Pamela Jeanine Moses

A1: Protecting Tennessee’s Electricity, Water, and Air Quality

I support an immediate moratorium on new data center development and major expansions until independent, comprehensive research can determine their long-term effects on our electricity bills, water supply, public health, and environment.

My position is simple: Tennessee’s natural resources must serve the people of Tennessee first, not be sacrificed for the profits of large technology corporations.

I would support the following policies:

1. Protect ratepayers. Require data center operators to pay the full cost of the electricity, transmission infrastructure, and grid upgrades their facilities require. Residential customers should not be forced to subsidize these corporations through higher utility bills.
2. Protect our water supply. Require independent assessments of water consumption, groundwater and river impacts, drought risks, and future community needs before any project is approved. No data center should be permitted to consume water at a level that threatens residents, farmers, or local businesses. Require water conservation, recycling, and transparent reporting.
3. Protect our air quality. I oppose unchecked reliance on gas turbines and other fossil-fuel-powered generation that increases pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. All power sources must meet strict environmental standards, with enforceable emissions limits, independent monitoring, and meaningful penalties for violations.
4. Protect our climate and public health. Require a full environmental impact assessment that examines carbon emissions, air pollution, water use, noise, and cumulative impacts on surrounding communities. We must prioritize energy efficiency, responsible renewable energy development, and cleaner power solutions that protect public health without compromising grid reliability.
5. Require transparency and public accountability. Before approving new projects, require independent studies, public hearings, and full disclosure of projected electricity and water consumption, pollution levels, and infrastructure costs. Communities deserve a meaningful voice in decisions that affect their health and future.

My moratorium would remain in place until the necessary research is completed, the public has had an opportunity to participate, and enforceable safeguards are established. I will not support allowing development to move forward simply because a corporation promises jobs or economic growth.

Innovation should improve our quality of life, not threaten our access to affordable electricity, clean air, and safe water. Tennessee’s people and environment must come first.

A2: Childhood Vaccination — Protecting Parental Rights, Religious Freedom, and Public Health

I believe parents should have the right to make informed decisions about their children’s healthcare without government tyranny or unnecessary government interference. I am not against vaccinations. I recognize that vaccines have played an important role in preventing serious diseases, and vaccines such as those for measles, mumps, and rubella have a substantial body of scientific evidence supporting their safety and effectiveness.

However, I also believe that public trust in medicine must be earned through transparency, honest communication, and respect for individual freedom.

I support a parent’s right to make informed vaccination decisions based on their child’s medical needs, family circumstances, religious convictions, and cultural beliefs. Public health policies must recognize that Tennessee is home to diverse communities with different traditions, values, and concerns. Those beliefs should be heard and considered rather than dismissed.

I would support independent scientific research, transparent reporting of vaccine benefits and risks, accessible healthcare consultations, and public education that helps families make informed choices. I would also support reviewing vaccine requirements and exemptions to ensure that policies are medically justified, fairly administered, and respectful of constitutional and parental rights.

When disease outbreaks occur, the government should prioritize accurate information, voluntary testing, access to treatment, and community-based public health responses. Any restrictions on individual liberty should be carefully justified, proportionate to the actual risk, and subject to appropriate legal safeguards.

My position is not anti-vaccine; it is pro-choice, pro-parent, and pro-transparency. I believe science should inform our decisions, but government should not silence questions or treat parents as incapable of making responsible decisions for their children. We can protect public health while respecting parental authority, religious freedom, cultural diversity, and individual liberty.

The goal should be to build trust between families, healthcare professionals, and public health agencies—not to govern through fear or coercion.

A3: Flooding and Extreme-Weather Resilience — Investing in Tennessee’s Future

I believe Tennessee must take a balanced, practical approach to preparing our communities for severe weather. We cannot prevent every storm, but we can invest in stronger infrastructure, improve maintenance, and prepare our communities to recover more quickly.

First, I support increased investment in our roads, bridges, drainage systems, stormwater infrastructure, and electrical grid. Too much of Tennessee’s infrastructure is aging and deteriorating, particularly in Memphis, where improvements are needed to protect neighborhoods from flooding and ensure reliable public services. We must prioritize repairing crumbling infrastructure before it becomes an even more expensive emergency.

Second, we must do a better job maintaining our existing utility systems. Overgrown brush, dead trees, and unsafe limbs near power lines can contribute to outages during high winds and ice storms. I support regular vegetation management and responsible tree trimming by utility companies, with appropriate environmental safeguards and professional oversight. Preventive maintenance is often less expensive than restoring power after a disaster.

Third, I support strengthening flood-control systems, improving stormwater drainage, protecting vulnerable neighborhoods, and ensuring that new development does not unnecessarily increase flood risks. Communities recovering from devastating storms deserve the resources and technical assistance needed to rebuild more safely and resiliently.

Finally, I would work to improve emergency preparedness, coordinate state and local response efforts, and ensure that seniors, people with disabilities, rural residents, and low-income families are not left behind during prolonged power outages. We must also explore practical ways to strengthen grid reliability and diversify energy resources so Tennessee can better withstand severe weather.

My approach is simple: invest in our infrastructure, maintain what we already have, and prepare before disaster strikes. Responsible planning and preventive maintenance can save taxpayer money, protect lives, and help Tennessee communities recover faster when severe weather comes.

A4: Federal Science Funding — Investing in Research, Innovation, and Opportunity for All

I believe scientific research is essential to America’s future, and I support responsible federal investment in institutions such as Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the University of Tennessee, Vanderbilt University, and other research institutions throughout our nation.

My priority would be to ensure that research funding benefits Americans at every level—not just large universities, major laboratories, or corporations. Scientific discovery should create opportunities for rural communities, historically underserved populations, small colleges, local healthcare facilities, farmers, and the next generation of scientists and skilled workers.

I would support funding for the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation when investments advance medical breakthroughs, improve energy efficiency, strengthen national security, protect our environment, and create good-paying American jobs. I particularly believe we should invest more in finding cures for diseases such as Alzheimer’s and other conditions that place enormous burdens on families and our healthcare system.

At the same time, federal research dollars must be distributed fairly, spent responsibly, and subject to transparency and accountability. I would support expanding access to grants, apprenticeships, internships, and workforce training so that students and working people across Tennessee can participate in the benefits of scientific advancement.

Research is good, but it should happen at every level and benefit every community. My goal is to ensure that federal science funding produces meaningful results for everyday Americans, strengthens Tennessee’s economy, and helps us build a healthier, safer, and more prosperous future for everyone.

Q5: Trust in Science — Transparency, Integrity, and Accountability

I believe science is essential to making sound public policy. Science may not have been one of my strongest subjects in school, but I understand its importance in helping us make informed decisions that affect people’s lives, our economy, our environment, and our future. As a policymaker, I do not have to be the scientist in the room, but I do have a responsibility to listen to qualified experts, examine the evidence, ask questions, and make decisions that serve the public interest.

I believe restoring trust in science begins with honesty, transparency, accuracy, and accountability. Scientists and policymakers must work together, but that relationship must be built on credible research rather than political pressure, corporate interests, or personal agendas.

First, I believe scientists must communicate their findings in language that everyday people can understand. Research should not be limited to academic journals, university laboratories, or government reports that the average person may never read. When scientific findings affect our drinking water, electricity bills, healthcare, food supply, air quality, or children’s safety, the public deserves clear explanations of what the research shows, what it does not show, and how those findings may affect their lives.

Second, I believe scientific research must be accurate, independent, and free from manipulation. There should be no room for changing data, concealing unfavorable findings, exaggerating results, or presenting incomplete information simply because someone wants the public to believe a particular narrative. Research should be evaluated on its methods, evidence, and results—not on whether it supports a Republican or Democratic agenda, benefits a corporation, or advances an individual’s political position. Scientists must be free to report their findings honestly, even when those findings are inconvenient to people in power.

Third, I believe policymakers must be willing to listen to scientists while also asking responsible questions. Trust does not mean blindly accepting every claim made by someone with a scientific title. It means examining the quality of the evidence, understanding the limitations of a study, considering whether independent researchers can reproduce the results, and being willing to correct our decisions when new evidence becomes available. Science is a process of investigation and learning. When evidence changes, responsible policy should be able to change with it.

Fourth, I support greater collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and the communities affected by government decisions. We should establish opportunities for independent experts to brief lawmakers, hold public forums, explain emerging research, and answer questions directly from residents. Community members should also have opportunities to raise concerns and learn how scientific evidence was used to reach a policy decision. This is particularly important in underserved and rural communities, where people may feel that decisions are made about them without their participation.

Fifth, I believe federal research funding must be protected from political interference while remaining accountable to taxpayers. Agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy should be able to support credible, independent research based on scientific merit and public need. Funding decisions should be transparent, conflicts of interest should be disclosed, and research misconduct should have consequences. At the same time, the public deserves to know how its tax dollars are being spent and what benefits the research is expected to provide.

Finally, I believe we must teach scientific literacy and critical thinking from an early age. Our children should learn how to distinguish credible evidence from misinformation, understand the difference between a scientific finding and an opinion, and ask thoughtful questions without being discouraged from learning. An informed public is better equipped to participate in democracy and hold elected officials accountable.

My position is simple: science should inform public policy, evidence should guide our decisions, and integrity must never be sacrificed for political convenience. I respect the work of scientists, but I also believe their research must withstand independent scrutiny. There is no place for deliberate manipulation when people’s health, safety, livelihoods, and futures are at stake.

As a member of Congress, I would work to build a stronger partnership between the scientific community and the public we serve. We may not all have scientific degrees, but we all deserve access to accurate information and the opportunity to understand the decisions that affect our lives. Restoring trust requires scientists who communicate honestly, policymakers who listen responsibly, and a government that puts truth and the public interest above politics.