Macey Budke
Nebraska Working PeopleQ1 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as policy making related to public health, energy, agriculture, and environmental regulation. What role, if any, should scientific evidence and expert input play in your policymaking process, and how would you evaluate competing or uncertain scientific claims when making policy decisions? What role, if any, should that process play when scientific consensus and public opinion diverge?
“Scientific evidence and expert input should play a major role in policymaking, especially on issues like public health, agriculture, energy, the environment, and new technology. At the same time, policymakers also have to consider cost, practicality, local conditions, and how a policy will actually affect people and communities.
When scientific claims conflict, I would look at how strong the research is, how the study was designed, how many people or cases were included, whether the results have been repeated, whether other researchers reached similar conclusions, and whether there are conflicts of interest. If the science is still uncertain, we should say that clearly instead of pretending we know more than we do.
Scientific consensus matters because it reflects the larger body of evidence, but science should always remain open to new research and better information. Public opinion matters when deciding how policies are carried out, but public opinion does not change scientific facts. People deserve clear explanations of what the evidence shows, what we still do not know, and why a decision is being made.”
KEYWORDS: Evidence, Transparency, Practical policy
Q2 The United States has a growing artificial intelligence (AI) industry, supporting cutting edge innovation and reshaping businesses, but raising concerns about education, ownership, and security. Application of AI technology has increased the demand placed on data centers, controversial for their resource use (such as water and land) and raising utility costs. What are your policy positions in regards to data centers and AI? What are your reasons for supporting these policies?
“AI is a powerful tool, but the speed at which it is being adopted has outpaced the rules governing it. I support stronger safeguards around privacy, data collection, deepfakes, fraud, cybersecurity, and the use of AI in decisions that can seriously affect someone’s life. Companies developing and deploying these systems should be accountable when their products cause harm, and people should know when they are interacting with or being evaluated by AI.
I am also concerned about the rapid expansion of data centers. They can place enormous demands on electricity, water, land, and local infrastructure while communities may see relatively little long-term employment in return. I support strict reporting requirements, meaningful local review, protection of water and energy resources, and requiring developers to pay the infrastructure and decommissioning costs their projects create rather than shifting those costs onto residents and other ratepayers.
AI may provide real benefits, but “innovation” should not be used as an excuse to ignore predictable harms or allow private companies to push the costs and risks onto the public.”
KEYWORDS: Accountability, Resource protection, Responsible AI
Q3 Making the US competitive in the bioeconomy (using technology applied to renewable biological resources to produce food, energy and industrial goods) requires innovation and investments in business, academia and government. Please describe policies you will support, if any, that relate to workforce development in Nebraska’s strengths such as agriculture, biotechnology, and energy; and explain their rationale.
“I support workforce policies that connect education and training directly to the industries Nebraska already does well, including agriculture, biotechnology, energy, and manufacturing. That means stronger career and technical education, apprenticeships, community college programs, and partnerships between employers, schools, universities, and research institutions.
Federal workforce funding should be flexible enough to meet regional needs rather than forcing every community into the same model. I also support programs that help people earn industry credentials or complete training without taking on unnecessary debt, especially for skilled trades and technical jobs.
Innovation also needs to benefit the communities where it happens. When federal dollars support new agricultural technology, biofuels, biotechnology, or energy projects, workforce development should be part of that investment so local workers have a real opportunity to fill those jobs.
My goal is straightforward: invest in Nebraska’s strengths, build a skilled workforce here, and create more opportunities for people to build careers without having to leave their communities to find them.”
KEYWORDS: Workforce development, Career training, Rural opportunity
Q4 Federal grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) fund a substantial share of the scientific and biomedical research conducted at Nebraska’s universities, hospitals, and research institutions (approximately $205M per year according to NIH and NSF reports). NIH funding to NE institutions returns $2.50 for every $1 economic activity while supporting vital research in developing new treatments/cures for diseases. Similarly, both NIH and NSF research fill critical gaps in knowledge for advancing healthcare and other fields. What policies, if any, do you support regarding federal funding for scientific research agencies like the NIH and NSF? Why are these your priorities, and what information informed your approach?
“I support strong, consistent federal funding for agencies like NIH and NSF. Basic and applied research takes years, and constantly changing funding levels makes it harder for researchers, universities, and medical institutions to plan, retain staff, and carry promising work through to completion.
Funding decisions should be based on scientific merit, public benefit, and strong peer review, with transparency and accountability for how taxpayer dollars are spent. I also want federal research funding distributed more broadly so states like Nebraska, rural institutions, and smaller universities have real opportunities to compete.
My approach is informed by both the economic and practical value of this research. NIH and NSF funding supports jobs, workforce development, medical advances, agricultural research, and technologies that eventually reach patients, farmers, businesses, and communities. Nebraska has directly benefited from those investments, including new NSF funding in 2026 aimed at strengthening research and STEM capacity statewide.
Cutting research funding may reduce spending in the short term, but it can also slow discoveries and weaken our long-term competitiveness.”
KEYWORDS: Research investment, Scientific integrity, Nebraska innovation
Q5 Agricultural practices such as cover cropping and crop and livestock diversification, under appropriate conditions, provide benefits for soil health, water quality, and long-term agricultural resilience. At the same time, the feasibility and potential benefits of these practices can vary substantially. In what ways, if any, would you develop federal agricultural policy that accounts for the practical and economic needs of farmers and ranchers while also incorporating the best available scientific evidence on environmentally and agronomically beneficial practices?
“Federal agricultural policy should use the best available science without assuming one practice will work the same way on every farm or ranch. Soil, rainfall, water availability, crop type, livestock operations, and local economics all matter. Practices like cover cropping can provide real benefits, but they need to make sense for the operation and the region.
I support voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs that help producers adopt practices that improve soil health, water quality, drought resilience, and long-term productivity without putting the full financial risk on the farmer or rancher. Technical assistance and research should also be locally informed so recommendations reflect Nebraska conditions rather than a one-size-fits-all national standard. USDA already allows state-specific adaptation of conservation standards because conditions vary significantly by region.
Farmers and ranchers should be treated as partners in conservation policy. The goal should be practical stewardship that protects natural resources while keeping operations productive, financially sustainable, and in family hands.”
KEYWORDS: Voluntary conservation, Local flexibility, Farm resilience
Q6 In your opinion, what is the role of the federal government in environmental protection? What policies, if any, do you support that could contribute to natural resource stewardship, environmental research, or environmental protections in Nebraska and nationally?
“The federal government has a responsibility to protect shared resources like clean air, clean water, soil, and public lands, especially when pollution or environmental damage crosses state lines or cannot reasonably be addressed by one community alone.
I support strong environmental research, enforcement of existing protections, cleanup of contaminated sites, and continued investment in conservation programs that help communities and producers protect natural resources. In Nebraska, water deserves particular attention. Federal policy should support groundwater and surface-water monitoring, drought resilience, efficient irrigation, soil conservation, and locally led projects that protect water supplies without imposing one-size-fits-all requirements. Current Nebraska conservation programs already show how federal funding can support voluntary, locally tailored improvements in soil and water management.
Environmental policy also has to address long-term climate risks and changing weather patterns using the best available science. The goal should be protecting resources people depend on while giving communities, farmers, ranchers, and businesses practical ways to adapt and participate in solutions.”
KEYWORDS: Water protection, Conservation, Climate resilience