The citizens of Montana, like most Americans, are tired of working harder for less while the cost of everything seems to keeps rising.  The affordability crisis touches every household, and is contributing to a growing sense of anxiety and distress. The biggest factor is that prices of essentials or basic necessities are rising much faster than average earnings; this is particularly true for housing, child care, the cost of foods, healthcare and health insurance. Many Montana families are just one large medical bill away from major disaster or even bankruptcy, and are essentially living from paycheck to paycheck while trying to make ends meet.  

The price of nearly everything is going up and much of it can be traced back to the economic turmoil of the Covid-19 pandemic; subsequent efforts by the Biden administration to goose the economy with overly aggressive spending resulted in the highest inflationary rates seen in decades.

Still, there is a widely growing consensus that President Trump’s administration has done too little to curb inflation or to promote growth in real wages. While tariffs can be used to regulate an ‘unequal-trade balance’ between nations in the short term, the tariffs created by President Trump and enabled by Congress have been excessive and are hurting our economy by increasing costs for consumers and businesses, slowing manufacturing, and creating uncertainty.

Tariffs will not make America rich again. Instead, tariffs are an indirect tax on Americans that will inevitably be passed along in the form of higher prices for imported goods and business inputs; this leads to higher inflation and pressures companies to cut jobs or delay growth. We’ve already seen the administration begin to reduce those tariffs in certain sectors in an effort to stem losses and falling popular support.

It is undeniable that Congress and the current administration needs to do more. Unfortunately, the 119th Congress seems to be more interested in fighting against each other, rather than focusing on bipartisan solutions.

One-fifth of our economy is now spent on healthcare, which is unsustainable.  The average family of four now spends roughly $27,000 per year on health insurance – about the cost of a new vehicle each and every year.  Most families don’t see the full bill because their employer or the government pays much of it.  Or they may opt to risk everything and go without health insurance entirely – and then risk bankruptcy if large medical bills do come.  Either way, the employee pays the ultimate price in terms of direct costs or reduced wages, because employers often can’t afford both higher insurance premiums as well as a living wage for their employees that keeps up with inflation.

Millions of Americans are now seeing their health insurance costs increasing disproportionately because of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), which threatens to cancel Medicaid support or eliminate subsidies previously available through healthcare exchanges and the Affordable Care Act.  In 2025, the Montana Legislature passed HB245 to continue Medicaid expansion and revised some work requirements.  But it is now estimated that between 23,000 to 38,000 Montanans will lose Medicaid support as a result of the OBBB. 

Approximately two-thirds of Montana Medicaid recipients reside in rural areas.  Over 300 U.S. Critical Access (rural) Hospitals are in jeopardy of closing.  There is no question that the OBBB directly threatens the ability for some of Montana’s 47 rural hospitals to remain open and financially viable (or maintain current service levels) as they are more financially dependent on Medicaid than their larger counterparts.  The people of Montana’s 2^nd Congressional District will be disproportionately harmed if any of their rural hospitals are forced to close their doors.  As a cardiologist, it’s easy for me to interpret that delays of even an hour or two in the care for emergencies such as a heart attack or stroke can mean the difference between life and death.

The recent 43-day government shutdown was largely driven by differences in opinion about healthcare insurance subsidies available through healthcare exchanges.  But at the end of the record-breaking shutdown, nothing was accomplished of any significance outside of an agreement to ‘talk about it sometime down the road.’  Neither party is offering substantive solutions besides the obvious reductions in waste, fraud, and abuse (which is reasonable, but cannot be expected to make up the difference).

Why is healthcare so expensive in our hospitals?

• Nearly every industry in the US has experienced substantial improvements in productivity over the last 30-50 years, with 1 major exception: healthcare.
  • Over the past 30 years, non-clinical administrators continued to take over many aspects of healthcare management – presumably to manage costs – but the results are opposite and the overall cost of healthcare has grown exponentially to the point that it is a business frankly out of control. 
  • In 2023, the US spent an estimated $4.9 trillion on health care, including ~30% of that on non-clinical or administrative functions; administrative costs have increased dramatically despite major technological enhancements.
  • A big piece of administrative costs comes from complex billing and insurance-related tasks.
• In the past, many hospital systems were owned by their own communities.  Either through consolidation or by selling themselves off, many communities no longer control local decisions about the importance or delivery of healthcare.
  • Simply stated, there is no place for Venture Capital in healthcare – in the short term, the VC source can be seen as a savior for a threatened facility – but the VC almost always siphons large chunks of money rapidly out of the facility to provide a profit for their investors.
• An important part of the increased cost of US healthcare is a gross lack of transparency about actual charges submitted by many healthcare entities, high costs of prescription medicines, and rapidly advancing clinical technologies.  In other words, consumers cannot do comparison shopping.
  • Even though CMS required hospital pricing transparency starting in 2021, a 2024 report found that nearly 80% of US hospitals fail to fully comply with the federal rule.

Any successful effort must first protect a person’s ability to see the doctor of their choice, and must retain coverage for preexisting conditions.  I do not believe in a single-payer system.  Above all else, I will fight hard to defend and protect rural healthcare in Montana.

The broken healthcare financial system cannot be fixed easily, or by one Congressman.  But an Independent Representative can think out of the box in ways that differ from those members who are constrained by party dogma.  And as a physician, I also have an enhanced perspective from within the system, so to speak. 

Any proposed or substantive change to healthcare finance will require professional think tanks and economists to evaluate at length (and the Congressional Budget Office), but I am looking forward to jumping into this mess with full force and with several new ideas and renewed energy. 

Millions of Americans are losing out on the chance to reap the benefits of homeownership because of a supply shortage.  Housing prices in Montana are significantly higher, with a typical home value being about 22% higher and the median listing price 43% higher than the national average.

In 2024, a National Association of Realtors analysis that compared the average home price to a state’s average income showed that Montana had become the least affordable market in the country in that time, surpassing even states like California and Idaho. 

This trend is driven by rapid price growth that was clearly exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, and which has made Montana one of the least affordable states for housing.  According to the Montana Department of Revenue, median home prices in our state have increased by over 66% in just the last four years, increasing from $228,000 to $378,000.

The shortage is most acute for affordable homes, where low- and moderate-income renters and first-time homebuyers are losing faith that they will be able to experience this part of the American dream.  According to November 2025 data from the National Association of Realtors, the average age of a first-time homebuyer is now at a record high above 40 years.  In comparison, the median age was 38 in 2024 and has risen significantly from 33 in 2020, and 28 in 1991.  Looking at it in another way, in just the last 15 years, the average overall U.S. homebuyer has increased from 39 to 59 years old.

The picture is not great for renters either. The Montana Budget and Policy Center also reports that nearly a quarter of Montana renters spend more than half of their monthly income on rent.

Economics 101 teaches that when prices of an essential item do rise, that producers will then supply more of that item to meet demand.  There is a countering view, however, that developers and landlords have no financial incentive to either lower rents, or build affordable housing.  It’s simple – a builder will make more money and faster constructing a $0.5-1.0 Million home, as opposed to low-cost single-family or even multi-family housing.  Landlords increasingly seem interested in raising rents, over maintaining full occupancy of multiple-unit complexes (this has led to DoJ investigations and lawsuits by many states’ Attorneys General).  This is exaggerated further when investors or corporate entities buy up large volumes of housing, and then charge increasing rents or prices that are beyond the reach of the median household income.

There is now a growing consensus that the market, when describing the high-costs of essential housing, is not capable of fixing itself.  It becomes rapidly clear that external forces must be applied to remedy the “broken housing market”.  At a minimum, antitrust enforcement and a ban on collective rent-setting amongst large groups of corporate landlords is required.

Many homebuyers in the market for an affordable home can’t just buy a house and repair it (or update/remodel) because of the way mortgage financing works.  Most lenders will only lend against the property’s current value, which does not allow enough for needed repairs.  As a result, the potential homebuyer may lose the chance to buy the home to investors or corporations that can afford to buy homes in bulk (often sight unseen), finance the repairs internally, and then rent out the property – which prohibits the home from returning to the market as an affordable home for purchase.  A first-time homebuyer can only rarely win a bidding war against a large corporation.

Many older homeowners may want to downsize or relocate to be closer to family – or to tap into established home equity to help with other expenses – but cannot afford to because of persistently high interest rates that remain near a decade-long high.  In addition, a growing number of older homeowners are subject to capital gains taxes on home sales, and some baby boomers say they’re holding onto their homes ‘forever’ so their kids can then inherit them tax-free.  The end result is that many older adults are choosing to stay ‘locked-in’ in their homes, instead of downsizing.  Both of these trends magnify the reduction of available homes on the market.

These issues are further compounded by significant tariffs lodged against building products; the current combined U.S. tariff on Canadian softwood lumber is approximately 45% for most companies, but it can vary somewhat by producer.

Fixing the housing crisis will require an “all of the above solution”:

• Enact new laws that will allow all mortgages to be transferable with minimal penalty of no more than 0.5% rate increase, thereby freeing up home equity
• Zoning changes that remove barriers to the construction of duplexes, triplexes or multi-family housing in residential areas
• Government incentives to municipalities to open larger tracts of land for development
• Enforce antitrust laws against real estate entities that are “price-fixing” rents
• Significant down-payment assistance to 1^st-time homebuyers
• Tax incentives for home builders to encourage multi-family dwelling construction
• Property tax relief to qualified homeowners, and to 1^st-time homebuyers for the first 3 years
• Targeted reductions in capital gains taxes for older homeowners, thereby avoiding a significant tax penalty
• Improve financing terms (i.e.: interest rate adjustments or subsidies) for qualified purchase/rehab/repair loans
• Prioritize offers from buyers at foreclosure auctions who plan to live in the home themselves
• Provide incentives for modular or manufactured home construction
• Increase property tax rates for corporate or large-volume private-equity landlords (this will require provisions that the increases are not passed through to individual renters)
• Reduce tariffs on lumber and building supplies

It is not fair to cut or reduce taxes on multi-millionaires, billionaires and large multi-national corporations, while the middle-class and small businesses continue to shoulder our tax burden.  According to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, over the next decade the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) will cut taxes for the richest 10 percent of Americans by more than $14,700 per year per household, and cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans by more than $50,000 per year. 

Overall, the OBBB cuts taxes by $4.5 trillion over the next decade, primarily through $2.3 trillion of provisions that deliver most of their benefits to the richest 10 percent of Americans by income.  Within that, the bill delivers $1 trillion in tax cuts to the top 1 percent, while at the same time cutting more than $1.1 trillion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other health programs used by more Americans who need the help.   

As your representative in Congress, I will:

• Recognize that tariffs represent a tax on the American consumer and small businesses, and not on the international manufacturer
• Work with a bipartisan coalition to restore cuts in Medicaid and SNAP assistance, without delay
• Support efforts for targeted tax relief for the middle- and lower-classes, and for small business fairness
• Support bipartisan efforts to create reasonable tax rates for multi-national and large corporations

There were drafts of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that included language to require the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to then identify and sell up to 3 million acres of federally-owned public lands across the western states for development as housing or for community needs, or to reduce the federal debt.  Fortunately, this language was removed from the OBBB prior to the bill being finalized, but this is a battle that will need to be continued in earnest as it is likely to come up again.

Selling off public lands in Montana won’t solve the housing crisis, but it will certainly impede public access for recreational or hunting purposes, and severely limit grazing or leases often granted to Montana’s ranchers.  It also makes very little sense for the government to sell off potential mineral rights (or explorable energy assets) associated with these large tracts of public lands. 

The final version of the OBBB did include provisions that will cost states (including Montana) and U.S. taxpayers billions by rolling back the royalty rate on federal oil and gas leases from 16.67% to 12.5%; under current law, income from oil and gas development is shared with the states in which the development takes place (for every dollar of revenue the federal government brings in from oil and gas production within Montana, the state receives about half).  The entire congressional delegation for Montana voted for the final version of the OBBB that contained these provisions. 

[note:  Oil and Gas royalties on State lands remain unchanged at ~16.6%; these funds are directed into State trusts largely in support of public schools]

Our country is literally a nation of immigrants, and we indeed should take pride in that fact.  Immigrants should be welcomed but must enter the United States legally, and this process absolutely must be actively managed.  Many agricultural sectors are dependent upon migrating workers to harvest their crops – this needs to be supported.

The concept of “open borders” is not a good thing; the very high numbers of illegal immigrants in the U.S. place a significant economic burden upon our citizenry (think healthcare dollars for emergency care, consumption of resources and effects on housing). 

It is entirely reasonable to remove illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes or violence against others.  At the same time, I am worried that ICE is being overly aggressive or physical in their roundup of both legal and illegal immigrants.  If a person or family is here legally, they should not be anxious about being tossed into a detention center simply because they came from somewhere else.

I have a hard time thinking about deportation for Dreamers – those young adults who were brought into the U.S. by their parents when very young; they know no other life nor country.  I do not think it is fair to force that young adult to deport to another country for which they feel no bond and may not even remember.  Recent polls consistently show that a majority of Americans agree and believe that Dreamers should be allowed a pathway to legal status or citizenship.

As a Veteran myself, nothing makes me feel worse than seeing other Veterans on street corners, either homeless or begging for food money.  Much has been said about lacking mental health care options in general, and this is particularly true for our Veterans.  As a retired length of service military physician, I am aware of both the successes and failures of the VA Healthcare System, and will be in a position to provide support and guidance.

If elected as your Representative, I will champion an effort to build housing adjacent to existing VA facilities to temporarily house our displaced Veterans for up to 6 to 12 months, during which an emphasis on mental and physical healthcare can be effectively supported.  This may take the form of dormitories or barracks-style living, with an employed social worker assigned to each facility to provide additional assistance with job-training, available VA or federal benefits, and to help arrange for longer-term and independent housing.

Family farms and ranches underpin our economy, our national security, and our way of life in Montana.  That way of life is under threat.  With inflation, blunders in trade policy and consolidation at every level of the industry, farmers and ranchers face a perfect storm; our federal government, instead of ensuring a level playing field too often subsidizes and underwrites multi-national corporations at the expense of family farmers.  The rapidly increasing input prices of seed, weed control and fertilizer – combined with low output prices for agricultural products – are often now making farming a losing endeavor.

In a recent letter sent to congressional ag leaders (February, 2026), a group of past presidents and CEOs of the American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Pork Producers Council, National Barley Growers Association, National Milk Producers Federation, US Grains Council, Renewable Fuels Association (and others), wrote that “The policies of this administration have caused tremendous harm to U.S. agriculture.  Farmer bankruptcies have doubled, barely half of all farms will be profitable this year, and the U.S. is running a historic agriculture trade deficit.”

Without positive action, we can expect more and more farmers to go bankrupt, or simply stop producing crops (at a loss).  Family farms will die.  Our young people will not go into farming or agriculture.  When that happens, the entire supply/balance cart can become irretrievably broken and it will take decades or an entire generation to repair.

Our family still owns and operates a multi-generational small farm in Nebraska, and through that I am familiar with only some of the issues facing today’s farmers and ranchers. I am looking forward to spending significant time in our agricultural communities during this campaign, and to learn more about what can or should be done at the federal level to protect our farming and ranching families.

What is the root of the problem?

Problem #1:  Input costs are 3x higher compared to the 1990’s.  But why is that?  It’s simple… many Ag input suppliers have merged into corporate behemoths.  This severely limits market competition for available seed, fertilizer and machinery and has limited choices to the point that farmers must either “pay the price” or give up entirely and not plant a crop at all.  There are now only 4 major US seed companies; there once were over 1000 companies that serially merged over the last 4 decades.  About 50 fertilizer companies have merged – now there are really only about 3 or 4.  And there are really only about 2 or 3 major manufacturers of heavy machinery (tractors, combines) – so they are able to set prices, too.  This overall lack of competition has inevitably raised prices; because they can, when supply is controlled by just a very few.  Economics 101.   These large corporations are making record profits, while family farms and ranches struggle to stay alive.

Problem #2:  Output prices are also down.  By a lot.  Once harvested, grain prices are down.  Wheat prices fell ~25% in 2023 and another ~10% in 2025, and have not since recovered.  Other grains have suffered a similar fate; what were once $17 soybeans are now about $11.  But why is this?  It looks like prices are again set by only 4 or 5 super-large grain companies who again get to control the market price.  So the farmer either accepts their set-market-price, or doesn’t sell.  But what choice does he really have?  Farmers have no leverage, because those companies can always go overseas to buy (often inferior) grain elsewhere at cheaper rates.  

NOTE: Another example of this is currently happening in Nebraska, where Tyson Foods has abruptly closed a major meat-packing plant in Lexington which will result in beef producers having to ship their cattle farther for what may be even lower prices.

Problem #3:  Tariffs.  China is reducing imports for certain grain products from the US (13% tariff) and pivoting to South America (Argentina 0%; Brazil 3%) where tariffs are much lower.  At the same time, we’re sending $40B to Argentina in financial support to boost their economy.  We’re also adding a new 80,000 metric ton quota for Argentinian beef imports, in addition to their existing 20,000 metric ton tariff‑rate quota?  It would make far more sense to work together on ways to increase profitability for Montana’s beef producers, and thereby increase our own domestic supply.  I firmly believe and expect that consumers would rather buy local in-State or regional American beef as opposed to South American beef.   We are shooting ourselves in the foot.

In November 2025, the administration was forced to lift most of their newly imposed, broad-based reciprocal tariffs of up to 30% on key fertilizer imports (ammonia, urea, UAN, ammonium nitrate, phosphate), providing relief to farmers.  Tariffs hurt when considering that the US imports nearly 25-30% of its’ total fertilizer needs.   The US has a >90% import reliance for Potash (Potassium/K), with Canada being the major supplier – the US currently maintains a 10% tariff for any potash that falls outside of the  USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada agreement) preference.  Making things worse, since the end of the 2024, China has cut off its exports of phosphate, whereas in the year before it was the world’s second largest global exporter.

Problem #4:  The US is losing international market share and this can be very difficult to restore.  US wheat exports have experienced a significant long-term decline, with the U.S. share of global wheat trade falling from an average of 25% in the early 2000s to about 11% in the 2024/25 marketing year. This is also a result of US tariff policy; US whole soybean exports have fallen from 47% of world market share in 2018 to just 24% today — a 50% reduction — while Brazil has gained more than 20% market share during the same period.

So what can we do about it:

Solution #1:  Conventional bailouts do not benefit the Farmer substantially, and will not fix the underlaying problem.  We need long-term solutions, while providing a safety-net in the short term in some form of farm-aid in order to prevent a further acute rise in farm/ranch bankruptcies.  However, it is also recognized that most of the money received from the federal government in the form of a conventional bailout will simply pass through to those few very large corporations who control both the inputs for farming (high prices for seed, fertilizer and equipment) and the outputs (low grain prices at harvest).  So essentially, those bailouts may pad the profit margin of the corporations and not the farmer – who is merely a conduit that passes most of the stipend on to large corporations and financial institutions at taxpayer expense.

Solution #2:  The sale of agricultural lands or assets to foreign entities must be curtailed, and the sale to large multi-national corporate entities must be controlled.  Foreign entities must not be allowed to buy our meat-processing facilities for the same reason.  Stronger enforcement and higher penalties need to be legislatively added into the American Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA).

Solution #3:  We must address the lack of competition for input suppliers (seed and fertilizer, in particular).  This will very likely require significant anti-trust legislation and legal enforcement, and may require a physical corporate break-up to reverse prior mergers.

Solution #4:  The federal government may need to set a reasonable but formal ‘price floor’ for certain agricultural products, to determine a guaranteed minimum price for which farmers can sell their product(s).  This form of federal subsidy is far more likely to benefit the farmer or rancher, because it stays with the farmer and encourages him/her to be more efficient and thereby motivates performance.  It does not directly benefit the corporations – they will then also be motivated to become more efficient and to motivate performance to maintain their own margins.  This concept can become a slippery-slope, as prior USDA/FSA efforts have sometimes resulted in huge grain reserves like that seen in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s.

Solution #5:  Congress must take back control over tariffs and trade policy.  The Constitution gives Congress — not the President — the power to impose tariffs. Article I, Section 8 clearly states that lawmakers have the authority “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” For much of American history, this was a core congressional prerogative. But over the past century (especially after the economic catastrophe of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act), Congress began steadily ceding this power to the executive branch, hoping presidents would take a broader, less protectionist view. 

Update:  On February 11, 2026, the House voted down a rule designed to block votes on terminating Trump’s tariffs, following a Senate vote rebuking the administration’s trade actions.  This allows for direct votes to revoke tariffs, including those on Canada.  This is a step in the right direction.

The Right to Repair is a bipartisan issue with the support of 84% of Americans. Sadly, opposition from industry and their powerful lobbyists has kept us from moving forward.  As an Independent Representative, I can bring together a bipartisan coalition in support of a guaranteed Right to Repair. 

Without rights to repair their own equipment, farmers and ranchers are effectively locked into costly lifetime maintenance contracts or repair agreements with manufacturers and dealers.  Industry offerings (like the John Deere private-sector agreement) retain certain restrictions (i.e.: intellectual property, inventory control, emissions) that do not represent a full right to repair and are not legally binding agreements with purchasers.

The same is true for many personal electronic devices. Multi-national corporations have blocked independent repair shops and consumers completely out of the repair market.  Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to replace an aging battery on a cell phone, rather than be forced to buy a new $1,000 phone?

We cannot allow the independent auto repair shop to go extinct.  Proprietary electronics in vehicles make repairs impossible for both drivers and independent shops, driving up costs. During the Biden administration, the federal Department of Transportation blocked multiple state-level activities in support of a Right to Repair; this must be resolved.

Congress must act to create a legislative and therefore enforceable environment to allow us to fix our broken equipment, rather than be forced to replace it.

I support an “all of the above” energy policy that supports a wide range of domestic energy sources, including both non-renewable sources like oil, natural gas, and coal, and renewable sources such as solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal – and nuclear.  The economics of energy production should be trusted to determine when each may be economically viable, or which is best used in any particular region or situation.

Montana is gifted with abundant mineral and energy resources.  The Williston Basin contains substantial untapped oil and gas, with the USGS assessing billions of barrels of potential oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas in the Bakken and Three Forks formations. 

Montana also holds about one-third of the nation’s coal reserves, primarily in the Powder River Basin.  Our coal is valued because of its’ low-sulfur content.  Coal is used to generate about one-fifth of overall U.S. electricity production, and it is easier to burn PWB coal in a “clean” way as compared to coal from other regions.

A strong civilian nuclear sector is essential to U.S. national security and energy diplomacy; nuclear power plants provide reliable and essentially carbon-free electricity that helps to combat climate change and are cost-effective in the long run.  Although nuclear power stations take a considerable investment to build, they last a long time and don’t cost a lot to run compared to other types of energy sources.  According to USGS and Dept. of Energy surveys, several areas in Montana seem especially favorable for the occurrence of marketable uranium.

As your Representative in Congress, I will:

• Promote ‘all of the above’ energy policies supporting oil/gas/coal industries and energy production in Montana, for both domestic use and international export
• Work in a bipartisan manner to federally invest into Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs), and to foster a growing nuclear power industry

Montanans know what officials in Washington seem to have forgotten – Social Security benefits were earned by Americans by putting in a hard days’ work and paying into the fund for decades.  Social Security trust funds belong to the people, and not to Wall Street bankers or Washington.  Because of this, it is not appropriate to invest Social Security trust funds into riskier assets such as the open stock market rather than more secure US Government Securities.

As your Representative in Congress, I will work in a bipartisan and fiscally responsible manner to protect Social Security, and to deliver effective cost-of-living increases, without the need to raise the retirement age.

In 2023, Alaska replaced Montana as having the worst suicide rates indexed for population in the country.   However, Montana is still ranked #2 in the nation in the most recent dataset, and has been ranked at or near the very top for almost 50 years.  

There are many contributors to the long-term and cultural issue of suicide in Montana.  Prior studies have shown that Montana’s rates are higher because of easy access to lethal means (firearms), alcohol use, a sense of being a burden (financial distress), social isolation, altitude, lack of resiliency and coping skills, undiagnosed and untreated mental illness, and a societal stigma against depression or mental health treatment.  Nationwide, the act of Suicide amongst military veterans is even higher.

It is much harder to obtain effective mental or behavioral health treatment in Montana, simply because of the rural nature of large sectors of our State, and lack of access to effective care.  It is difficult for rural or critical-access hospitals to operate effective mental health services, as these programs often have lower profit margins compared to other specialties which can make it difficult for hospitals to justify investment in beds, technology, and staff. Low reimbursement rates from payers can limit profitability, and Medicaid payments often do not cover actual expenses for the facility.

Unfortunately and absent congressional action, effective January 30, 2026, pre-pandemic rules will be reinstated that inhibit the effective use of Tele-health visits for most services. In addition, a new rule requires an in-person visit from the telehealth provider within the previous 12 months for a patient to receive telehealth mental health services (there are some exceptions for patients in rural areas or those receiving treatment for substance abuse). Starting January 31, 2026, new rules dictate that you must live in a rural area and also go to an office or medical facility that is in a rural area for most telehealth services.

As your Representative in Congress, I will:

• Fight to restore full tele-health coverage for all mental or behavioral health issues
• Work to restore full funding for Montana-DPHSS programming for Suicide Prevention
• Speak openly about negative stigma surrounding mental health care – and why that stigma is not logical and not real
• Support enhanced VA funding for Veteran’s mental health care

Job number one for any elected official is the safety and security of our communities, which means effectively funding the Police and Fire/Emergency Care agencies.  Without adequate funding, these critical public care services (and volunteer agencies) will be jeopardized or poorly equipped in many of our smaller communities.

Together with our State and Local leaders, I will work to protect and increase federal funding for these vital services; I will make sure that Montana law enforcement and first responders always have the resources they need.

I come from a multi-generational family of teachers and public-school administrators.  Strong and well-funded public schools are the backbone of the American education system, and very often also represent the backbone of our local communities.  

I do not think that it would be wise to shut down the federal Department of Education.  The department currently oversees vital programs like Title I ($18.4 billion for low-income schools), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; $15.5 billion for special education), and the federal student loan system ($1.6 trillion in loans). The arguments about the federal Department of Education controlling school curricula or agenda items is largely false. The very high majority of control over public school curriculum is shared between local school boards and state education departments. 

More than 10% of public-school students are identified as having disabilities or special needs.  Educational programming for these students is often funded by local or state sources, but the IDEA also provides for federal funding to support special education services.  However, the federal government has historically fallen short of its commitment to fund 40% of the average per-student cost for special education; the federal share is now only about 12%, which means there is an $80 million shortfall in dedicated funding for these kinds of programs in Montana’s public schools alone.

Much has been said about the imbalance between trade schools and 4-year colleges or universities.  Many have begun to openly and quite fairly question the value of a 4-year degree.  What is important for Montana is that both should be supported with federal loans and grants for students.  Large colleges and universities must do more to freeze or even reduce tuition and fees for students if they want to keep their federal subsidies in place.  Without that, any increase in grants to students very often translates into higher tuitions – because they can.

As your representative in Congress, I will support:

• Resources for teacher training
• Increased transportation funding for rural or consolidated schools
• Incentives for students seeking trade school or community college education
• Fund school lunches for those who need it, without question
• Full IDEA funding to the federally-mandated 40% threshold
• Programs to freeze or reduce tuition and fees for colleges and universities
• Increased financial support and grants for community colleges and 2-year junior colleges

I do not support:

• Blanket student loan forgiveness
• Abolishing the Department of Education entirely

I personally view an unregulated Artificial Intelligence environment as a potential risk to National Security.  An unregulated AI environment jeopardizes the truth, exposes a potential for very real personal and societal harm, and may ultimately be a danger to Democracy if left unchecked or unmonitored.  The advent of AI has left governments scrambling to catch up and decide how to avoid a litany of threats to society, such as increasingly persuasive propaganda, cyber-attacks on public infrastructure, the capacity for unprecedented levels of surveillance by governments and companies, and detrimental effects upon social media.  This is another area where the European Union (EU) is far ahead of the U.S., again largely because of our dysfunctional Congress.  Whereas the EU has legally binding rules, the U.S. relies more on guidelines and voluntary compliance – which leaves open the window for abuse.

Economists and policymakers are debating how AI will reshape the workforce.  International Monetary Fund economists have estimated that AI may affect as many as 40 percent of all jobs as AI-driven machines replace work that was traditionally performed by people, much of it skilled labor.  And even where jobs aren’t lost, work by human beings could become less valuable, causing wages to fall. 

All of us already see the negative effects of AI in social media.  It is often hard to tell what is real, and what is fake. The risks of then being driven in a certain direction are well described, as the functions of promoting deceptive stories and harmful or deepfake images are growing rapidly.  Malicious actors can use Generative AI to spread misinformation or create deepfakes. This is very easy to do, and companies seem unable to put a stop to it themselves — mostly because they are unwilling (not unable) to tag AI-generated content.  The technology pioneers behind much of AI don’t want real regulation of this new industry, and if it comes, they want it on their own terms.

As your Representative in Congress, I will:

• At an absolute minimum promote legislation that all AI-generated materials be clearly labeled and identified
• Promote a bipartisan effort to review current EU regulations and to develop a comprehensive plan for effective monitoring, with a focus on ensuring the ethical use of AI, safeguarding human rights and safety, mitigating social and economic impact, and protecting national security (i.e.: exposures to the national power grid).

With the statewide ballot referendum in November, 2024, the majority (58%) of citizens of Montana voted to amend the State’s constitution to enshrine the right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion.  The amendment language clearly retains the state’s ability to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except when indicated to protect the life or health of the mother. 

There are fears, however, that the increasingly conservative courts in our State will impose other restrictions over time.  I suspect that there will be more legal wrangling ahead; but for now, the people of Montana have spoken with a unified voice that rights to abortion care must be preserved.

My own personal thoughts are that although I don’t like the concept of abortion, as a physician I am professionally bound by higher concerns about adverse effects upon women’s reproductive health as well as potential increased maternal mortality that followed the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs case (which essentially overturned Roe v. Wade).  Women should not have to travel across state lines to get desired or necessary medical care, nor should they have to blindly order prescriptions over the internet to get abortive medications in the absence of available supervisory medical care in their home states.

It is the role of the federal government to provide some degree of stability and uniformity across State lines, and to protect basic individual rights and freedoms regardless of where you live.  These regional disparities in access to abortion likely will need to be addressed again by the next Congress.  The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in relevant part, provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That is simply hard to do, if different states have different rules about a woman’s right to choose.

Without question, I support the 2^nd Amendment and the right to own and bear arms for lawful purposes. Period. Montana has a strong heritage of gun ownership which must be respected and should not be infringed.

We already have gun control; it’s a requirement to pass a background check for the purchase of firearms from any dealer.  The question is, however, how to modify gun control legislation to make it more effective, while not unduly inhibiting the sale or transfer of arms to those who may lawfully possess them. The problem, of course, is that criminals often don’t follow the rules.  There are already laws that prohibit the sale of firearms to illegal immigrants.

Multiple national surveys have found that 85% or more of Americans support universal background checks, with overwhelming support from both gun owners and non-gun owners alike. It is time to revise the process – Congress has been negligent by not getting this done given its high level of public support. The existing background check process needs to be bolstered and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) system rendered more effective by enhancing the consistency and timeliness of reporting from local, state, tribal and federal agencies.

It is important to remember that guns are the #1 most frequent mode of suicide in Montana and elsewhere. It is often (not always) reported after mass shootings the gun had ‘just recently been purchased’; this means that a very small minority of buyers have a “plan” to do something nefarious when they purchase a firearm.  No form of instant background check will uniformly prevent these kinds of acts, but with better reporting

National Firearms Act (NFA): The NFA should be retained but revised; it makes sense to prevent the sale of fully-automatic weapons and grenade launchers to the public at large, but other current restrictions have little impact upon gun crimes (i.e.: a difference of 2 inches in barrel length does nothing to prevent illicit use). Effective January 1, 2026, the federal tax stamp fee for National Firearms Act (NFA) items, including suppressors and short-barreled rifles, was reduced from $200 to $0. While the monetary fee has been eliminated, the legal requirement to register these items by filing an ATF Form 1 or Form 4, submitting fingerprints, and passing a background check remains fully in effect.

I am in favor of:

• Regulating a 72-hour wait-period between purchase and taking possession of a firearm, including gun shows
• Common sense strategies that will actually work to curtail gun violence — not just a ‘symbolic effort’ that has no real chance of reducing gun-related crime
• Eliminating the “gun-show loophole” (should be treated the same as a commercial point-of-sale)
• Revising the NFA to exclude mandatory ATF Form 1 or Form 4 submission for sound-suppressive devices and short-barreled long guns.

I support clearly defined term limits for Members of Congress and the Senate:

• Two terms in the Senate (total of 12 years)
• Four terms in the House of Representatives (total of 8 years)