Eric Foreman

“The primary role of Science in Congress is to inform the Policy Makers, not dictate policy for them. When data leaves uncertainty, we need to look at the evidence quality. Can the data be replicated? Are there contradictions or omitted variables? Who’s funding the research and who benefits most from policy enacted with that data, as you would ask of any industry funded study. Always keep the policy reversible or flexible, even reject completely if the data is incomplete or unsubstantiated. During COVID, the institutions demanded compliance instead of scrutiny. Accredited Physicians were divided and Censored. “Trust the Science” is what broke our trust. Now We the People demand open data and protected dissent.”

KEYWORDS: Scientific Evidence, policy-making, open data, dissent

“AI is a genuine advancement and useful tool to help in what we can achieve, but we must remain vigilant and skeptical of how deep we let it run our society. Data centers can impose real costs on communities through water use, land use, utility rates, noise, and pollution. My policy is to support the people’s decision on whether to allow a data center in their community. If corporations want to use public resources, citizens should be compensated, much like the Alaska Permanent Fund, where companies pay into a fund that is invested locally or paid out as a dividend. I would also seek to end most tax incentives and subsidies for these projects. I suspect we are in an artificial data center bubble. Companies are building far more capacity than real demand justifies, or the true demand is not visible to the public. If that bubble bursts, communities will feel the harm more than the corporations. I would also require regular independent audits to ensure data centers comply with agreed terms on noise, decibel levels, and pollution.”

KEYWORDS: Vigilant, Subsidies, bubble, dividend, audit

“Nebraska’s heart is the bioeconomy. It runs on agriculture, biotechnology, energy. It needs a next generation to continue. Divert wasted funds/ grants for community college technician pathways, paid apprenticeships tied to employer demand in the industries.

I’d bundle three reforms already moving in Congress: Beginning Farmer Opportunity Act- capital gains exclusion when a retiring farmer sells or leases land to a beginning farmer, cutting the experience requirement on USDA ownership loans from three years to one, and full exclusion when farmland passes to a family member. Representatives Alford, Nunn, and Massie introduced the pieces; I’d cosponsor and combine them. Remove the walls that keep young people out of farming. Break the monopolies and market manipulations by allowing more freedom to process and sell your product on the market.

The rationale is simple. We train the next generation, open the door for them, and stop watching Nebraska’s value added work leave for lack of a reason to stay.”

KEYWORDS: Bioeconomy, beginning farmer, capital gains, apprenticeships, nuclear, monopolies

“I support NIH and NSF funding for Nebraska’s research institutions. That money matters here. But I would seek to reform how it’s spent. Cap the overhead universities bill on top of research grants, make them show where it goes, and rotate the peer reviewers so the same small circle isn’t funding itself. Strip out the mission creep. Return to the academics, away from the Social sciences and activism that drifted from basic research. I’d ban any federal funding for dangerous pathogen research in countries without real biosafety oversight. Mandatory public reporting of results. The $2.50 return is real, but it doesn’t justify a blank check. I want the science protected and the bureaucracy cut, not the other way around.”

KEYWORDS: Overhead, peer review, mission creep, biosafety, blank check.

“Farmers know their own ground better than Washington does. The same goes for ranchers. Grazing rotation and diversified pasture can build soil, but the prescription has to fit the land. I’d rather invest in the people growing our food than the programs managing them. If a farmer or rancher volunteers to participate and receive federal dollars, they only need to submit the data from their field and get paid for the information. Not for planting a specific crop or following a prescribed plan. That data has real value for our region, and it lands in the hands of the people doing the work, not the bureaucracy skimming off the top. No mandates, no guesswork. The farmer or rancher decides when or if they cover crop or diversify. Let the data decide if the practice is effective enough to continue.”

KEYWORDS: People over programs, Voluntary, Pay for data, not practices, Farmer decides, No mandates

“The federal government has a real but limited job. To keep interstate waters clean, clean up genuine contamination, and fund honest research, to prevent fraud and misuse of funding. It does not have a license to manage every ditch, draw, and acre from Washington. It should not federalize Nebraska’s groundwater.

The Ogallala is our lifeline. That aquifer is what keeps this state productive. Water rights belong with the land and the people who work it. Quantity and quality on that aquifer should stay with Nebraska’s Natural Resources Districts who are locally elected, basin-based, and already writing the rules that fit their ground. One-size federal water plan would treat the Panhandle like the Platte Valley and get both wrong.

What I would support nationally is the same principle we used on cover crops: invest in people growing our food, not the programs managing them. Fund land-grant research so producers get usable science for our soils and our aquifer. Keep the federal government on real rivers and lakes, not on dry ditches that only run after a storm. Farmers should not need a federal permit to irrigate, drain a field, or maintain a ditch. Stewardship starts with the people who live on the land, not with a permit from Washington.”

KEYWORDS: Limited federal role, Ogallala, Water rights, Local control, People over programs