I think we're going to be at full pool or near full pool. So I'm glad all parties are getting along on that. But, you know, to answer your question, I enjoy the job. There's some frustration on it.

Steve Danes and I, we went to Boy State together, so we'd known it to a long time. I pin Tim Shehe's Purple Heart. I've known Tim for a while. Great, great addition. Troy Downing's a combat veteran Air Force. He's on financial services. So we have a good team, and we work together on issues from Montana. We talk a lot, and I think we're making some pretty good progress for Montana.

I'm digging it. What do you want to close that with? I know you had another media engagement. You know, I just, hey, I just, you know, love seeing it again. You know, on Prague Men, you know, there's six seals in the House, one in the Senate. It's just five, too many. Yeah, well, you know, we're halfway there. Oh, you're going for a baker's dozen, aren't you?

Oh, yeah, of course. I always say, you know what, if things go really bad, we're your last option, right? You're your final option. But we also have three special, well, two special forces. Mike Waltz is hover around. We have two special forces. and then on veterans, we're 80, you know, overall. And, you know, I'm chairman of a seal pack.

So I'll go out and recruit seals and special forces guys. I just like folks that have put their life in the line and have given an oath to Constitution. You know, and you see the political divide. And I would say this to everybody. It's just, let's get the anger out of it, right? Good luck. with that. Well, we can agree or disagree, but let's not be angry, because angry is just a distraction, right? There's a problem, though. That's the currency of the day. Outrage is the currency of the day.

Conflict, right? Because conflict sells papers. And it accomplishes nothing. It allows you to look like you're busy and do jack shit. Yeah, and it doesn't move the ball up the field. So it's just get the anger out, take a deep breath. You know, you and I, we fought for Americans. We didn't fight against Americans. That's not why we served. So when we come home, guys, look, we're all in the same team. We may have different opinions, but that's strived to look at where we can share a common ground on it and get done things that we should be getting done. I think if we concentrate on the economy, concentrate on clean air, clean water, our outdoor

recreation experience, and the values of Montana, which we're a little independent. You don't like to be told what to do, neither do I. So government is the last resort. It's not the first resort. In Montana, government stops in the mailbox because they're supposed to deliver the mail on time. But what you do in your own home, as long as you don't affect your neighbor, you know,

and you know what, the guns are sacred here. So don't think about taking on guns. And then when it comes to suppressors, I don't think the ATF, I don't think the ATF should be doing it at all. Suppressors are a wonderful thing. increases accuracy. How did they end up being regulated the way that they are?

I was having a discussion with somebody online about it's a tool. It doesn't make the weapon more dangerous. In fact, in fact, if you're hunting, right? I won't hunt without one. Suppresses the sound.

So, you know, for, you know, two valleys over, you don't hear the gun going off, right? Yeah. So it increases the accuracy. It reduces the sound better for your ears. Yeah.

It's not a silencer. So, you know, it's funny. The patent actually says silencer. Well, we need to change that. It should be a reducer, sound reducer. But even if it said silencer, it's not. I don't understand why they're so highly restricted in taxed. So I am doing my best to get the ATF out of the suppressor industry because Montana produces a lot of suppressors.

It doesn't surprise, actually. You know, small little business is great. But they're better for the weapon. but I think the ATF ought to get out of it. Our office does a lot of suppressors because the ATF kind of is held on to them. So we do a lot of expediting those suppressors, but I'd like to see the ATF get out of that business.

And as far as the database, you know, I like the local sheriff. The local sheriff knows who's in the community, those type of things. I'd like to see more authority go to the local sheriffs and less authority on the ATF at D.C. personally. Yeah, I would agree with you on that. Well, hell, hit me up the next time you have more free time. Great.

And it's a nice little commute down the road for you. Well, and cleared hot, I got to tell you, your coffee's great. You're the official copy of the campaign. But I appreciate what you do. And thanks for serving, brother. Yeah, my pleasure. Cool.