Mark Nair
DemocraticQ1 In June 2026, USDA confirmed New World screwworm in Texas livestock for the first time in decades; as of early July, dozens of infestations have been confirmed across South Texas (USDA APHIS , 2026). USDA estimates a full-scale outbreak comparable to past infestations could cost the regional economy billions of dollars (USDA APHIS). What policies, if any, would you support to respond to the current outbreak and improve Texas’s agricultural biosecurity (practices and safeguards that prevent pests and diseases from spreading through livestock populations), and what evidence or considerations would inform that approach?
Fully fund inspectors back to previous levels and restore funding to make the Screwworm Adult Suppression System fully active. We know this system works. It’s been close to 50 years of eradication in the U.S. and Mexico. We understand the science behind eradication, and the scientific research is solid (for example, the paper An Overview of the Components of AW-IPM Campaigns against the New World Screwworm demonstrates the history of successful eradication methods. What we’ve done, unfortunately, is to turn our backs on the overwhelming evidence and we have neglected to fund programs that work.
Keywords: Restore funding for inspectors and for the SASS system.
Q2 Texas is on track to become the nation’s leading data center market within the next three years (Bloom Energy, 2026). The state’s grid operator has more than doubled its 2030 forecast for data center power demand over the past year (ERCOT, 2025). Such growth brings economic opportunity while placing significant demands on water, land, and energy systems, raising questions about tax incentives, utility costs, and local community impacts. What policies, if any, would you support around water/energy allocation, tax incentives, or utility costs for data center development in Texas, and what evidence informs that position?
I will dispute the economic benefits. These hyperscaler data centers are extractive to both the economy and environment. The district I’m in is on the nation’s largest fresh water aquifer, and we are draining that water at an alarming rate. Add data centers, and the loss is more severe, especially now in a time of significant drought.
I support a freeze on data center construction until we have complete transparency on costs and environmental affects. No public official should sign an NDA with a private company. That obscures the truth and hides backroom deals.
When we talk about energy allocation and costs, data centers not only should pay exactly what their grid power costs, but they absolutely need to pay for the costs of building out the power infrastructure. This is a true hidden cost right now, and power companies and billing regular people for something that should not be something they pay for.
Local and state tax incentives have warped the incentives for everyone. And the federal tax deductions for this construction has only exacerbated the rush to build. The financial models around AI and LLMs are fragile (which is an understatement), and the technology is simply normal, regular tech. It’s not some kind of magical thing that we hear about. My first patent in 1999 is on a type of computer automation. AI is simply modern automation, and it automates to the mean. It’s a statistical computation engine, and it can only do what is average.
This means we tax the automation processes. We tax the robots. We tax not just labor but capital put into these insane capital expenditures. We tax the large corporations who have one goal: replace human intellectual work with automated work.
Keywords: Extractive economically. Extractive on resources.
Q3 Texas faces flooding while simultaneously experiencing water scarcity driven by drought, groundwater depletion, and population growth (TWDB, 2024). Hundreds of Texas waterways are listed as impaired for bacteria, mercury, and other pollutants, threatening water quality for communities across the state (TCEQ, 2024). Agriculture is the largest consumer of the state’s groundwater, yet it is also well positioned to be a valuable partner in conservation efforts. What policies, if any, would you support to improve Texas’s water infrastructure, and what considerations would guide your approach to the state’s agricultural economy?
My first priority in national office is to quickly find the funding to set up a true scientific and research hub in the Texas Panhandle to replenish the water in the Ogallala aquifer. Every conversation, every discussion, about the water source for 20% of the nation’s agriculture is around its use but never around replacement. People say we have 50 years of water left. But we don’t talk about year 51. (And 50 is a very, very optimistic number; there are towns now in the panhandle that have no water.)
We need better incentives for farmers and ranchers to invest heavily in water reclamation and more efficient watering methods. This is a long conversation about crops, soil, evaporation, the role of playa lakes, and how to manage our water the best way and the most sustainable way for the future.
Keywords: Replenish the aquifer
Q4 The Texas power grid continues to face strain from extreme heat and increasing demand, including from data centers. What policies, if any, would you support to improve grid reliability for Texas consumers and businesses?
Increase incentives and investment in green energy. Texas, until recently, had done a good job at making this transition away from fossil fuels. But we still need investment in research around battery and energy storage solutions, including clever answers using heated salt and solar thermal.
I would like to massively increase our research budget into nuclear fusion. We have fallen behind South Korea, China, and Europe, and right now we’re losing our brightest scientific minds to those countries
The best energy is energy we don’t use. We should be better incentives for home insulation, heat pumps, and solar microgrids for localized energy production.
Keywords: Renewable energy, fusion research
Q5 Texas universities and hospitals receive approximately $1.9 billion annually in NIH funding across 118 research sites, supporting tens of thousands of jobs and driving medical and scientific innovation (FASEB, 2025). NIH grants reimburse institutions for both direct research costs and indirect costs, the facilities, administration, and support infrastructure that make research possible. A 15% indirect cost cap proposed by NIH in 2025, currently blocked by federal courts, would sharply reduce this reimbursement below the rates Texas institutions have negotiated, cutting an estimated $300 million in annual support that institutions would need to absorb or backfill (Kamerlin & Elias, 2025). What policies, if any, would you support at the state or federal level to protect the long-term stability of Texas’s research infrastructure, and why?
I am a mentor for the National Science Foundation I-Corp program, and I am a member of the National Academy of Inventors. What we’re doing with our funding of NIH programs and NSF programs is reprehensible. The United States used to be the leader of the world in science, research, and progress. Starving our universities and their research facility is a death blow.
I support increasing NIH (and NSF) funding, which increase was in the 2026 appropriations bill. The most important policy I support, however, is reclaiming Congress’ power over the money. Right now the executive is running all over Congress, making the entire branch of government superfluous. The most important task is to stand for the people, for science, and for the rule of the Constitution. That gives Congress the power to allocate the money.
Keywords: Increase funding to the NIH and NSF. Reclaim Congress’s authority
Q6 Texas kindergartners’ measles vaccination rate fell to 93.24% in the 2024-2025 school year, a decline from prior years amid a national resurgence (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2025). That year, Texas recorded 762 confirmed measles cases, including the deaths of two unvaccinated school-age children, in the state’s largest outbreak since 1992 (Texas DSHS, 2025). Measles can cause serious complications: roughly 1 in 5 unvaccinated people who contract it are hospitalized, and it can lead to pneumonia, brain swelling, or death (CDC). As a policymaker, how do you approach engaging with communities that have concerns about infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety, and what policies, if any, would you support related to these issues, and why?
I support vaccines and vaccine schedules for children (and for the military). Even now I talk with people in this district about the increasing number of measles cases and the direct connection to lack of vaccination. Transmitting an infectious diseases is not a personal choice. It’s a public health matter. It’s absolutely insane that we are ignoring the benefit of vaccines, which are the most successful and powerful medical innovation humans have ever developed.
We need more community communication about the benefits of good health and good science. We have ceded that to cable TV and self-proclaimed “experts” who have absolutely no knowledge of the research and diligent work that has, for more than 50 years, gone into making public health safe for everyone.
Q7 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge the helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such 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?
All good decisions should come from following inquiry and the scientific method. We should have reasonable debates on the scientific merits, and apply critical thinking to every policy consideration. For too long these debates have become frantic arguments based not in rational discourse, but in political theater. We should always base good policy in arguments we present in good faith, with a good understanding of details.
When scientific consensus and public opinion diverge, we have not done a good job explaining the science or, at the very least, being persuasive about where the facts take us. Not one owns different facts, just interpretations. And we can dilute those interpretations by applying rigorous standards of analysis and reproducibility.
I will ask the experts. If the scientific claims lack certainty, let’s look for consensus from the best minds we have. The role of subject expertise does not belong in Congress. We are elected to listen, find the experts, and guide the policy.