Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida, Mr. Haridopolos, so much.

I rise today to discuss or to comment on what I see is the biggest fraud this body has ever put upon the American people.

Let's go back to the beginning of the unaffordable care act, ObamaCare. How was this sold to the American people? You can keep your doctor if you like them. You can keep your plan. Your insurance premiums are going to go down.

I will tell you, all of that--I will tell you; this is one time that both the Republicans and Democrats agree, that it did not deliver on that.

The Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, has been one of the biggest drivers in increasing not just the cost of health insurance but the cost of healthcare.

To continue this deception, it was clear that this plan would not work. You don't have to be a Ph.D. in mathematics to understand why. As you start to add things--the essential health benefits that you added onto these policies, these required benefits, as you started to add things that had to be covered--and I am not saying whether those were good or bad. But if you add expenses, you can't make prices go down. It would be like saying if you went to a fast food restaurant and ordered a soda and the price is going to go down but they have to give you a free cheeseburger as well. It just doesn't make common sense. It doesn't make mathematical sense. So to further this deception, they realized that it only worked by subsidizing it. You had to levy a tax to subsidize it.

The architects on the other side of the aisle who put this together realized that the American people would rebel against this if they were given a tax to pay for it. How did they hide that? Well, let's just tax the payers, let's tax the insurance companies, and then they can pass those expenses down to the American people through higher premiums. That is exactly what happened.

Then let's look at another phenomenon. As these prices start going up, people start to question whether they are getting value for what they are paying for. For some folks, the answer was no. They didn't want to pay those higher rates, and so some folks came off.

As we see, the people who come off tend to be the people who least need services. So the healthy, younger people tend to be the ones that come off. As they do that, that concentrates the risk. That makes the prices go higher for the insurance companies, for the payers.

As that happens and you get into the next policy year, they have to raise the rates again. As they raise the rates again, you lose more subscribers to those policies. You further concentrate the risk. This is known as adverse selection.

What happens in adverse selection, every time you see that raise, those prices rise, you start to see more people come off. They look for alternatives like healthcare sharing ministries, they look for something else, or they go uninsured. You start this endless cycle of these prices going up.

There is another thing I want to point out. This is kind of economics 101. The more money you put into a system, the more expensive things get. We have seen that in so many different areas. We have seen that in subprime lending. We have seen that in student loans. You put money into a system, and it starts to push prices up.

One of the other contributors we have is not just adverse selection, which is concentrating the risk and making it more expensive for the insurance companies, but we put so much money in the system that we are seeing rises in actual healthcare.

It is important to make the distinction between the rising cost of healthcare and the related rising cost of health insurance. So we just come to this death spiral of this becoming more and more and more unaffordable. In my personal opinion, this entire system is going to collapse under its own weight, and you have got two solutions.

The other side thinks that we should just write a blank check from the Federal Government, no matter how big that check is going to be, so that we can hide the fact that this is failing.

Let's face it. This is seen as a landmark piece of legislation that the Democrats have pushed over the last couple of decades. It is important to them to protect this landmark legislation. I am sorry, but the emperor is not wearing clothes. In order to hide that, they are doing these smoke screens with these increased subsidies.

Now, let's look at the subsidies that have really gotten a lot of attention, these ObamaCare subsidies that we have been talking about that the Democrats brought in response to COVID. These are subsidies to folks who are on the individual market.

It is important to note that the individual market is a small percentage of the insureds. This is not the entire market. This is not a small group. This is not a large group. This is a small percentage of folks who are on the individual marketplace, who get their health insurance through healthcare.gov or through one of the exchanges. It is a very small part.

When the Democrats first put this, it was a reaction to the chaos during COVID, and it was, by their intent and by their architecture, a temporary solution for a temporary problem. So it was designed to expire. It had a sunset.

Then, when it was coming up to a sunset, when the Democrats still had control and had the ability to make this permanent, they still put an expiration date on it. These enhanced premium tax credits, or these ObamaCare credits, were designed to expire at the end of this year. Essentially, January 1 is when they were designed to expire.

It is entirely policy brought by the Democrats. This was not Republican policy, it was a smokescreen. There are estimates it will cost between $300 and $400 billion to pay for it over the next

10 years if they are expanded. Like I said, it is a smokescreen.

Folks are starting to talk about whether prices are going to go up or go down or what these subsidies will do. Let's talk about that for a second. These subsidies are a very small part of the increases that we are seeing in premiums because of what I have already talked about. It is because of rising costs of healthcare and because of rising costs of health insurance that are due to those healthcare increases as well as that adverse selection.

Let me just put this small percentage in perspective. In Montana, we have a number of payers, a number of insurance companies. The one with the largest increase on the individual market was about 25 percent. It is a high number, I agree, but that 25 percent was a single digit amount. About 9 percent of that, was attributed to the enhanced premium tax credits, the ObamaCare credits. Even without that, the prices are going up. Independent of these ObamaCare credits that we are discussing, it is going up in the small group, the large group, and it is going up in every other part of insurance.

That part without the enhanced premiums, as I said, that delta between 25 and 9, let's say that is 16 percent, everybody else is still seeing that. They are still seeing that increase.

One of the smallest increases we saw from our major payers was about 10, a little bit over 10 percent, and about 3 or 4 percent of that was attributed to the ObamaCare premiums.

The reason I am bringing this up is that it is a very small percentage of these overall costs. One thing that I want to point out is that if these tax credits are allowed to expire on the 31st, premiums are going up. If we extend them, premiums are going up. It is happening either way.

Just one thing I want to end on so that people understand how this process works. If this body decides to extend those premiums, let's say it is for 2 years or 3 years, an arbitrary amount, then what happens?

The way that insurance rates are filed is they go to the States, the payers, the insurance companies bring them to the States. They file, they are approved, they get filed with CMS, with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and then the open enrollment period starts, which is usually mid-November to mid-December.

Mr. Speaker, during that open enrollment period is when you buy your policies for the following year. We just closed that open enrollment period a couple of weeks ago for the 2026 policy years. Those rates are already baked in. If we were to extend those credits, the rates are already baked in.

Unless we go to extraordinary measures of allowing the payers to, once again, refile their rates and then have another open enrollment period, which I guess would be March or April by the time we got all that through, then, what do we with that?

Do we make those rates ex post facto? Do we have them go back to the beginning of the year? Or do you allow it to go through its normal cycle, in which case those rates affect the 2027 year.

The point I am making is that by extending those ObamaCare subsidies, we are not affecting the 2026 rates without going to extraordinary measures to unroll everything that has already happened.

What will happen is those insurance companies that filed higher rates with the assumption of those premium tax credits staying in will get the benefit of having a higher rate plus having that tax credit.

Going back to how I started this, this fraud was put on to the American people to hide the taxes so that the American people weren't taxed directly. They taxed the insurance companies that are getting these tax credits to change those rates for the people. This is not going to affect what is happening right now without extraordinary measures.

In closing, what we need to do, and I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, we need to start looking at alternatives on what are the core drivers of the costs of health insurance.

How do we rate health insurance so that younger, healthier people are still willing to pay for it so we have spread risk there?

What are the things that we can look at for driving costs down to stopping this endless cycle of adverse selection so that people can actually, as was promised on this big fraud perpetrated on the American people, have the doctor they want, the plan they want, and have their rates going down?

This ObamaCare premium debacle is not the answer, but we do need to get to work and figure out how we can get to the root causes of these rising prices. That is because, as I said, this is either going to collapse under its own weight or we are going to be forced to write an unlimited check to the Federal Government which many of my colleagues and I are unwilling to do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the importance of the House's passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act earlier this week.

The 2026 NDAA codifies critical provisions of President Trump's peace through strength agenda, including authorizing full funding for the Sentinel ICBM program. The Sentinel program is set to provide essential upgrades to the land-based component of our nuclear triad.

I thank the airmen, the security forces, the missileers, everyone at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, Montana, for their continued hard work on the initial planning and construction phases of this project.

Nuclear deterrence is the bedrock of our national security. As China and Russia rapidly expand their arsenals and modernize their missile capabilities, we cannot fall behind.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on continuing congressional support for Sentinel as this program progresses.

Mr. Speaker, waste, fraud, and abuse fundamentally undermine the American people's trust in the government. When well- intentioned Federal programs are defrauded by criminal bad actors, taxpayer dollars are wasted, and funding for businesses and individuals in need of this vital support is squandered and stolen.

Over the course of the COVID pandemic, the Small Business Administration carried out an extensive effort, channeling funding to small businesses facing unprecedented economic challenges. In total, SBA provided over $1.2 trillion in emergency loans and grants during this period.

While COVID-era SBA programs in many cases delivered much-needed emergency aid to small businesses, these programs were sometimes exploited by criminals seeking to defraud American taxpayers and illegally secure illegitimate loans and grants. According to a 2023 report from the SBA's Office of Inspector General, SBA distributed over $200 billion in potentially fraudulent funds in its COVID-era programs.

This level of fraud undermines the integrity of the SBA. It is essential that we track these criminal fraudsters down and hold them accountable for their actions.

Two of these SBA COVID-era programs, the Restaurant Revitalization Fund and the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant, directed financial assistance toward small businesses that were disproportionately harmed by lockdown policies due to their reliance on confined gathering spaces.

The statute of limitations for prosecuting fraud within these programs is set to expire beginning early next year. If Congress does not act, law enforcement will not have the necessary time to investigate and prosecute these crimes.

Along with my colleague, Representative Conaway, I have introduced H.R. 4495, the SBA Fraud Enforcement Extension Act. This bill extends the statute of limitations from 5 years to 10 years for fraud with respect to SBA's Restaurant Revitalization Fund and the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant. This extension will provide critical time for law enforcement to track down criminals who have defrauded the U.S. Government and hold them accountable.

Small businesses across our country, including in my home district of central and eastern Montana, deserve an SBA that efficiently supports local job creators and isn't undercut by fraud.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative Herb Conaway, for co-leading this legislation.

The fraudulent spending of Federal taxpayer dollars undermines our trust in the government. It is essential that law enforcement is given the proper tools, time, and authority to punish those who subvert the integrity of the SBA programs and ensure that fraudsters face consequences for their actions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this coming weekend marks one of the oldest and greatest rivalries in all of college football, the ``Brawl of the Wild.''

Saturday, November 22, 2025, will be the 124th meeting between the University of Montana Grizzlies and the Montana State Bobcats in Missoula.

To Montanans, the Brawl of the Wild is more than a football game. It's a celebration of the state's competitive spirit, community pride, and deep-rooted traditions.

Many households in Montana are divided, heck, even my office is divided.

But the magic of the game is its power to unite our state through sport, bringing together students, alumni, families, and fans who proudly don their maroon and silver or blue and gold.

The Brawl of the Wild is truly a tradition unlike any other. It represents the very best of college athletics and the Montana way of life.

I look forward to a phenomenal game on Saturday and to celebrating another chapter in this historic Montana rivalry.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of former Montana State Senator Duane Ankney, known to many as the ``King of Coal.''

Elected to the State legislature in 2006 from Colstrip, Montana, which he proudly called the heartbeat of eastern Montana, Senator Ankney was a steadfast advocate for the working men and women who power our State. He understood the value of coal not just as a resource but a way of life for thousands of Montanans.

Throughout his service, he championed energy independence, defended rural jobs, and gave a voice to communities too often overlooked. Senator Ankney wasn't afraid to speak hard truths or to take tough stands. He led with grit, with principle, and a deep love for Montana.

Today, we remember him as more than a legislator. We remember him as a fighter. He was a friend and a champion to the people he served.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my resolution, H.J. Res. 104.

For 4 years, President Biden and his autopen waged war on American energy. He targeted the very foundations of our energy independence. No industry felt the brunt of the administration's attack more than the coal industry. Coal mines, coal-fired power plants, and the communities they support were pushed to the brink of collapse.

The 2024 amendment to the Miles City Resource Management Plan would have cut off access to 30 percent of the Nation's coal reserves.

The vast majority of Americans rely on coal for at least part of their electricity every single day, and at no point did Biden's Bureau of Land Management stop to consider the $46 million in lost revenue to the State of Montana, money that helps pay for K-12 education.

Make no mistake, this amendment was not a moderate, science-based decision. This was the heavy hand of Big Government crushing an entire industry in the name of a radical Green New Deal agenda. It was the inevitable result of an antihuman, America-last ideology that has been knocked on its heels in the wake of President Trump's election.

Today, I am thankful that we have the opportunity to reverse this rule before any permanent damage could be done. Today, we are advancing President Trump's executive order to expand American energy production and achieve energy dominance. We are standing up for the people of Colstrip, for the workers of eastern Montana, and for the thousands of Montanans whose livelihoods depend on responsible coal production. We are standing up for affordable electricity, for State and local governments that rely on revenue from Federal leases, and for a commonsense energy strategy that does not depend on imports from adversaries, like China.

This resolution is not about politics. It is about putting working families before bureaucrats. It is about keeping the lights on in America and keeping paychecks flowing in Montana.

When the Federal Government acts recklessly, it is the responsibility of Congress to step in and course correct. That is exactly what H.J. Res. 104 does.

The war on coal must end. It must end here with a vote to overturn this dangerous and shortsighted rule. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 104 and send a clear message that energy security, economic stability, and the voices of rural America will not be ignored.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary young Montanan, Tarquin Bennion, who will make his Carnegie Hall debut on July 20.

Tarquin hails from Sidney, Montana, and is one of the 28 violinists from around the country headed to the Big Apple to perform with the National Youth Orchestra of the United States.

Not only will he debut in New York, he will also represent our Nation and

our State as he tours internationally in Japan, Hong Kong, China, and South Korea.

Tarquin's journey began at the age of 5 when his mother, who taught herself to play the violin at age 34, inspired him to pursue music. Since then, his passion has taken him to venues like the Montana Senate Chamber where he performed a piece from Mozart's Violin Concerto No. 4 during his time as a page.

Mr. Speaker, Tarquin's remarkable talent and dedication are an inspiration to his peers and to his State. I congratulate him on this incredible accomplishment and wish him the best of luck in his bright future. I know this is just the beginning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my dear friend, Jim Duncan, on his well-earned retirement as president of the Billings Clinic Foundation.

For three decades, Jim served the great folks of the Treasure State, advocating tirelessly for rural healthcare access and the expansion of community wellness programs. Jim grew the foundation's endowments from $3 million to an astounding $150 million, funds that will benefit the community for generations to come.

Jim also played a key role in introducing innovation and excellence in Montana health services, helping to bring new cancer, cardiac, pediatric, psychiatric, and trauma care to eastern Montana.

Jim's advocacy will be missed, but I know the foundation will be left in

good hands with Nichole Mehling at the helm.

Jim led with integrity, vision, and compassion. I wish him and his wife, Heidi, a well-deserved, adventure-filled retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and to remember Yellowstone County Commissioner John Ostlund.

Last week, Yellowstone County lost a pillar of the community. Since 2003, he faithfully served the people of Yellowstone County, embodying the grit, spirit, and generosity that defines Montana.

John worked tirelessly to improve his community, advocating for improved rural ambulance coverage, supporting local businesses, playing a key role in MetraPark renovations, and always championing fiscal responsibility.

There are countless stories of John's selflessness. If he was ever late for a meeting, chances are he was helping someone change a flat or helping the sheriff with a case. That is just the type of guy John was.

John's dedication extended well beyond public service. He was a loving

husband and father, and his commitment to his family and his community was unwavering.

Montana is going to miss Commissioner Ostlund dearly. The hearts of the Treasure State are with the entire Ostlund family during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of Montana's Second District. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses employ roughly 67 percent of all Montanans. That is well above the national average.

These businesses historically have difficulty accessing the funding they need to grow and create jobs. Their location presents an added challenge.

According to the Center on Rural Innovation, 12 percent of U.S. businesses are located within rural areas, yet they receive less than 1 percent of venture capital funding.

Many of the communities that I represent have populations of under 500 people. It places them among this underserved group. These overlooked people and places have inspired my legislation, H.R. 1190, the Expanding Access to Capital for Rural Job Creators Act.

As any small business owner can attest, the number one barrier to growth is access to capital. Through my own experiences, I know how difficult it can be for businesses to secure the funding that they need to grow. I have built businesses in technology, manufacturing, distilling, and real estate, and a primary driver in the success of all of these businesses was access to capital.

The SEC's Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation was created for just this reason: to identify capital access problems that small businesses face. However, rural small businesses are currently excluded from the required categories of businesses that the office monitors for these problems.

My legislation simply requires this office to identify and report to Congress the challenges faced by rural small businesses when trying to access our capital markets. H.R. 1190 will make it easier for Members of Congress to do our jobs to make sure rural businesses, like in Montana, are not left behind.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Bynum for partnering with me on this legislation. I was happy to see it pass out of the Committee on Financial Services with unanimous support. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3422) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation to provide educational resources and host events to promote capital raising options for traditionally underrepresented small businesses, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3422, the Promoting Opportunities for Non-Traditional Capital Formation Act, and I thank Representative Waters for her leadership on this bipartisan legislation.

Far too often, access to capital depends not on the quality of a business idea but on where that business is located. Data shows that the vast majority of venture capital investment flows to companies in just three States: California, Massachusetts, and New York, leaving entrepreneurs in other regions at a disadvantage.

This bill takes a targeted step to help address that imbalance. It directs the SEC's Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation to do more to support underserved entrepreneurs, particularly those in rural communities or outside of traditional investment hubs.

Specifically, the bill requires the advocate to provide educational resources and host public events that highlight the capital raising tools available under Federal securities laws. These tools exist, but many founders simply don't know how to use them or that they are even an option.

H.R. 3422 ensures that founders from all backgrounds and regions have the information they need to pursue the capital formation strategy that works best for their businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I explained earlier, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin) for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, right now the Montanans that I represent are staring down the barrel of a 26 percent tax increase. If Congress does not act soon, the average Treasure State family of four will lose more than $1,400 a year.

President Trump won a decisive victory on creating jobs, lowering costs, and making his signature tax law permanent. This resolution advances his full agenda that the American people overwhelmingly elected us to enact.

This is a game changer for individual filers, as well as farmers, ranchers, and small business owners that make up the backbone of the Treasure State's economy.

Our reconciliation bill delivers permanent death tax relief, benefiting over 2 million family-owned farms, ranches, and small businesses that would otherwise see their exemption cut in half.

Our bill provides permanent relief for the small businesses around the country that employ nearly half of Americans, while honoring President Trump's promise of no tax on overtime and no tax on tips.

Put plainly, a vote against this rule, or our one big, beautiful bill, is a vote to raise taxes on every single American. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Military Appreciation Month.

Being an Air Force veteran myself, I understand the sacrifices that are made every day by this Nation's men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. These sacrifices aren't just borne by our servicemembers but also by their families who support them and by their children who are left at home while we send them into harm's way to defend this great country and all that she represents.

To my brothers and sisters in arms in Montana and across this great Nation, I thank them. I thank them for taking the watch. I thank them for defending this Nation. I thank them for protecting us. They bring honor upon themselves. They bring honor upon their families, their communities, and to these great United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hill for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor.

The bill we have before us today reverses perhaps the most misunderstood rulemaking in financial services. On its face, you may look at a proposal to cap overdraft fees and think, wow, that sounds like a great idea. After all, who wants to pay more in fees?

However, in reality, the CFPB's rule capping overdraft fees is nothing more than an eleventh hour effort from Biden's rogue financial regulators to score political points at the expense of everyday Americans.

Financial institutions have to be able to generate profit from the products they offer. Otherwise, they will not be able to offer them at all.

By capping overdraft fees, the CFPB has made it increasingly more costly for banks and credit unions, especially those that service folks in rural districts like mine, to offer overdraft protection.

When these lenders are no longer able to charge competitive rates, they may be forced to cover the cost by increasing other critical services or stop offering the services altogether.

What does that result in? It results in less choice and less protection.

Imagine a single mother trying to make ends meet. She needs to feed herself and her son, the rent is due, but she doesn't have enough in her account to cover both. If she is not able to access overdraft protection or other far riskier means of short-term liquidity, imagine the outcome.

This rulemaking doesn't help people in these positions as it pretends to. It jeopardizes their survival.

When governments act as though they know better than the consumers and the markets, everyday people pay the price. Let's not make that mistake today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of my bill, the Safeguarding American Property Act.

In the 119th Congress, House Republicans have sent a clear message to criminal illegal aliens: If you break our laws, you go home.

Earlier this year, we passed the Laken Riley Act. My Safeguarding American Property Act builds on the good work of the Laken Riley Act by expanding the bill to include property crimes like trespassing and arson as deportable offenses.

Mitigating these types of property crimes is a particularly important challenge for border States and rural districts like mine which often have vast distances between homes and businesses and in which law enforcement resources are often spread thin.

This bill sticks up for those communities and upholds the fundamental American value of respecting property rights by providing additional legal requirements that ensure Federal immigration law is properly enforced.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Safeguarding American Property Act to further strengthen the good policies codified in the Laken Riley Act.