Commission - Regular Meeting

We're started.

Good morning, all. I will call the Thursday, August 27th Board of County Commissioners meeting to order. Chris, will you do a roll call, please? Commissioner Hulse. Here.

Commissioner Chilcott. Here. Commissioner Burrow.

I am here. Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you all. Public comment. For those participating via Granicus, you may call 406-375-6513 in order to provide your public comment. Contracts for services.

We have none.

None, okay. Claims.

Fair claims.

Fair claims.

Mr. Chairman, move to approve the fair judges entertainment and other claims for the fairgrounds for this fair. Second. I have two that came in this morning for some entertainment.

Nope.

That are done separately.

I'll start. I'd amend my motion to include the two new claims. OK. It's been moved and seconded to approve the claims as presented. Is there any public comment on that motion? And the claims are for the fair? Yes, they're all fair. They're all fair. OK. Further discussion? Question, Greg? Aye. And Jeff? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Motion carries.

Just waiting patiently.

16,000. 4,000 a day.

Thank you. And the next item on our agenda is a 1.30 p.m. meeting with U.S. Senator candidate Seth Bodnar, and that will be at 1.30 p.m., and so we will recess and pause until 1.30. Okay. Okay, good afternoon, all. We will continue our Board of County Commissioners meeting today. It's 1.30, and we have a scheduled meeting with U.S. Senate candidate Seth Bartner. Welcome, Seth. Oh, there it is.

There you go. Thank you. That means good. Yeah, red means good. When you're jumping out of airplanes in the Army, it's green light go. Red light stop. You don't go in the door. You don't go out the door with the red light on. So I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today, Mr. Commissioner Hulls, Commissioner Chilcott. It is a real privilege to be with you today.

Commissioner Burroughs is absent at the moment, but he is working to be here as soon as he can. So hopefully he will arrive soon.

Great.

Thank you. So do you have a statement for us or what? How would you like to open?

Well, I would like to open just by expressing my hope for today. My hope for today was to show up. and to listen and to hear primarily the concerns of Ravalli County and what the people of this great county and our tremendous state are wanting in their next U.S. Senator. As I said, the three words that define our approach to this Senate campaign is just show up. Just show up and listen. I am running as an independent for the United States Senate because I believe that Our national political system is failing us. I'm the father of three kids, two 16-year-old twins, a boy and a girl who just started their junior year today, and a 12-year-old who is a seventh grader, first day of school today. And my wife and I decided earlier this year that we can no longer stand aside as our leaders in DC spend the majority of their time to divide us and distract us while nothing gets better for hardworking families in this state. I want to be very clear that I'm not running against Montana Democrats. I'm not running against Montana Republicans. I'm running against a national system and two national parties that I believe are failing us. And I believe that Montana deserves a United States Senator who knows that he doesn't work for any party boss in D.C., but knows every day that I have one boss and one boss only, and that's the people of this great state. So I'm here today to hear your concerns, your questions, but also the things that you believe are important for Ravalli County and what we need moving forward across the state.

Well, we've got several issues that are front and center right now. of course, are being ranked number one in the nation as far as extreme fire danger goes. And the lack of pace and scale as far as taking care of our forest lands is of great concern. And the loss of our lumber mills in the state is of great concern to us. I'm sure Mr. Chilcott will have a few questions for you regarding payment in lieu of taxes and secure rural schools. Also, one of the hot topics is the Sheep Creek Mine. We'd kind of like to hear your feelings about that or where you are. So, Commissioner Chilcott, do you have a specific question that you'd like to ask?

Oh, I've got a lot. Citizens come to us almost daily, and they don't want us just to listen. They want solutions from us, or at least offer some opportunity for solutions. And that's what I hope we can hear from all the candidates that come before us, is to offer solutions. And one for us is currently... We know our national debt is closing in on $40 trillion. And with that, hopefully someday someone will look at that and say that's a problem. I think most of us people on the streets see that as a problem. When we get our federal income tax bill, we see that as a problem. But for us specifically in Ravalla County, our payment in lieu of taxes, It is authorized, but it's not permanently authorized and funded. So every year we wait, or every two years we wait for, with bated breath, to find out what level they're going to fund it. We've been fortunate for the last 20 years that we've been receiving full funding of our pill payment, which is based on a formula primarily on a number of acres population are the big things that our funding is generated by. But when we look at a $40 trillion national debt, we're a little concerned that our roughly $650 million nationally is going to be low-hanging fruit or something that looks like another opportunity to raid, much like we've seen done with Social Security. We want to make sure that we aren't the sacrificial lamb because that is critical to our local taxpayers for the service that we provide. And so I'm asking every one of our candidates that are hoping to go back to Washington DC to recognize the fact that it's critical for Montana, it's critical for Ravalla County, and we need it permanent. We need to have it something that we can depend on, not keep our fingers crossed. Along with that comes secure rural school funding. And I'll be honest, I don't think there's probably a county in the nation that wants secure rural school funding. We'd much rather have revenue off the Beirut National Forest, in our case, but off our public lands. We need grazing of our cows. It not only reduces fire risk, it provides opportunity for our agricultural community to... have a better product. We want to see timber come off our public lands. We don't want to see stumps, or we want to see stumps not burn logs. And that's what we're seeing. And then we live under a veil of smoke. We've been pretty blessed the last couple years, but for the preceding 25 years, we've lived in unhealthy, hazardous conditions. And as you well know, living in Missoula, So we'd rather have 25% of the revenue produced off our public lands, and we're not getting it. And people ask why we're not getting it. At least it's my opinion that the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, and the Equal Access to Justice Act have all been weaponized to stop and forestall any progress, any work being done on our national lands. Our US Forest Service used to generate revenue and put it back into the treasury. now they hemorrhage money. It's not their fault. It's the politicians of Washington, D.C.'s fault. And we need reform on ESA and EJA and NEPA because the weaponization is never the intent, but it is the outcome.

Sir, would you please either raise your voice or you can, like, your stuff is really good and I'm trying to pull it.

Okay. And finally, you know, we've had a long conversation before us, but wilderness study areas, the wilderness study areas were created and they were supposed to be studied for five years. And then the agency would make a recommendation and Congress and the president would take action. That was extended by five years. So they had 10 years to do the study. And in that timeframe, they were going to be treated as wilderness. We have yet to see the results from the studies. We know what the results were in Ravalli County. Most of the wilderness study areas here were deemed not suitable for designation as wilderness. Doesn't mean they couldn't have other protections put on them like primitive or semi-primitive areas, but at least they could be productive and they could be managed. But under the current regime of wilderness, designation under the Wilderness Study Area designation, they become nothing but cauldrons for fire. And so we'd ask for some action on that. It just seems critical to us. We also have a wilderness boundary along the west side of the Bitterroot Valley that was created in 1964 with the Wilderness Act. The Wilderness Act, by definition, had to have wilderness characteristics, meaning no man-made structures. We had 17 dams that were constructed there on the west side of the Bitterroot Valley by man that feed our ag community and our valley, and they're critical to our survival, yet we can't maintain them. It literally took an act of Congress to do maintenance on the 10-cup dam, I don't know, 20 years ago. Moving a wilderness boundary, I don't know how we're gonna get that done, but somebody needs to be a champion for that. We just need those dams in front of the wilderness boundary. It's critical. Mr. Chairman, that's... Thank you.

Great. My first swing. Your first swing. Okay, very good. Well put. Back to the national debt, $40 trillion. I just googled one trillion seconds. One. That's 31,700 years. Multiply that by 40, and that's just our national debt. That's the money that we have borrowed from who knows where, I certainly don't understand it. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace, and it's an impossibility to turn it around. I'd love to make a dollar a second.

Yeah. Wow. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Chilcott. I thought what I might do Well, I want to just briefly address the national debt because I talk about this in every meeting. I didn't want to give you my full stump speech. But to me, this is an absolute moral failure to see our politicians in D.C. spending like drunken sailors right now. spending on gilded ballrooms for the White House, arches, reflecting pools, billions of dollars in a war without a plan. The national debt's increased $4 trillion just in the last year and a half. We were told last election, I'm going to bring the national debt down. Well, we've seen it go up $4 trillion just since January of 2025. We now spend more on servicing the national debt than we spend on national defense. As somebody who served for a decade on active duty as an infantry officer and as a U.S. Army Green Beret, that terrifies me. Trillion, you're right. It is so hard to conceptualize. Here's a statistic that I think brings it into sharper relief, and that is $119,000. Because that is the amount of debt that a newborn in America inherits today. When I was born in the 1970s, it was $3,000. We're passing this bill to our children without a plan, and neither of the national parties is doing anything about it. It's one of the reasons I'm running as an independent, because this is not a problem that one party is going to solve. It's a problem that both parties have to work together to address. It's going to take actions on the spending side. It's going to take actions on the revenue side. We're going to have to address some spending. We're going to have to address our tax code, making it more fair. And obviously, we're going to have to address spending, and we're going to have to make sure we're funding the right priorities. Right now, we're not. Were I to have the opportunity to serve this great state, One of the first things that I would do is propose a bipartisan commission to actually go through and begin to address how we chip away at this. When I became president of the University of Montana, we had about a $10 million structural deficit, nothing compared to trillions. But it was about, you know, on a basis of around about $130 million general fund budget. Our overall budget was much larger, but our general fund budget and our budget deficit was about 10 on a basis of 130. So you can do the math. It's about 7-ish percent. We addressed that. by going at a number of things, looking for efficiencies, looking for cost reductions, looking to eliminate certain programs, while we also added certain programs in key areas like cybersecurity, the trades, key healthcare fields. We chipped away at it, and we now have a slight surplus at the University of Montana. I've since left that position, but it takes It takes serious effort. It takes a lot of small steps to address a really big problem that neither of the national parties is addressing right now. I'd like to get in some of these efforts, but some of these questions, I think those were all really great points, Commissioner Chilcott. I thought I might just take two minutes to talk about my campaign's platform. Because when you're an independent, you don't just adopt a Democratic Party platform or a Republican Party platform. You build a platform. And our platform has three pillars. Number one is to make the Montana way of life a reality again. Number two is to invest in American competitiveness and security right here in Montana. And number three is to reform a broken and corrupt national political system. I'm going to take one minute on each of those. What's it mean to make the Montana way of life a reality again? Well, it's a basic renewal. of that social promise, that social contract that underlies the American dream itself. That says that if you're willing to show up and put in a hard day's work, now you have to show up and put in a hard day's work. You have to do the work. There's no handouts. But when you show up and put in a hard day's work, you ought to be able to afford to put a roof over your head. You ought to be able to afford to see a doctor when you get sick without having to drive two hours to do so. To be able to send your kid to a good public school, whether you're a millionaire, whether you make minimum wage, every kid should be able to get a good education. should be able to hunt, fish, and recreate on our public lands. If you're a veteran, you should have your promises that this country made to you honored. Everyone that's put in the hard work should be able to retire with dignity. Our Native American fellow Montanans who are Native American, you should have the treaties that this country made with your sovereign nation honored and respected. I don't think it's too much for us to honor that basic social promise for people that are willing to show up and work hard. What's it mean to invest in American competitiveness and security? Right here in Montana, first off, it means common sense policies that enable our farmers and our ranchers to open markets, to get a premium price for the higher quality products that they deliver. I'm a strong supporter of mandatory country of origin labeling. We should know where our food comes from. Our farmers, our ranchers should be able to get a premium price for the higher quality products that they produce. It means investing in our education, and research enterprise across the state to create good jobs for our kids. Revitalizing our wood products industry is very important, to your point. The third pillar, briefly, is to reform a broken and corrupt national political system. I'm running as an independent. I've stated that I will not caucus with either of the national parties because I don't want to work for a party boss in D.C. I want to work for the people of this state. But it's more than that. We have to address the numerous ways in which members of Congress and government officials are using their positions to enrich themselves, calling for an immediate ban on insider trading by members of Congress, banning participation in prediction markets where people can make bets on events, bets on oil futures right before an announcement about the Iran war. I'm calling for a basic code of ethics for our Supreme Court, term limits for our Supreme Court, and for Congress. And I'm calling for an overturning of Citizens United and a national ban on partisan gerrymandering that has divided this country into red states and blue states without political competition. We have antitrust laws on our books in the United States for a reason. Because when there's monopolies, those monopolies lead to corruption. They lead to poor quality, performance, non-responsiveness. We have in the United States of America a political system in which two firms, two parties, have 100% market share. And it's leading to corruption. It's leading to bad governance. It's leading to undue foreign influence. All of the things that the founders of this country warned us about. When George Washington dedicated his farewell address to the baneful effects of the spirit of party, he was talking about exactly what we're seeing right now. And so I'm running as an independent to give power back where it belongs, and that's to the people. So that's the platform. When it comes to a lot of the issues that you mentioned, Commissioner Chilcott, I've spent the last six months going around the state. Last eight years as president of UM, I got around the state a lot. The last six months, I've been in rooms all around the state. And one thing has become very clear to me is that rural communities in particular, are not being well served by the national political system right now. I see that in health care. When I look at what's happening with the changes to Medicaid, the cuts to these subsidies, rural health care is in crisis right now. And I look at our rural hospitals, many of which are on the brink of closure already, as we see an estimated 30,000 Montanans lose access to their health care over the next year due to changes made in H.R. 1 last year. that is going to be catastrophic to healthcare. I see it in education. Public schools across Montana had about 850 unfilled positions at the start of last year. I don't have the data for this year yet. And many of our schools have a 30 to 40 percentage shortage of teachers. And that's particularly acute in rural communities. You brought up a very good point about public lands. And a place like Ravalli County. I was in Beaverhead County earlier this week, and same questions there. Where you have a large portion of a county that has public lands, those PIL payments are essential, and I believe we need more funding for PIL payments. And our public lands, I'm a strong supporter of public lands and keeping our public lands in public hands. It also means you need to support the entities responsible for maintaining those public lands. You mentioned the lack of fire management. Well, when you've got the Forest Service and BLM and the National Park Service, when you don't manage those public lands effectively, it creates much greater risk for rural communities that live right next to those public lands, those wilderness areas. So I support restoring funding for the Forest Service and other entities that have been cut. And I do support making it easier. to do proactive management of those lands and thinning of those lands. In fact, when I was at the University of Montana, we secured funding for a new forestry building from the legislature, and we made a point to push for that forestry building to be constructed out of a material called cross-laminated timber. Cross-laminated timber, if you're not familiar with it, it is a product that takes smaller slices of wood, presses them together, And can create beams that have the strength of steel. And you can build wood-framed buildings up above eight stories tall that are just as fire resistant to steel. Why is that important for Montana? Well, you can use smaller diameter trees that are more common in our wood basket. You don't need the big lodge poles. It's a great... opportunity to revitalize Montana's wood products industry for a product that's very well fit for our wood basket here in this state. But we have to manage those. And I agree with you, Commissioner Chilkrat, I believe that we have an over-litigious society right now. We have to make sure that laws are in place and being used for their intended intent. not being weaponized to slow down and prevent any kind of reasonable management and timber harvesting on our public land. So I agree with you, and it takes leadership to push through and make those types of changes. So those are a few of the issues that you brought up, but I'd be happy to go into more depth on any of them in particular.

Hi, Chairman. You talked about your first pillar about those that work hard should be entitled to a home, medical care, education, I think were the primary ones I remember anyway. I'm old, so I forget things. What about the people that don't work? What about the people that don't contribute? Oh, retirement, which set off a bell in my head because we have people coming in utilizing Social Security that never contributed to Social Security. We have people coming in utilizing our health care, people utilizing all sorts of services that were mandated to provide that don't contribute to it and don't work, aren't here legally. We had open borders for four years, and we're paying the price for that. What do we do with those people? I couldn't agree more that if a person works hard, they should benefit from that work, and they should receive benefit from that work. But we're being asked as working citizens to also fund citizens that don't produce, don't contribute, and in fact don't belong here. At least they haven't done it legally. How do you respond to that?

I respond that a policy of open borders is nonsensical. Absolute nonsense. I'm in a lot of different rooms. I was in Dillon on Monday night. I had a meeting during the day with some of the commissioners and we had a big public meeting in Dillon. We had a capacity room full of Democrats, Republicans, independents all across the political spectrum. And when it comes to immigration, I said, I'm going to make three statements. And after I finish these three statements, I would like folks to raise their hand of whether they agree with them. Statement one, we should have strong borders and we should enforce our immigration laws. Statement two, We can and should enforce our immigration laws without having an untrained, unaccountable force operating in our cities and infringing on the individual liberties of American citizens. Number three, we should have clear pathways for people to be here legally, because legal immigration is important for our workforce and for the vitality of this country. 100% of the room raised their hands. These are Republicans. These are Democrats. The fact that we don't have comprehensive immigration reform is not a question of knowing how to do it. It is a question of political will. And the reason we don't have comprehensive immigration reform is because we have politicians who would rather use it as an issue to fight about to win an election than solving the problem for all of us.

So what do we do about those that came in, the numbers are all over the place, but millions of undocumented is, I guess, the politically correct term, that came in. How is the country supposed to deal with that without putting people on the streets and finding them and giving them a way to go home, wherever they came from?

I think we should be removing criminals from this country. I think people that are here illegally should have a pathway and if they choose to get on a pathway to be here legally and to work and be good contributing members of society, I think we should provide pathways for citizenship to people. But if you're not here legally, you should not be here. But we should provide pathways for people that are broader, that are simpler, that are clearer. I've talked to a lot of people and it is an incredibly complex and broken process. And that is part of the problem, because a lot of immigrants are here. They're working hard. They're contributing. They're contributing income taxes. They're contributing to our communities and our society. And in fact, presidents always say what they mean on their way out. George Washington. talked about in his farewell address what he called the baneful effects of the spirit of party and the risk of partisan factions to rip us apart. Dwight Eisenhower, President Eisenhower, talked about the military-industrial complex and the risks of profiteering as a result of war, putting this country into conflicts that it shouldn't be in. The last speech that President Reagan gave, he awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to two people. One was George Shultz. The other was Senator Mike Mansfield. In that speech, President Reagan talked about America's greatest strength. And that greatest strength was immigration. He said, we are unique among nations in the world because we draw our strength, our people from every country around the world. We are not like other countries that cling to a stale past. We're constantly renewing this nation. And were we to ever completely close our doors to new entrance, we would soon cede our leadership position in the world. Immigration's important to this country and to the health of this country, but immigration does not mean open borders and lawlessness and people ignoring the process and not being here legally. We can have both of those things, but we need the political leadership to make sure that that happens.

Another statement you made earlier, Seth, was about the gilded ballroom and taxpayer expense. It's my understanding that there is no taxpayer expense going into the ballroom project that it's coming from some wealthy donors.

I have a different understanding of that, I believe. We could check the latest, but my understanding is that there have been public funds that have been requested for that.

It was something I heard different accounts on.

Yeah, we should double check. I don't know the latest, but I did see that there was an action to provide some public funds for that.

I'll ask one more, just to follow up. You talked about hunting and fishing, which is important to Montana. Let's talk briefly about the Second Amendment. What is your interpretation of the Second Amendment?

I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the right of Americans to bear arms.

So we're not limiting it to magazine capacities or?

I believe we should enforce the laws that we have on our books. I believe we should look at laws like red flag laws to make sure that people that are in mental emergencies don't have access to weapons. I also believe we need to urgently address the mental health crisis that we're facing in this country. And I think, as I learned when I was here visiting with Bitterroot Health a couple of weeks ago, I just learned that our mental health crisis center here in Hamilton is and also the one up in Missoula and up in the Flathead. We've seen those shut down over the past year.

That's where Commissioner Burroughs is right now. Commissioner Burroughs is working on that currently.

I appreciate your focus on that because those are the types of things that we need leadership to focus on those types of efforts and making sure that we don't lose those critically important mental health crisis centers.

One of the things that led to the crisis and the closure of those facilities is Medicaid reimbursement. And you hire a staff, and you have your staff do the work. You pay your staff, and you have to borrow money from the bank to make payroll. So you're paying interest on your payroll, and you're waiting nine months to a year and a half to get reimbursed, maybe. The business model cannot work. It's impossible. And so the Medicaid reimbursement is a huge deal as far as mental health goes because the people that are doing the work and getting paid can't get paid. It's a crisis. And whether it's a bureaucracy, who knows what it is. I certainly don't. I just know it exists. And I wish I had a solution or a suggestion, but I do not. It is a crisis. And it's the Medicaid reimbursement, in my mind, that is the linchpin of that crisis.

I agree. And I think that is something we need to hold government accountable to. We need to say when there are Medicaid policies, when The services provided fall within the regulations and policies. Those reimbursements should happen, and they should happen promptly. What we're seeing right now, the rule changes made in H.R. 1 last year, the big, beautiful bill, I have grave concerns about the impacts to Medicaid. That was a bill that added trillions of dollars to the national debt through tax cuts that I think weren't responsible. It also made changes in terms of not the work requirements itself, but how you prove it. And I want to be very clear. People should meet those work requirements. But the bureaucratic red tape that was put in there seems, by my estimation, to be intended to prevent people from being able to prove their eligibility. And estimates from the Montana Hospital Association are that 30,000 Montanans might lose access. you know, aside from reimbursements, it's actually having that coverage. And I think that is going to pose an even more significant challenge to our health centers, our hospitals, rural healthcare facilities across the state.

Well, the crisis was started when we emptied our institutions.

Mm-hmm.

And the institutions needed to be emptied on one hand, but on the other hand, there wasn't a plan. What are we gonna do? And that happened decades ago. And we're seeing the crisis build and build and build and build. And to find solutions is one of the key issues. And if you get elected, that should be one of your first and main focuses because it is so critically important to every community in the United States not only those in Montana, but especially those in small areas like this where there's not a backup for those services.

Right. I agree completely. And I am deeply concerned, Mr. Chairman, with the next year as we see the effects of these Medicaid eligibility changes take effect after the midterm elections. And I know having talked to hospital leaders across the state, the Montana Hospital Association, there is deep concern that we are going to potentially see closures of more facilities. And when you lose a healthcare facility in a rural community, not only do you lose access, whether it's to emergency mental health care, crisis treatment, you lose access to basic health services, and now people across the state are gonna be driving hours potentially. And not only that, you lose a key job hub and a key hub for our rural communities that are at risk of being hollowed out through an underinvestment and a lack of focus from the federal government. I think our federal government, our national political system, is not doing right by rural America.

Yeah, we can do that. I'll open for public questions and public comment. When you come, please use the microphone. Get close to it, OK? And please state your name and where you live, if you would, so we can have that for the record. And so is there any public comment? Is there any public questions?

Skip Chisholm, Hamilton.

Thanks for coming here today, Seth.

You and I have had some personal conversations about issues in Ravalli County. I'm a guy that's interested certainly in things in our state, have my thumb on the pulse of a lot of things, but mostly I care about closer to home, always have. I think I even told you once that somebody that mentored me about 50 years ago When I was a young conservative, it was a guy named Tip O'Neill, OK, and told me to keep doing things closer to home because I'm good at making sure that at least we get everything exposed and people can be part of what we do to make our final decisions. I really appreciated Commissioner Hulse talking about the way he did about our Medicaid problem. What I wanted to tell you was that on our ballot, we now have three people that we're going to be chance to vote for for the office that you're running for as part of our Washington delegation. I wish it was only two, because I don't like plurality as a result. I like majority. I think it would be personally wonderful if it was you and Kurt running against each other, and then we'd get the real temperature of the state of Montana politically. When it comes to the Sheep Creek mine, I've been pretty much a student of it since the very beginning. And by the way, I want to compliment the commissioners for the second letter that they wrote. I do hope that people that are in the press get a copy of it. And you, sir, should get a copy of it. It's just as good in a boom PowerPoint letter. And I think it should go in the paper somehow. So when it comes to the Sheep Creek Mine, you and I have had talks. I've had the same questions to you as I've given to Kurt Olney in different situations, personally, and then also just between you and me on the radio, right? And so when it comes to the Sheep Creek Mine, two things that are very important for us to know from the candidate that's going to do the best thing for Ravalli County when it comes to the most important issue in Ravalli County is are you going to be able to work with and try as hard as possible, and with the other members of the Washington delegation, you would be an independent, others might be Republican, to make sure that everything is done to take this mine off of Fast Track 41, and then also to use as an example something like this so that Set an example in situations like this that the people most affected by this kind of a mine, this is not in my backyard thing, NIMBY. This is because there's so many good reasons to just not do it. To make sure that the people most affected by it downstream on the Bitterroot River in every county, all the possibilities, that they have more to say about it in the future. Because right now, under the law, state and federal, they don't have to even recognize us, as far as I can tell. So please, if you end up being our next senator from the state of Montana, keep those two things in mind and work with the other Washington delegation to concentrate on those two things. Am I hitting it right? Do you believe in those things? That's important to the voters. Absolutely, Skip.

And thank you, Skip. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, if I might, I came here to the fairgrounds. I think that was back in April or May for the Well, there was December, and then there was one a few months later. I was still the president of the University of Montana in December. I was worried about the Grizz and how they were doing in the playoffs at that point. And I was worried about making sure we had a good fall class this year and managing those budgets. But I did come shortly after I announced my candidacy. Part of the reason I'm running as an independent is because I believe our government, our federal government, is not nearly as responsive as it needs to be to local concerns and local voice. And I stand against anything that happens to Montanans and happens to Montana communities without their involvement, that puts our water at risk, that puts our wildlife, our habitat at risk. I'm against anything that does that. And that's why this idea of fast-tracking the Sheep Creek mine without adequate environmental reviews. I stand strongly against that and I would work as your U.S. Senator to make sure that this mine was not on a fast track. And I want to be really clear about something. You don't have to be anti-business to be a good steward of our environment. You know, future generations of Montanans are counting on us to make sure that we are good stewards of these God-given resources that we have been so blessed to enjoy to make sure that they're able to enjoy them as well. And to fast track a mine near the headwaters of the Bitterroot River with all the potential harm that could be done and to, to, to ignore the important step of environmental assessment and to ignore these local concerns, I stand strongly against that. I said that in this spring. I reiterated that with a press statement again recently. This is very important. And again, I think it's looking at common sense. I want to be very clear. I don't deny the fact that we need, as a country, critical minerals. But we have, I think, around 8,000 abandoned mines in Montana already where we could look for those critical minerals. We could do important mine remediation and cleanup in the process. Why would we take the step and the risk of not only having a mine, but fast-tracking that mine without the appropriate approvals and without listening to the voices of this community? And if I have the honor of serving as your senator, this will be very important, and I'll stand with the people of River Valley County.

Thank you. On the FAST, of course, FAST is an acronym, right? Right. For American Service Transportation. I think there's a lot of misconception about what the FAST Act really means, but it was pretty scary right out of the gate for here, FAST, on this. But the categorical exclusion is, for me at least, really scary. We need a full-blown EIS for this mine. It's just too critical. Its location is too sensitive to do it. And one of the big hurdles that Ravalla County has, and everybody has, is the Mining Act of 1872. It was a tool to encourage development and settling of the West and bringing people out here to explore and prospect for minerals, gold, silver, copper, whatever. There's really no provision in that to mitigate impacts to services provided at the local level, because they didn't exist back then. And they can walk in and extract they're successful in locating these materials and they can walk away without a backwards glance and impact roads, bridges, all sorts of local government-provided services. And so that's another concern that we have. It seems pretty minor when you talk about the potential of an environmental disaster, but that's just, the EIS is critical.

Sir, if I may, I have one question that kind of is a big picture question. It only happened the last couple of days, Seth, and it kind of bothers me because I I have a lot of questions about the question. And it started right at the top in Washington, DC. So I thought I'd say, please tell us spontaneously what you think about our president wanting to change the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America. That will tell us a lot about you and how you think about history and what's right and what's wrong. with that kind of movement in Washington. Thank you.

Thank you, Skip. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioner. I wish that our leaders were spending more time trying to figure out how to drive down costs of housing in Ravalli County, how to better support our farmers and our ranchers in this state. I wish they were more focused on thinking about how do we educate our next generation to compete against China, against India, against our global rivals. I wish they were focused on the issues that I have seen hard-working Montana families struggling with each and every day, with diesel at $5 a gallon, costs for everything continuing to skyrocket, a national debt that is soaring out of control, a war in Iran without a clear strategy or any plan to get out of it. And the fact that we are spending a moment talking about renaming a lake is offensive.

Can I ask you, just to follow up on, how the hell can the government fix the cost of housing, the value of housing in an open, free market, capitalist society? Supply and demand seems to be the driver. How does the government factor into that equation?

Thank you, Commissioner Chilcott. Mr. Chairman, I think it's a great question. I think there's three things in particular that at the federal level we could do. You're right, it's supply and demand. So I taught economics to West Point cadets. Representative Beattie down here, he and I both taught West Point cadets. He taught physics. He's smarter than I am. I taught economics. But... Cost of housing is where it is. It's a supply and demand issue. So the first thing is how do you unlock more supply? And there's a few ways to do that. One is looking at zoning and code reform that's holding up some of the regulatory hurdles and red tape that's preventing some housing from being built that could be built. Now you might say, hey, that's a local issue. Well, the federal government can incentivize payments to those communities that make the types of zoning and code reform to unlock more housing. That's one. Second, and we've made some progress on that. Here in Montana, we've seen some good models. The second would be preventing large institutional investors from gobbling up large numbers of single-family homes and having undue market control that can raise rates. The third area, that you don't hear a lot of people talking about, because those first two people are talking about, is smart, targeted investment in infrastructure that can unlock housing. I was in Cascade County a couple months ago talking to the county commissioners there. And they have a, I think it was about a 6,400 home shortage. Don't quote me on the exact number. I can't remember off the top of my head, but that's a think about, right? And we were looking at a map. He pointed to an area where there was a great place for development. He said, the problem is there's about, I think it was two miles of water, sewage, and road. And he said that the private developer, it's hard to put on his books. It puts the project underwater. The county, and I don't have to tell you this, counties in Montana are squeezed right now. And the county didn't have it. What if the federal government said, you know, we have a housing shortage and we think about smart, targeted, shovel-ready infrastructure that could catalyze and unlock private expansion of housing supply, that's a smart use of dollars. That, to me, is a good use of priority dollars to say, you know what, a few million dollars to get that last mile of water, sewage, and road to unlock a 600-home project, that's a good return on investment. Government, I don't believe government should be involved in everything. But when it comes to infrastructure, when it comes to rule of law, regulatory stability to allow the free market to function and to get to the best outcome, those are important roles for government. I think the government can help to address the housing shortage.

Thank you. Earlier you stated that you were a proponent of the country of origin labeling. You're obviously aware that the government Majority of beef that's processed in the United States is processed by four main packers.

85%.

And only one of those is even U.S. owned. So we've got a monopoly there. They've been playing the farmers. They've been playing the public. And it's something that needs to definitely be looked into, in my opinion, because they've been artificially keeping the price of beef low on the American front for years and years while secretly or stealthily importing and not putting the country of origin labeling on them, and that allowed them to do that. And so I think we've got a major issue there when it comes to fairness to our ag producers in the United States as well as the consumers of the United States. The country of origin is important, but diversifying the packing industry into more localized packers, and that may take some effort on federal regulation, different things like that. So those are all things that need to definitely be addressed to... help our ag producers, especially the beef guys.

Mr. Chairman, I would wholeheartedly agree. Four companies control 85% of the meatpacking capacity in the United States. In the 80s, I think in 1980, it was around 37% was controlled by the top four. Since that time, you've seen beef prices go up. You see cattle herds at a 75-year low. You see Montana ranchers, and prices are high right now, so they're good, but they're always living on a knife's edge. And the lack of competition in the packing industry is squeezing farmers and ranchers, ranchers in particular, I was going to say ranchers and farmers, and making it harder and harder. And I believe that Americans deserve to know where their beef comes from. Absolutely. And Montana ranchers deserve to receive a premium price for the premium product that they produce, rather than having this higher quality product that then is just mixed in with foreign beef that's not raised to the state standards, that's not as high quality, and then all gets mixed in. And the big companies are raking in those profits. The other piece of this, to your point, is the lack of local processing capacity. One of the stats that I learned during this campaign was 70%. 70% is the percentage of food that Montanans consumed in 1950s that came from Montana. Today, 3% of the food that Montanans consume come from Montana. We used to have flour mills in all of our towns. We used to have way more processing capacity. We used to have way more grain Processing capacity we were able our farmers or answers were able to produce local sell local we could consume local That's very important because that keeps dollars here when you have too much consolidation Everything shipped out of state everything comes back into state farmers don't farmers and ranchers don't get as much we pay more and the the Monopolies in the middle rake in the profits. I am a capitalist I I believe that the far left, we're seeing tinges of socialism. And I believe on the far right, we're seeing crony capitalism and corruption and toleration of monopolies. We have the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. We should enforce that. We should enforce the anti-monopoly and the pro-competition laws that we have on our books. And that would be something that would be a priority for me and the United States Senate to make sure that our ranchers and our farmers have the ability to compete, and that Montanans ought to have the right to know where their food comes from.

Thank you. I have two more questions, and I'll shut up and let everybody else talk. One is, Raleigh County is the only county in the state of Montana that provides Veterans Service Center and supports our veterans accessing the promises that were made to them when they signed them with the Arvid line. Yeah, we get no funding from the federal government to do their damn job. Pretty frustrating. The state gets funding to do their job. The state has allocated, I think, $30,000 to us, but our citizens contribute three mils to the success of that service center, and it's fantastic. The staff we have out there are incredible, and they do a great job. But it seems like we're just not... we have more demand than we have capacity. And it seems like if we're going to do the work of the federal government, um, they didn't mandate us to do it. So it's not an unfunded mandate, but there should be recognition somewhere in the funding when we provide the services that they, they should be providing.

Yeah. Commissioner Chokot, I couldn't agree more as a veteran myself. Um, I am deeply frustrated by what I've seen as a failure of our federal government to honor the promises they made to veterans. I see this is one of many broken promises from a broken system and a lack of accountability. You have a lot of politicians in Washington, D.C., who like to drape themselves in the American flag while they take a chainsaw to the VA. The last stats I had from earlier this summer, I think, was the VA staffing. here in Montana was down about 9% year over year due to cuts, cuts to services for our veterans. Wait times for a primary care appointment are over a month. Some specialty appointments are two months at our VA centers. I was talking recently to a Vietnam veteran in Kalispell who said he does a lot of mentoring of younger veterans, and he was speaking with a veteran from Iraq where I served. And this veteran was really struggling, some serious mental health issues. And he said, you know, I worked with that young man and it took him a lifetime's worth of courage to finally ask for help. And when he made that request, he was told there was a two month wait before he could be seen. And so you've seen a cutting of the VA that leads to broken promises. And I don't want to fault the hardworking people at the VA because I received my medical care through the VA. And they're great people at the VA. But when you cut this many positions, and they're still trying to do the same level of work, you're going to see failures. You're going to see counties. So I want to say thank you to you as commissioners. And the citizens. I want to say thank you. Because Montana is, I think, second only to Alaska in the proportion of our residents who are veterans. And I just want to say thank you to the people of Ravalli County for stepping up and keeping that promise that has been a broken promise from the broken system we see in Washington, D.C. All right.

Here's my last one. I promise. Fingers crossed. One way or the other, take it how you want. We've been blessed. Congressman Zinke has gone to bat for Ballot County and helped us. Get some direct appropriation funding for bridges roads We're working on a sewer project Because every time we get money that comes from the federal government comes through the state the state takes its cut And it takes their time. We finally get it and they put their strings on it I would sure like to see a model where if projects come requests come from local government that can be so supported by the by the feds they they do the direct appropriation to local government, not always going through the state and having some of that skimmed off for their administration. That's all.

I agree with you. I think that's really important. I saw that at the university, and I saw how an effective senator or representative can help make a tangible difference in local communities, and we don't want that to be watered down and... You know, look, I've spent enough time in the Army. You realize that things that come down from headquarters and hit seven layers in between, there's nothing left by the time it gets to you. It shouldn't be the way it happens with those appropriations. And for me, when I say investing in American competitiveness and security right here in Montana, infrastructure is a key part of that. Our educational institutions are a key part of that. Key grants, targeted grants are a part of that. And right now, I don't think Montana has a strong enough voice at the table I think we have a National Democratic Party that's not paying the attention that it should to Montana, to rural Montana. And I think we have a National Republican Party that's taken places like Montana for granted. And I want Montana to have a loud voice at that table. But you know what? As I said earlier, I don't answer to either of the party bosses. I answer to you, and I'm going to be a voice for you if I have the privilege to serve you in the United States Senate.

As a native of the Bitterroot for multiple generations, involved in agriculture my whole life, a former football coach at the middle school and high school level, I've got to ask you, where do you stand on men and women's sports?

I believe in fairness in sports. And I believe the leagues are dealing with that appropriately, as they should. I believe every human being should be treated with dignity. I believe every American should be protected from discrimination. But I believe strongly that we should have fairness in sports. And we shouldn't have people competing in sports that don't align with their gender. And we've seen the changes from the IOC. We've seen the changes from the NCAA. And we're seeing those changes made by those leagues.

And for anyone that grew up in agriculture, there is no question. The male is always dumb. That's just all there is to it. Sorry. Go ahead. And with that, is there any more public comment?

I mean, dominant in what ways? I would tell you I'm not the dominant person in my home.

I'm talking physically.

Oh, physically. Physically. I know a lot of women that can outrun me. And I know I've got a couple people I work with right now that could probably run circles around me. Fairness and competition. We need to have fairness and competition.

There is definitely a difference between male and female as far as the performance capabilities go.

And you've seen the International Olympic Committee, you've seen the NCAA making appropriate changes to ensure fairness and competition, and that's very important. Absolutely.

Skip. Thank you, sir. By the way, I would It touched me that you asked that question because you'll probably remember Seth. I asked that exact question to Seth in front of a 50,000 person audience and he answered it quite completely and that was on Voices of Montana, I think. Sir, if you go to Washington and let's say, hypothetically, let's say that the people that end up going to Washington after this election in our Washington delegation Let's say it was Troy Downing and yourself and Tim Sheehy would be there and then, who am I leaving out? So, yeah, Aaron Flint, right? Thank you. What's the one thing that you know you could all feel the same about and if there is something that's a common ground thing that's best for Montana, those that elect you, what's the one thing that you think you all feel really good about being together on? Is there something that you can think of that you feel all really good about for the future of the state of Montana?

Thank you.

Thanks, Skip.

I hope there will be a number of things.

I hope we both want either the Grizz or the Cats to win the national championship each year. But I think it comes down to shaping a brighter future for our kids. And whoever's in the delegation, I would intend to spend a lot of time talking about the areas where we find common ground. I am very clear that I don't intend to go to Washington, D.C. and put on a jersey. And what I mean by that, I'm not going to put on a blue jersey with a D. I'm not going to put on a red jersey with an R. The only jersey I'm going to wear has an M on it for Montana. And I'll work with anyone when it makes sense for Montana, when it makes sense for this country, and I'll stand up to anyone on things when it doesn't. And so I think issues like supporting our agricultural community, our ranchers, I think we can forge agreement on things like country of origin legal. I think we can forge agreement on on how do we better support the agricultural community. I'm deeply worried. I mean, farm bankruptcies last year in this country were up 46%. You know, our farmers should be feeding the world. We haven't passed a farm bill since 2018. That was due three years ago. You know, talk about broken promises from a broken system. The ag community should be demanding, why can't you get a farm bill passed? Why can't you give certainty of policy so we can plan And so my hope, Skip, is that whoever's in that delegation that we can agree that we want to work together on what's best for Montana. Not what's best for either party, but what's best for Montana.

Thank you. Anyone else want to comment or question?

My name is Skip Gibbons, Stevensville. The talk has brought up a lot of questions that I had. I don't know how many I'm allowed to ask, but I will start off with the one you just mentioned. That's the men and women's sports. That's kind of a peripheral question. I've watched many congressional hearings where the politicians have interviewed, usually Republicans grilling a candidate a liberal or a Democrat person in the chairs about trying to define what a woman is. So I heard a lot of roundabout talk of what you were just saying, but I was wondering if you can actually provide what you think is a definition of a woman, and it's gonna lead into educational issues. Someone's gonna ask you that sitting in a chair in Washington.

How to define a woman? I think we have chromosomes.

I'm sorry?

We have chromosomes. But I don't know why that to me is, to your point, Montanans can't afford to put a roof over their head. Montanans can't afford health care. Our farmers are in crisis. We have a war in Iran without a plan or a strategy. We're losing lives every single day. I don't think I, as the United States Senator from Montana, that the most important thing that I will be focused on or should be focused on is coming up with a definition of a woman.

I would think that would be a pretty obvious thing to describe. And it's disappointing to me that you say that because that's the same way people in those states describe that. They avoid the answer, just like you're doing now. Now, I think you know what a woman is, not just chromosomes, but the capability of giving birth, capability of menstruating, the things that are obvious to us.

There are a lot of health conditions that prevent some women from giving birth, that prevent some women from menstruating.

There are always exceptions, always exceptions.

Then how do you define it?

What I just said.

But then a woman that's had a hysterectomy and that doesn't menstruate, they're no longer a woman?

But then we get into transgender issues in women's sports. And I wasn't sure I was clear on your answer there. I think I heard you say, no, not at all. But I'm not sure about that. So can you clarify that?

I've said, once again, we should have fairness in sports. And we should look to league officials to set those rules. And make it very clear that we have fairness in sports and competition.

That's what all our transgender supporters are saying. These guys are all women now, so it's fair to put them in women's sports.

How many transgender people are participating in Montana high school sports this year?

Well, that's what I'm getting into in educational issues. But I'm talking about a general issue on a national level.

Are there any participating? I don't think there are any.

Well, they're prevented in certain issues, but there are. Yes, there are, and I couldn't tell you exactly when.

And I want to be really clear, too. The reason I say this, kids have it hard enough today.

Yes, they do.

Why are we picking on kids? Leave the kids alone. Let the kids live how they want to live. The parents that are going through that with their kids, leave them alone is my intention. We should have fairness in sports, but why is it my business?

So at what point do you allow surgical procedures done on minors to change their genders?

I think parents should be able to make decisions about their kids. It's not my business, and I don't think it's any of ours. I think we have a state that believes pretty strongly that the government has no place in our bedrooms, government has no place in our gun cabinets, government has no place in our doctor's office. And I don't think it's my place, and I don't think my faith doesn't tell me that I have any right to judge and get into somebody else's business.

Okay, so we're going to disagree on that point. So when it comes into education, I'll serve on a school board. So we don't have problems in Montana yet. And hopefully they wouldn't come this direction. But we see it all over the country in various cities and states where education systems are allowing gender identification issues to be taught. And it's a moral issue, essentially, to tell little kids five, six, eight years old, yep, it's okay, you're really a girl instead of a boy, or vice versa. So where do you draw the line on putting that into the education system?

I've not seen any curriculum that has said any of that.

Nothing here in Montana that I'm aware of.

So I think if you can show evidence of something like that, I think I'd like to see it. I don't think that's what schools should be teaching. I think schools should be teaching how to read, how to write, how to treat people with kindness and respect.

100% agreement, but that's not the case in other states, other big cities usually. And all that stuff tends to, those trends tend to come this direction in every small town, every rural area, stuff like that. Everything starts usually in a big city somewhere and we end up getting the result of it. So that's, my concern is from a school board perspective, how, I'm just curious how you would support that if it came in. It doesn't sound like you'd support it very well.

I said very clearly what I think schools should teach, and I don't see evidence of schools teaching that here.

Okay. You mentioned the Second Amendment, and I liked your answer, but it didn't go quite. The questions weren't asked deep enough. These are hot-button issues around the country, the assault weapon, whatever they want to call an assault weapon. How do you feel on that? You felt like we should apply the laws that are applicable.

We should enforce the laws we have. I think we should look at red flag laws to make sure that people that are in mental health emergencies don't have access to guns, and I think we should address the mental health crisis that we're facing.

And as far as these various definitions of assault weapons?

I mean, I'll say it again. I think we have laws on our books right now that we should enforce, and I'm not sure that your question specifically

The areas that prevent ownership of semi-automatic weapons that look like military weapons. Are those good, bad?

Well, we don't have those laws on our books. I said we should enforce the laws that we have. We should look at red flag law. I mean, I keep saying the same thing. I'm not calling for an assault weapons ban.

Okay. You mentioned that the... the Iran war with no outlet, no end in sight. I agree with that. So this was all started with the potential with a nuclear threat from Iran. I think that our current regime, our president has got himself in a position where He's in a rock and hard space. I don't have an answer for it. I don't know if he's got it. He's hoping to find a peaceful issue where they give up. And I'm not sure you're going to find that with fanatics like that. So what do you do if you give up and walk away and leave them with the potential to develop a nuclear threat?

So the situation in Iran right now reminds me of a story that I heard, and when you talk about where do you go from here, of a guy driving a fancy Mercedes Benz down a dirt road, he sees a farmer mending fence, and he pulls up and he rolls down his window and says, sir, can you tell me how to get to Brownsville? And the farmer says, well, I wouldn't start from here. And when you think about how do we move forward with Iran, I wouldn't start from here. And I want to just address the fact that The Constitution of the United States makes very clear whose job it is to send America's sons and daughters into war and shed blood on foreign soil. That responsibility rests with the legislature. There's the commander-in-chief. But when that commander-in-chief wants to send this country to war, he's supposed to go to Congress. And that's for a reason. That check and balance is in place for a reason, to make sure that before we enter a war, that we have clarity on why that's an imminent threat, that we have a clear strategy, and then we have an end state. And when Congress, as it has done, abdicates their constitutional duty in the name of blind party loyalty, that's when you lose a war in Iran. And right now, by every measure, we are losing this war in Iran. We have less idea of where their nuclear materials are. We have a regime that is no more friendly, frankly, less friendly and more antagonistic. And I want to be really clear. The Iranian regime is responsible for killing friends of mine. So I know as well as anybody in this room the dangers of that regime. But I also know that in containing a threat, you have to be thoughtful. You have to be strategic. You have to think several moves ahead. And what I've seen in the management of this war is incompetence. And I think that is a complete failure. And we've lost lives on it because of it. We're all seeing higher costs because of it. We're going further into debt because of it. We're at further risk because of it. So we have to get back to a place and look back to where we were, you know, a decade ago where we had an imperfect plan. I want to be clear that the plan that was in place and the agreement that was in place was not perfect. They needed upgraded or updated and teeth in it. But we had control of those nuclear materials. We threw that out the window. They enriched for six years. And then we are where we are today. And we have to give back to making sure that Iran does not become a nuclear threat to the rest of the world. And unfortunately, the steps we've taken have made that no less likely than it was a year ago.

OK. School funding. questions on that, especially here. Our school, I happen to work in Stevensville School District. We're authorized, from my understanding, 83% of our budget is provided by the state. And we're authorized to levy up to 100% of that. Levees don't fare well in Ravalli County. It doesn't matter where it is. No one likes the levees. It's almost an immediate kill switch on trying to fund our... Every school needs more money. So how do we get the legislature to provide more funds or to somehow give more breathing room for our schools?

Thank you. Thank you for your service on the school board and your commitment. I'm the son of two public school teachers. And to me, public education is absolutely essential to the American dream because I believe it shouldn't matter who your parents were, where you come from. what party you're a part of, how much money you have. Everybody ought to have the opportunity to get a good education. Public education's essential for that. I believe strongly that our state should invest more in public education. I mentioned it in my comments earlier. We, in many of our districts, we are seeing a shortage of, again, 30 to 40% of qualified teachers. Some of our teachers, some of our school districts out in rural eastern Montana Some of those districts are having to have about a third of their teachers are foreign workers that they've had to bring in to teach our kids because you can't hire teachers for salaries that, frankly, you can't even pay rent with 100% of the salary. So we don't pay teachers enough. We don't fund our schools nearly enough. And I think that has to be a priority for our state because there's not a farmer or a rancher or a small business owner or any of us who run an organization or operation that wants to hand off that operation to the next generation in a worse state, yet that's what's happening in this country. We're not investing in education and we need to invest in education.

And you mentioned more housing needed everywhere. That's a hot issue for particularly the Valley as well. No one wants to put in a slum obviously, or too low an income area, but they want to put it in. But it's tough. I've read at least two articles in the last few years over the lack of sewage treatment facilities here. And one of the methods for sewage treatment is the guys who pump your tank, you get a tank load of stuff, and there's a place somewhere out here to the north, I'm not sure where, they spread it on the ground until it dries out and it becomes no longer hazardous. But that's probably not a great long-term solution. So a sewage treatment facility would be, but that's going to be more money than the county can probably afford to pay. The state would have to get involved, and there would have to be a sewage treatment facility that's designed to grow with the population as well. So is that going to be a topic for a state-funded?

I mean, it's a good question, and those are the types of, community infrastructure projects that Commissioner Chilcott mentioned, that I think those are the types of things that could be areas of collaboration with the federal government. So I'm running for the United States Senate, not for the State Senate. But those types of infrastructure investments are really important. We have an infrastructure backlog in the United States of America right now. Previous generations invested in infrastructure that we benefited from we haven't made the necessary investments to keep up. So I think that's a priority.

I think Commissioner Chilcott's point of having direct federal input into our infrastructure here is kind of nice. Good idea. I'm not sure to avoid the strings that the state puts on it, but I'm not sure we wouldn't have strings from the federal government as well.

We are currently working on exactly that. So it's work in progress at the moment. Good.

I'm glad to hear it.

I think you have a deadline. You need to be out of here at 3, and it looks like it's pretty close to 3.

It is. Can we take a couple more questions?

Yes, I'll take a couple more if there's some more. I'll zip back there, but if there are a couple more, I can take them.

Skip, let's let somebody else ask a question, okay?

If somebody else is coming.

Hi, my name's Scott Heaps. I live in Derby. I want to know where you stand on the Save Act. This isn't just a Montana issue. This is a national thing. A lot of people want to say there wasn't any funny business with the election, but yet there's lots of things that say there is. What's your ideas? What would you do about it? You're one of 100 people that will vote on something like that. So it is a national thing, not just a Montana thing.

Yeah, look, the Security of our elections is incredibly important. We have voter ID requirements in Montana. I am worried about federal overreach into state-run elections. I worry a little bit about giving too much power to the government. I think Republican Senator Tom Tillis from North Carolina has raised some concerns about the feasibility of the SAVE Act and some of the requirements that are in there. And I think But we have to ensure that we have secure elections. We do that in Montana. But I have a lot of concerns about the federal government reaching too far in and having all the data. And I'm also worried about barriers that make it hard for U.S. citizens to vote. I mean, it's been illegal for non-citizens to vote for 30 years, right? So there are already measures in place. And Montana, I think we're running our elections pretty well here in Montana.

Yeah, we have to have an ID here, but you don't think everybody in the nation should have an ID to vote? The SAVE Act is... Yeah, look, I'm supportive of voter ID requirements.

I said I support voter ID requirements. I don't support some of the other things in the SAVE Act that are allowing way too much federal overreach into our elections in ways that, again, even Republican senators like Tom Tillis, some of the specifics and the feasibility of this act, it's not... actually addressing the problem we're trying to solve, which is secure elections.

Okay. That's what I want to know. Thank you. Anyone else?

I would have a brief comment. I'm David Ward. I'm the president of the local chapter of Trout Unlimited. And we spend a lot of time focusing on the issues around the Sheep Creek mine. But when you back off away from that, this mining act of 1872 is something that bubbles to the top as one of the main issues. I know historically where it came from. Do you think it's feasible to modify or get rid of that? Right now, a lot of the potential mining companies are coming from Canada because Canada has much more rigorous regulations requirements on that than we do down here. So they're taking the easy path and coming down here and trying to do it.

I think your point is a good one. And I think Commissioner Chilcott made the same one. You have an act that was passed in 1872 in a very different time, very different context. And I want to be clear that we have to continue to mine.

Absolutely.

But we can do so in ways that are responsible and don't risk our water, that don't risk our habitat. Sorry, I'm trying to talk in the mic while looking at you too, sir. And so, yes, I think that is something that we should investigate and update. I think there are ways that you can mine responsibly, and I think we should have updated regulations.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Seth. I appreciate your coming down today. And I'm going to ask the last question. Is there any public comment on items not otherwise on our agenda? Anybody? We are adjourned. Thank you.