Ryan Michael Kelly

Yes. New Jersey’s experience demonstrates that enforceable standards, monitoring, and science-based regulation can reduce exposure to dangerous chemicals. I support continuing and strengthening that approach. At the federal level, I support strong EPA drinking-water standards for PFAS, continued research into their health effects, expanded monitoring, and federal assistance to communities facing expensive testing and remediation. We also need to address exposure beyond public water systems, including private wells, soil, air, industrial sites, and the movement of PFAS through our environment. I believe in the polluter-pays principle. The cost of cleaning up contamination should not simply be transferred to homeowners and taxpayers when responsible parties can be identified. I would also support funding to help private-well owners test their water and, when contamination is detected, obtain appropriate treatment or alternative water supplies. Finally, policy should evolve with the science. PFAS represents a large family of chemicals, and government should not wait for decades of damage before responding when credible scientific evidence identifies additional risks.

I strongly support robust federal funding for health and scientific research, including NIH funding. New Jersey is home to universities, hospitals, researchers, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and other institutions that contribute significantly to medical innovation. Federal research funding is not simply an expense. It supports jobs, trains scientists, strengthens our economy, and produces discoveries that can improve and save lives. I would oppose arbitrary or politically motivated cuts to peer-reviewed scientific research. Funding decisions should be based primarily on scientific merit, public need, research integrity, and potential benefit. I am also open to New Jersey supplementing federal research funding, including dedicated state support for areas such as cancer research. However, state funding should supplement rather than replace the federal government’s role. Medical research benefits people across state lines and requires sustained national investment. I would also support strengthening opportunities for early-career researchers and ensuring that promising research is not abandoned simply because scientists face unpredictable funding cycles.

Yes. I support both research into youth mental health and resources that translate evidence into accessible care. Mental healthcare is healthcare. Students should not have to reach a crisis before they can receive help. At the federal level, I support funding programs that increase the number of qualified school counselors, psychologists, social workers, and other mental-health professionals. I also support partnerships between schools, universities, healthcare providers, and community organizations that can expand the pipeline of trained professionals. Research is essential because we need to understand not only rates of anxiety, depression, suicide risk, and other concerns, but what interventions actually work. Policy should follow evidence rather than political assumptions. I would also support prevention, early intervention, suicide-prevention resources, and better connections between schools and community-based care. Ultimately, my support for universal healthcare includes comprehensive mental healthcare. A young person’s ability to receive treatment should not depend upon family income, insurance status, or whether their school happens to have sufficient resources.

New Jersey cannot treat increasingly serious flooding as a problem to address only after disaster strikes. We need to invest in prevention and resilience before communities are underwater. I support sustained federal investment in flood mitigation, modern stormwater systems, resilient roads and infrastructure, improved drainage, floodplain restoration, wetlands and other nature-based solutions where appropriate, and assistance for communities and property owners undertaking mitigation. Scientists, engineers, hydrologists, meteorologists, flood experts, emergency managers, and local officials should have a central role in these decisions. Government should use current flood maps, rainfall data, climate projections, land-use information, and modeling when deciding where infrastructure dollars will have the greatest impact. I would also support improving federal, state, county, and municipal data sharing so communities are not planning independently with incomplete information. We will never eliminate every natural disaster, but evidence-based planning can reduce damage, protect lives, lower long-term costs, and help communities recover more quickly when disasters occur.

As an educator, I believe access to high-quality STEM education should not depend on a student’s ZIP code. I support federal investment in recruiting, preparing, and retaining qualified STEM educators, along with modern laboratories, technology, broadband, instructional materials, and hands-on learning opportunities. STEM education is also something I have encountered outside the traditional classroom. I am a member of Triangle Fraternity, an organization founded around engineering and now focused on engineering, architecture, and the sciences. I am also involved with Civil Air Patrol, whose aerospace education programs use hands-on STEM learning to introduce young people to aviation, space, technology, and related careers. I strongly support evidence-based education. Students should learn how science actually works: asking questions, evaluating evidence, testing hypotheses, recognizing uncertainty, and changing conclusions when better evidence becomes available. I also support partnerships connecting students with colleges, laboratories, skilled trades, employers, scientists, and other professionals. Our goal should be scientific literacy for every student and meaningful opportunities for students who want to pursue STEM careers.

Data centers are necessary infrastructure for our increasingly digital economy and for technologies such as artificial intelligence, but communities should not be expected to subsidize their enormous energy, water, and infrastructure demands. I support New Jersey’s approach of requiring large data centers to pay their fair share of energy and grid costs. I would also support strong transparency requirements for energy and water consumption and meaningful environmental review before major projects are approved. At the federal level, I support research and standards encouraging more energy-efficient computing, advanced cooling technologies, water conservation, clean power generation, battery storage, and grid modernization. Communities should also have meaningful input before projects are approved. Policymakers should evaluate cumulative impacts rather than reviewing each facility in isolation, particularly where multiple data centers could strain the same electric grid, water supply, roads, or community. I am not opposed to technological development. I want innovation to proceed responsibly, with the companies benefiting from these facilities paying the costs they create rather than shifting those costs onto residents and small businesses.