Nebraska

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?

“I earned an advanced degree (LL.M.) in agricultural law. For many years the Dept. of Agriculture provided funding for programs that have proven successful for decades. It has funded valuable research. We should fully fund the Dept. of Agriculture and allow it to develop policies based on scientific evidence. We should also fund grants to universities and others best positioned to decide what works best in a particular area. A “one size fits all” policy on an issue is not always appropriate. Many regulations are burdensome on small operations, and Congress should recognize that and carve out exceptions. Farmers and ranchers should play an important role in developing policy.”

KEYWORDS: Funding, Participation

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?

“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

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?

“Data centers and AI are two different, but related, topics. Data centers generate constant noise. They consume precious water and huge amounts of electricity. I believe we must free state and local governments to regulate data centers. It’s odd that many who once preached the benefits of federalism and local control now threaten local governments that dare to attempt regulating data centers or AI. AI can be a useful tool in some areas, such as in medical diagnosis, but I’m concerned about the loss of jobs and its impact on America as a nation. I am very concerned about the use of AI in building a global surveillance state. I believe every American has a right to privacy, and I will push for legislation to protect that right and to impose tough penalties on those who violate that right. Tech billionaires are tracking everything we do, putting cameras on every corner, and getting rich while the rest of us work harder for less. We can’t let them turn the United States in a nation that has a social credit system like China.”

KEYWORDS: Regulate, Caution, Privacy

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 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

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?

“My answer largely incorporates what I have written in response to other questions. The federal government must play a strong role in protecting Americans and America’s natural resources. A Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, recognized the importance of conservation. Another Republican, President Nixon, created the EPA and said, “Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions.” We are the stewards of this Earth. It should not be a partisan issue. I would protect funding for agencies such as NOAA and the National Center For Atmospheric Research.”

KEYWORDS: Stewardship

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 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

Q13 What is your vision for science and research in the state over the next decade? What programs within state departments will you prioritize funding that relate to the state’s science strengths?

“Investing in science and research is a huge economic driver for Nebraska. Ensuring we have robust research and development locally ensures Nebraska’s future is vibrant. I have a proud history of supporting research grants and voting against cuts to these investments.”

Q14 What opportunities, if any, do you see for partnerships between state government, universities, industry, and nonprofit organizations to strengthen scientific research?

“We see the benefits of these partnerships every day in Nebraska, including through the breakthrough research occurring at UNMC right here in Omaha. Continuing to build on and expand these opportunities helps our communities thrive.”

Q15 Legislative appropriations for Nebraska’s public universities have not kept pace with inflation, and state universities are now being asked to further reduce their budgets (Peal, 2026). What role should the Legislature play in providing funding for higher education? What policies, if any, would you support to balance the state budget while also supporting Nebraska’s research capacity and student opportunities?

“Nebraska’s public universities are some of our strongest and most compelling economic development programs in our state. The return on investment is second to none, and I will continue to support ensuring our universities are funded appropriately.”

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.

“Here’s the truth. We can’t fund research and cut taxes for billionaires and mega corporations at the same time. For decades federal grants for research had bipartisan support because both parties understood the importance of it in industry and for job growth. We can’t rely solely on industry for research because industry research tends to focus on what will make a corporation profitable. I would work to restore and grow federal funding for research grants. I would also restore research funding for federal agencies such as the Dept. of Agriculture. If we want to compete successfully with other nations we must fund research that provides a highly competent workforce.”

KEYWORDS: Funding, Grants, Research

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.

“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

Q13 What is your vision for science and research in the state over the next decade? What programs within state departments will you prioritize funding that relate to the state’s science strengths?

“Investing in science and research is a huge economic driver for Nebraska. Ensuring we have robust research and development locally ensures Nebraska’s future is vibrant. I have a proud history of supporting research grants and voting against cuts to these investments.”

Q14 What opportunities, if any, do you see for partnerships between state government, universities, industry, and nonprofit organizations to strengthen scientific research?

“We see the benefits of these partnerships every day in Nebraska, including through the breakthrough research occurring at UNMC right here in Omaha. Continuing to build on and expand these opportunities helps our communities thrive.”

Q16 What role do you believe science, research, innovation, and STEM workforce development should play in Nebraska’s economy, state revenues, and accountable investments in the infrastructure and services that improve quality of life?

“Important to ensure all of these are pursued with sound, evidence-based policies.”

Q14 What opportunities, if any, do you see for partnerships between state government, universities, industry, and nonprofit organizations to strengthen scientific research?

“We see the benefits of these partnerships every day in Nebraska, including through the breakthrough research occurring at UNMC right here in Omaha. Continuing to build on and expand these opportunities helps our communities thrive.”

Q1 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?

“I served as prosecutor and took a graduate class in logic at UNL, so I believe policy makers should decide issues based on evidence. That includes scientific evidence where science can provide useful information. Consensus among disinterested experts is powerful evidence. Opinion from experts paid by organizations with an interest in the outcome is less credible. If there is true consensus among experts, that should carry more weight than public opinion. If there is a lack of consensus among disinterested experts, that’s warrants caution. If scientific consensus diverges from public opinion, scientific consensus is more powerful. History is replete with examples of science being ahead of the general populace. It was only about five hundred years ago that most people believed the sun revolved around the Earth.”

KEYWORDS: Objectivity, Credibility, Logic

Q1 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?

“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

Q12 In what ways, if any, would you incorporate scientific evidence when developing or evaluating public policy? How would you weigh scientific evidence alongside economic, ethical, and policy preferences when making decisions?

“I have a proud history of advocating for and supporting evidence-based policies during my first four years in the legislature. I am a big proponent of allowing experts in industry to help guide relevant legislation to ensure we are governing responsibly. I consider scientific evidence to be highly valuable in decision making and rank it highly alongside economic and ethical concerns.”

Q13 What is your vision for science and research in the state over the next decade? What programs within state departments will you prioritize funding that relate to the state’s science strengths?

“Investing in science and research is a huge economic driver for Nebraska. Ensuring we have robust research and development locally ensures Nebraska’s future is vibrant. I have a proud history of supporting research grants and voting against cuts to these investments.”

Q17 Can you describe your approach to evaluating whether a policy is achieving its intended outcomes, and what evidence would prompt you to revise it?

“Frequent consultation with experts in industry relevant to legislation in front of me. Known to be a strong collaborator with a wide spectrum of expert groups.”

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?

“As stated above, we can’t cut taxes for billionaires and mega corporations at the expense of cutting vital research that serves all Americans. I would work to restore and grow federal funding for these institutions.”

KEYWORDS: Funding, Grants, Research

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 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.

Q13 What is your vision for science and research in the state over the next decade? What programs within state departments will you prioritize funding that relate to the state’s science strengths?

“Investing in science and research is a huge economic driver for Nebraska. Ensuring we have robust research and development locally ensures Nebraska’s future is vibrant. I have a proud history of supporting research grants and voting against cuts to these investments.”

Q14 What opportunities, if any, do you see for partnerships between state government, universities, industry, and nonprofit organizations to strengthen scientific research?

“We see the benefits of these partnerships every day in Nebraska, including through the breakthrough research occurring at UNMC right here in Omaha. Continuing to build on and expand these opportunities helps our communities thrive.”

Q1 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?

“I served as prosecutor and took a graduate class in logic at UNL, so I believe policy makers should decide issues based on evidence. That includes scientific evidence where science can provide useful information. Consensus among disinterested experts is powerful evidence. Opinion from experts paid by organizations with an interest in the outcome is less credible. If there is true consensus among experts, that should carry more weight than public opinion. If there is a lack of consensus among disinterested experts, that’s warrants caution. If scientific consensus diverges from public opinion, scientific consensus is more powerful. History is replete with examples of science being ahead of the general populace. It was only about five hundred years ago that most people believed the sun revolved around the Earth.”

KEYWORDS: Objectivity, Credibility, Logic

Q1 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?

“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

Q13 What is your vision for science and research in the state over the next decade? What programs within state departments will you prioritize funding that relate to the state’s science strengths?

“Investing in science and research is a huge economic driver for Nebraska. Ensuring we have robust research and development locally ensures Nebraska’s future is vibrant. I have a proud history of supporting research grants and voting against cuts to these investments.”

Q17 Can you describe your approach to evaluating whether a policy is achieving its intended outcomes, and what evidence would prompt you to revise it?

“Frequent consultation with experts in industry relevant to legislation in front of me. Known to be a strong collaborator with a wide spectrum of expert groups.”