New Jersey

Q6 To date, there are over 80 operational data centers present in New Jersey, four more proposed, and another currently under construction. Governor Mikie Sherill has recently signed the Data Center Fair Share Act, allowing centers to offset energy demands by paying for clean energy upgrades to local homes. What other policies and regulations, if any, would you support to assess and manage the impact of these data centers on the environment and infrastructure of New Jersey?

NJ should welcome technological investment while ensuring data centers do not shift their environmental and infrastructure costs onto residents. I support requiring comprehensive environmental and infrastructure impact assessments before major data centers are approved, including impacts on electricity demand, water consumption, wastewater, traffic, and local grid capacity. Developers should pay their fair share of necessary infrastructure upgrades rather than relying on existing ratepayers. I would also support stronger energy-efficiency standards, renewable-energy requirements, water-reuse systems, and transparent reporting of energy and water consumption. State regulators should coordinate with utilities and municipalities to ensure projects do not compromise grid reliability or increase costs for families. Finally, communities should have meaningful opportunities for public input before approval. Economic development should go hand-in-hand with environmental responsibility, infrastructure capacity, and protecting New Jersey residents from unintended costs.

Q6 To date, there are over 80 operational data centers present in New Jersey, four more proposed, and another currently under construction. Governor Mikie Sherill has recently signed the Data Center Fair Share Act, allowing centers to offset energy demands by paying for clean energy upgrades to local homes. What other policies and regulations, if any, would you support to assess and manage the impact of these data centers on the environment and infrastructure of New Jersey?

I support the growth of data centers and the technology economy, but New Jersey should not allow economic development to come at the expense of our environment, infrastructure, or taxpayers. The AI economy will require enormous computing capacity, and we need to make sure that growth is managed responsibly.

I support requiring large data-center projects to undergo a comprehensive impact assessment before approval. That assessment should examine electricity demand, water consumption, wastewater, air emissions, noise, traffic, land use, and the impact on local roads and utility infrastructure.

Data centers should also be required to pay their fair share of the infrastructure costs they create. Residents should not see higher utility costs or taxes because a private company needs to build a massive new facility. Where additional generation, transmission, water, roads, or other infrastructure is required, developers should contribute appropriately to those costs.

I would also support stronger requirements for energy efficiency, renewable energy, battery storage, and waste-heat recovery, where technically and economically feasible. We should encourage data centers to operate increasingly on clean energy rather than allowing the growth of AI to become a reason for greater dependence on fossil fuels.

Water is another critical concern. Data centers should disclose their water consumption and demonstrate that their operations will not jeopardize local water supplies, particularly during periods of drought or water stress.

Finally, communities deserve a meaningful voice. Residents should have access to the environmental and infrastructure data used to approve these projects, and local governments should have the resources and expertise necessary to evaluate them.

New Thinking means embracing innovation without abandoning responsibility. New Jersey should welcome the AI economy, but we should build it in a way that creates jobs, strengthens our infrastructure, protects our environment, and ensures that the public receives a fair return on the resources these facilities consume.

We should not choose between technological progress and environmental responsibility. With smart policy, New Jersey can have both.

Q6 To date, there are over 80 operational data centers present in New Jersey, four more proposed, and another currently under construction. Governor Mikie Sherill has recently signed the Data Center Fair Share Act, allowing centers to offset energy demands by paying for clean energy upgrades to local homes. What other policies and regulations, if any, would you support to assess and manage the impact of these data centers on the environment and infrastructure of New Jersey?

Unchecked data center expansion presents a structural risk to taxpayers, public utility grids, and economic stability. With AI hardware facing rapid 3-to-5-year obsolescence cycles, speculative private buildouts threaten to leave public ratepayers funding stranded electrical grid upgrades if hype outpaces economic utility. While state-level ratepayer protections are a starting point, federal and state policy must address systemic financial risk. I support national data center capacity audits to distinguish durable computing demand from speculative overbuilding. Furthermore, I advocate ending uncapped corporate sales-tax exemptions for data center hardware, enforcing binding “take-or-pay” energy contracts so tech corporations—not working families—pay for 100% of grid expansion, and mandating off-grid self-generation for high-density compute facilities.

Q6 To date, there are over 80 operational data centers present in New Jersey, four more proposed, and another currently under construction. Governor Mikie Sherill has recently signed the Data Center Fair Share Act, allowing centers to offset energy demands by paying for clean energy upgrades to local homes. What other policies and regulations, if any, would you support to assess and manage the impact of these data centers on the environment and infrastructure of New Jersey?

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.

Q6 To date, there are over 80 operational data centers present in New Jersey, four more proposed, and another currently under construction. Governor Mikie Sherill has recently signed the Data Center Fair Share Act, allowing centers to offset energy demands by paying for clean energy upgrades to local homes. What other policies and regulations, if any, would you support to assess and manage the impact of these data centers on the environment and infrastructure of New Jersey?

I previously called for a moratorium on AI data centers until we fully understand the electric, water, and other economic, community, and environmental impacts. We have an opportunity to formulate how engage with this new technology responsibly. We need to shape its rollout so that it benefits the people and not the profit margins of billionaires.

Q6 To date, there are over 80 operational data centers present in New Jersey, four more proposed, and another currently under construction. Governor Mikie Sherill has recently signed the Data Center Fair Share Act, allowing centers to offset energy demands by paying for clean energy upgrades to local homes. What other policies and regulations, if any, would you support to assess and manage the impact of these data centers on the environment and infrastructure of New Jersey?

The rapid expansion of data centers, with their enormous appetite for water and power, can exacerbate extant environmental problems. Much of the electricity used to power data centers is presently sourced from fossil fuels, directly contributing to climate change. Data centers often place heavy burdens on local municipal drinking water and nearby watersheds, especially in water-stressed regions. As water evaporates to cool computer servers it concentrates and leaves behind pollutants in wastewater. Chemicals used for system maintenance, heavy metals from degrading pipes and excessive nutrients are then discharged to watersheds or to the surrounding land, leaching into the soil and contaminating groundwater and local wells. Cooling systems can release heated water and air back into the environment. Releasing warm water into local bodies of water, drastically changes ambient temperature, which disrupts aquatic ecosystems. So I support a moratorium out of concern about the ability to regulate the industry.

Q4 New Jersey has a longstanding history of being seriously affected by natural disasters. Recently, heavy rainfall brought a significant amount of flooding that caused damage and loss of business in commercial and residential areas of NJ. What policies, if any, would you pursue to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, and what role would state scientists and flood experts have in the policies you propose to mitigate the effects of flooding?

New Jersey needs to invest in both prevention and preparedness as flooding becomes an increasingly costly threat to homeowners, businesses, and infrastructure. I support expanding federal and state funding for stormwater systems, drainage upgrades, flood-control infrastructure, green infrastructure, and voluntary buyouts in repeatedly flooded areas. New development should also meet stronger, forward-looking flood-resilience standards rather than relying solely on historical flood maps. New Jersey has already moved in this direction through its Inland Flood Protection Rule and recent resilience initiatives. State scientists and flood experts should be central to these decisions. They should regularly update flood maps and rainfall projections, identify vulnerable communities, evaluate proposed infrastructure projects, and ensure taxpayer dollars are directed toward projects supported by the best available science. New Jersey’s Division of Science and Research already provides scientific support for climate-resilience planning. We should also improve emergency-warning systems and provide small businesses and homeowners with resources to prepare before disasters occur. The goal should be simple: use science to anticipate flooding, invest before disasters happen, and protect lives, homes, businesses, and taxpayers.

Q4 New Jersey has a longstanding history of being seriously affected by natural disasters. Recently, heavy rainfall brought a significant amount of flooding that caused damage and loss of business in commercial and residential areas of NJ. What policies, if any, would you pursue to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, and what role would state scientists and flood experts have in the policies you propose to mitigate the effects of flooding?

New Jersey cannot afford to treat flooding and natural disasters as unexpected events. We need to move from a reactive approach—cleaning up after disasters—to a proactive strategy that prepares communities before the next storm arrives.

As Congressman, I would support increased federal and state investment in modernizing stormwater systems, upgrading aging infrastructure, improving drainage, protecting critical facilities, and strengthening flood-prone roads and transportation networks. Communities should also have access to better emergency warning systems and faster disaster-response resources.

I would make state scientists, hydrologists, engineers, and flood experts central to this process. Policy decisions about where and how we build should be guided by the best available science, including updated flood maps, rainfall projections, watershed data, sea-level trends, and information about how development affects stormwater runoff.

I also support stronger coordination between federal, state, and local governments so that flood mitigation does not stop at municipal boundaries. Water does not recognize political boundaries, and neither should our planning.

We should prioritize investments based on risk and vulnerability, giving particular attention to communities that repeatedly experience flooding and lack the resources to recover on their own. Federal disaster assistance should also focus more heavily on mitigation and rebuilding resilient infrastructure rather than simply replacing what was destroyed.

This is New Thinking: don’t wait for the next disaster to tell us where our infrastructure is vulnerable. Use science, technology, data, and expert knowledge to identify those vulnerabilities now and invest accordingly.

Every dollar spent preparing a community before a disaster can save lives, protect businesses, and reduce the cost of rebuilding afterward. New Jersey deserves a disaster-resilience strategy designed for the future—not one based on the storms of the past.

Q4 New Jersey has a longstanding history of being seriously affected by natural disasters. Recently, heavy rainfall brought a significant amount of flooding that caused damage and loss of business in commercial and residential areas of NJ. What policies, if any, would you pursue to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, and what role would state scientists and flood experts have in the policies you propose to mitigate the effects of flooding?

Mitigating extreme weather in New Jersey requires prioritizing public infrastructure and ecological resilience over speculative real estate development. I advocate integrating state flood experts, geologists, and civil engineers directly into land-use and zoning decisions. Public policy must enforce strict stormwater management standards, mandate regional infrastructure upgrades, and restore natural wetlands rather than continuing to build in vulnerable floodplains.

Q4 New Jersey has a longstanding history of being seriously affected by natural disasters. Recently, heavy rainfall brought a significant amount of flooding that caused damage and loss of business in commercial and residential areas of NJ. What policies, if any, would you pursue to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, and what role would state scientists and flood experts have in the policies you propose to mitigate the effects of flooding?

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.

Q4 New Jersey has a longstanding history of being seriously affected by natural disasters. Recently, heavy rainfall brought a significant amount of flooding that caused damage and loss of business in commercial and residential areas of NJ. What policies, if any, would you pursue to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, and what role would state scientists and flood experts have in the policies you propose to mitigate the effects of flooding?

NJ needs to address coastline resilience before flooding occurs. I will champion policy and sustained funding for beach replenish, stormwater management, and resilient infrastructure. State scientists offer regional and local insight backed by evidence. Their expertise plays a vital role in developing projects and policies that are effective in the longterm.

Q4 New Jersey has a longstanding history of being seriously affected by natural disasters. Recently, heavy rainfall brought a significant amount of flooding that caused damage and loss of business in commercial and residential areas of NJ. What policies, if any, would you pursue to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, and what role would state scientists and flood experts have in the policies you propose to mitigate the effects of flooding?

Climate science recognizes that warming above 1.5ºC will significantly increase the potential onset of tipping points leading to consequences such as flooding. Reduction of fossil fuel consumption coupled with negative carbon emissions is now imperative. Toward that end Congress should create a cabinet-level Office of Climate Mobilization to coordinate all federal agencies and economic planning to meet climate safety and justice goals.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

NJ cannot remain a national leader if too many students are leaving school without strong foundations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. I would focus on both improving instruction and rebuilding the STEM educator pipeline. First, I support expanding federal and state funding for STEM programs, particularly in districts where students have historically had less access to laboratories, technology, advanced courses, and qualified teachers. Funding should follow student need, not simply district boundaries. Second, we need to make teaching STEM subjects more attractive. I would support scholarships and loan-forgiveness programs for students who commit to teaching science, math, engineering, or technology in New Jersey schools, along with competitive salaries and retention incentives for experienced educators. Third, schools should expand hands-on, evidence-based STEM instruction through laboratory experiences, career and technical education, apprenticeships, and partnerships with New Jersey’s universities, research institutions, and technology industries. Finally, we must strengthen evidence-based teaching practices and provide educators with meaningful professional development rather than relying on one-size-fits-all mandates.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

Yes. New Jersey cannot claim to be preparing students for the future while too many students are leaving school without strong foundations in science, mathematics, technology, and critical thinking. The disparities in science proficiency—particularly in underserved communities—should concern all of us.

As Congressman, I would support a statewide STEM education strategy built around three priorities: better teachers, earlier exposure, and hands-on learning.

First, we need to rebuild the STEM teacher pipeline. That means expanding scholarships, loan-forgiveness programs, paid student-teaching opportunities, and alternative pathways for qualified professionals in science, engineering, technology, and mathematics to enter the classroom. We should also provide incentives for experienced STEM educators to teach in schools facing the greatest shortages.

Second, STEM education should begin earlier and be available to every student, not just students in affluent districts. Students should have access to robotics, coding, engineering, laboratory science, artificial intelligence, and applied mathematics from elementary school through high school.

Third, we need to move beyond teaching students to simply memorize information for standardized tests. Evidence-based learning means teaching students how to ask questions, evaluate information, conduct experiments, solve problems, and apply what they learn to the real world. Technology and AI should be used as tools to personalize instruction and give teachers better ways to identify where students need help—not as replacements for teachers.

I would also support stronger partnerships among schools, universities, technology companies, and employers to provide internships, apprenticeships, mentorships, and hands-on STEM experiences that connect education to actual careers.

The goal should not simply be higher test scores. The goal is to create a generation of problem-solvers capable of competing in the AI economy and creating the technologies of tomorrow.

This is New Thinking: every child, regardless of their ZIP code, should have access to the knowledge, technology, teachers, and opportunities necessary to succeed.

We cannot build the future with an education system designed for the past.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

The decline in STEM proficiency reflects systemic underinvestment in public education and teacher retention. We must fully fund public STEM pipelines, incentivize educators with competitive salaries, and increase state support for under-resourced districts. Additionally, we must keep evidence-based science education focused on rigorous inquiry, technical literacy, and critical thinking, free from political interference.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

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.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

I support more robust federal funding for public education, some of which should be earmarked specifically for STEM curricula development, programming, teacher training, and expanded scholarship opportunities. A STEM education centered on data and access to laboratory settings is crucial.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

We must stop disinvestment in education and instead put it at the top of our social and economic agenda. Effective schools have sufficient resources. Too many of our teachers are overworked, underpaid, and starved of key materials. We should: . give K-12 classroom teachers professional status and salaries commensurate with advanced education, training and responsibility; . eliminate gross inequalities in school funding (federal policy on education should act principally to provide equal access to a quality education); . increase access to quality STEM education; . oppose efforts to restrict the teaching of scientific information and the portrayal of religious belief as fact; . educate students with courses in the environmental sciences, with a focus on the hands-on practice of Conservation Agriculture and emphasis on energy conservation; . include a comprehensive curriculum on climate change, biodiversity, and other planetary boundaries and environmental concerns.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

NJ cannot remain a national leader if too many students are leaving school without strong foundations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. I would focus on both improving instruction and rebuilding the STEM educator pipeline. First, I support expanding federal and state funding for STEM programs, particularly in districts where students have historically had less access to laboratories, technology, advanced courses, and qualified teachers. Funding should follow student need, not simply district boundaries. Second, we need to make teaching STEM subjects more attractive. I would support scholarships and loan-forgiveness programs for students who commit to teaching science, math, engineering, or technology in New Jersey schools, along with competitive salaries and retention incentives for experienced educators. Third, schools should expand hands-on, evidence-based STEM instruction through laboratory experiences, career and technical education, apprenticeships, and partnerships with New Jersey’s universities, research institutions, and technology industries. Finally, we must strengthen evidence-based teaching practices and provide educators with meaningful professional development rather than relying on one-size-fits-all mandates.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

Yes. New Jersey cannot claim to be preparing students for the future while too many students are leaving school without strong foundations in science, mathematics, technology, and critical thinking. The disparities in science proficiency—particularly in underserved communities—should concern all of us.

As Congressman, I would support a statewide STEM education strategy built around three priorities: better teachers, earlier exposure, and hands-on learning.

First, we need to rebuild the STEM teacher pipeline. That means expanding scholarships, loan-forgiveness programs, paid student-teaching opportunities, and alternative pathways for qualified professionals in science, engineering, technology, and mathematics to enter the classroom. We should also provide incentives for experienced STEM educators to teach in schools facing the greatest shortages.

Second, STEM education should begin earlier and be available to every student, not just students in affluent districts. Students should have access to robotics, coding, engineering, laboratory science, artificial intelligence, and applied mathematics from elementary school through high school.

Third, we need to move beyond teaching students to simply memorize information for standardized tests. Evidence-based learning means teaching students how to ask questions, evaluate information, conduct experiments, solve problems, and apply what they learn to the real world. Technology and AI should be used as tools to personalize instruction and give teachers better ways to identify where students need help—not as replacements for teachers.

I would also support stronger partnerships among schools, universities, technology companies, and employers to provide internships, apprenticeships, mentorships, and hands-on STEM experiences that connect education to actual careers.

The goal should not simply be higher test scores. The goal is to create a generation of problem-solvers capable of competing in the AI economy and creating the technologies of tomorrow.

This is New Thinking: every child, regardless of their ZIP code, should have access to the knowledge, technology, teachers, and opportunities necessary to succeed.

We cannot build the future with an education system designed for the past.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

The decline in STEM proficiency reflects systemic underinvestment in public education and teacher retention. We must fully fund public STEM pipelines, incentivize educators with competitive salaries, and increase state support for under-resourced districts. Additionally, we must keep evidence-based science education focused on rigorous inquiry, technical literacy, and critical thinking, free from political interference.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

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.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

I support more robust federal funding for public education, some of which should be earmarked specifically for STEM curricula development, programming, teacher training, and expanded scholarship opportunities. A STEM education centered on data and access to laboratory settings is crucial.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

We must stop disinvestment in education and instead put it at the top of our social and economic agenda. Effective schools have sufficient resources. Too many of our teachers are overworked, underpaid, and starved of key materials. We should: . give K-12 classroom teachers professional status and salaries commensurate with advanced education, training and responsibility; . eliminate gross inequalities in school funding (federal policy on education should act principally to provide equal access to a quality education); . increase access to quality STEM education; . oppose efforts to restrict the teaching of scientific information and the portrayal of religious belief as fact; . educate students with courses in the environmental sciences, with a focus on the hands-on practice of Conservation Agriculture and emphasis on energy conservation; . include a comprehensive curriculum on climate change, biodiversity, and other planetary boundaries and environmental concerns.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

NJ cannot remain a national leader if too many students are leaving school without strong foundations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. I would focus on both improving instruction and rebuilding the STEM educator pipeline. First, I support expanding federal and state funding for STEM programs, particularly in districts where students have historically had less access to laboratories, technology, advanced courses, and qualified teachers. Funding should follow student need, not simply district boundaries. Second, we need to make teaching STEM subjects more attractive. I would support scholarships and loan-forgiveness programs for students who commit to teaching science, math, engineering, or technology in New Jersey schools, along with competitive salaries and retention incentives for experienced educators. Third, schools should expand hands-on, evidence-based STEM instruction through laboratory experiences, career and technical education, apprenticeships, and partnerships with New Jersey’s universities, research institutions, and technology industries. Finally, we must strengthen evidence-based teaching practices and provide educators with meaningful professional development rather than relying on one-size-fits-all mandates.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

Yes. New Jersey cannot claim to be preparing students for the future while too many students are leaving school without strong foundations in science, mathematics, technology, and critical thinking. The disparities in science proficiency—particularly in underserved communities—should concern all of us.

As Congressman, I would support a statewide STEM education strategy built around three priorities: better teachers, earlier exposure, and hands-on learning.

First, we need to rebuild the STEM teacher pipeline. That means expanding scholarships, loan-forgiveness programs, paid student-teaching opportunities, and alternative pathways for qualified professionals in science, engineering, technology, and mathematics to enter the classroom. We should also provide incentives for experienced STEM educators to teach in schools facing the greatest shortages.

Second, STEM education should begin earlier and be available to every student, not just students in affluent districts. Students should have access to robotics, coding, engineering, laboratory science, artificial intelligence, and applied mathematics from elementary school through high school.

Third, we need to move beyond teaching students to simply memorize information for standardized tests. Evidence-based learning means teaching students how to ask questions, evaluate information, conduct experiments, solve problems, and apply what they learn to the real world. Technology and AI should be used as tools to personalize instruction and give teachers better ways to identify where students need help—not as replacements for teachers.

I would also support stronger partnerships among schools, universities, technology companies, and employers to provide internships, apprenticeships, mentorships, and hands-on STEM experiences that connect education to actual careers.

The goal should not simply be higher test scores. The goal is to create a generation of problem-solvers capable of competing in the AI economy and creating the technologies of tomorrow.

This is New Thinking: every child, regardless of their ZIP code, should have access to the knowledge, technology, teachers, and opportunities necessary to succeed.

We cannot build the future with an education system designed for the past.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

The decline in STEM proficiency reflects systemic underinvestment in public education and teacher retention. We must fully fund public STEM pipelines, incentivize educators with competitive salaries, and increase state support for under-resourced districts. Additionally, we must keep evidence-based science education focused on rigorous inquiry, technical literacy, and critical thinking, free from political interference.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

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.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

I support more robust federal funding for public education, some of which should be earmarked specifically for STEM curricula development, programming, teacher training, and expanded scholarship opportunities. A STEM education centered on data and access to laboratory settings is crucial.

Q5 In 2025, only 26% of NJ students met proficiency in science on standardized tests. In cities such as Newark, this is as low as 7%. Furthermore the number of math and science educators in NJ is waning (9% decrease). What policies, if any, would you propose to increase access to quality STEM education across the state and to address the decline in evidence-based learning?

We must stop disinvestment in education and instead put it at the top of our social and economic agenda. Effective schools have sufficient resources. Too many of our teachers are overworked, underpaid, and starved of key materials. We should: . give K-12 classroom teachers professional status and salaries commensurate with advanced education, training and responsibility; . eliminate gross inequalities in school funding (federal policy on education should act principally to provide equal access to a quality education); . increase access to quality STEM education; . oppose efforts to restrict the teaching of scientific information and the portrayal of religious belief as fact; . educate students with courses in the environmental sciences, with a focus on the hands-on practice of Conservation Agriculture and emphasis on energy conservation; . include a comprehensive curriculum on climate change, biodiversity, and other planetary boundaries and environmental concerns.

Q1 Exposure to PFAS has been associated with weakened immune response and impaired liver and kidney function. In 2018, New Jersey passed a rule setting enforceable limits on PFAS in drinking water, one of the first states in the country to do so. Levels of two of the most harmful PFAS chemicals have since dropped by nearly 50% compared to 2006, when concerningly high levels were first found. Despite this progress, gaps persist, including soils, air pollution, and private wells, which have limited monitoring of but serve 10% of the state’s population. Do you think current policies related to forever chemicals have had a positive impact on NJ residents and what additions, changes, or different policies, if any, would you implement regarding managing PFAS levels in New Jersey’s air, soil, and drinking water? (Source - NJ Spotlight news)

NJ’s PFAS policies have had a measurable positive impact. That progress demonstrates that strong regulation, monitoring, and investment in clean water infrastructure can protect public health. I would build on New Jersey’s progress with a comprehensive “source-to-tap” strategy. First, expand PFAS monitoring in air, soil, groundwater, and surface water, particularly near industrial facilities, landfills, airports, fire-training sites, and wastewater facilities. Second, strengthen protections for private-well owners through testing, public notification, and financial assistance for filtration where contamination is detected. Third, hold responsible polluters accountable so taxpayers and ratepayers are not forced to bear cleanup costs when responsible parties can be identified. Finally, we should continue reducing PFAS at the source by restricting unnecessary uses of these chemicals in consumer and industrial products. Clean water should not depend on a family’s ZIP code or whether they rely on a public system or private well. New Jersey should continue the progress it has made while closing the remaining gaps in PFAS protection.

Q3 New Jersey’s school-based mental health professionals-to-students ratios remain much higher than recommended levels, even as 42% of high school students and 50% of middle schoolers in the state reported feeling sad and hopeless according to a 2023 study. Do you support allocating resources towards researching this topic, and what policies, if any, do you support to address youth mental health and well-being in the state? (Source - Advocates for children of New Jersey, Source - NJ Spotlight news)

Yes. Youth mental health deserves both greater research and greater investment. Schools are often the first place where warning signs appear, yet New Jersey continues to face shortages of school counselors, psychologists, social workers, and other mental-health professionals. We need better data to understand which interventions work and where resources are most urgently needed. I support increasing federal and state funding for school-based mental-health services, with priority given to districts experiencing the greatest shortages and highest levels of student need. Schools should have sufficient counselors, psychologists, and social workers to provide early intervention—not simply respond when a crisis occurs. I would also support expanding school-based partnerships with licensed mental-health providers, telehealth options, and programs that connect students and families with affordable community-based care. Federal funding should help districts hire and retain qualified professionals, particularly in underserved communities. Prevention must also be part of the solution. Schools should provide age-appropriate education on mental health, stress management, substance-use prevention, and how to seek help, while protecting student privacy and parental involvement. Finally, I support continued research into youth mental health, including the effects of social media, bullying, academic pressure, and economic insecurity. Our goal should be a system that identifies problems early, provides accessible support, and ensures no child has to face a mental-health crisis alone.

Q1 Exposure to PFAS has been associated with weakened immune response and impaired liver and kidney function. In 2018, New Jersey passed a rule setting enforceable limits on PFAS in drinking water, one of the first states in the country to do so. Levels of two of the most harmful PFAS chemicals have since dropped by nearly 50% compared to 2006, when concerningly high levels were first found. Despite this progress, gaps persist, including soils, air pollution, and private wells, which have limited monitoring of but serve 10% of the state’s population. Do you think current policies related to forever chemicals have had a positive impact on NJ residents and what additions, changes, or different policies, if any, would you implement regarding managing PFAS levels in New Jersey’s air, soil, and drinking water? (Source - NJ Spotlight news)

Yes. New Jersey’s policies addressing PFAS have made a meaningful difference, particularly the establishment of enforceable drinking-water standards. The decline in PFAS levels shows that strong regulation, monitoring, and enforcement can protect public health. But we cannot declare victory while PFAS contamination remains a concern in our air, soil, groundwater, and private wells.

As Congressman, I would support a comprehensive PFAS strategy built on prevention, monitoring, accountability, and cleanup.

First, we need stronger monitoring of drinking water, groundwater, and private wells, with transparent reporting so residents know what is in the water they depend on. Families using private wells should have access to affordable testing and assistance when contamination is discovered.

Second, New Jersey must do more to identify and remediate PFAS contamination in soil and groundwater. Contaminated soil should not simply be moved from one community to another without appropriate safeguards.

Third, we need greater attention to PFAS emissions and industrial sources. Protecting our water while allowing PFAS to enter the environment through air emissions or industrial processes is not a comprehensive solution.

Finally, the polluter should pay whenever responsibility can be established. New Jersey taxpayers should not be forced to shoulder the full cost of cleaning up contamination created by companies that profited from these chemicals.

I also support phasing out nonessential uses of PFAS when safer alternatives are available, while relying on sound science for essential uses where alternatives do not yet exist.

The principle is simple: clean air, clean soil, and clean water should not be privileges—they are fundamental to healthy communities.

This is where we need new thinking: using science, technology, transparency, and accountability to prevent contamination before it happens rather than waiting decades to clean it up. Protecting people’s health must come before protecting anyone’s bottom line.

Q3 New Jersey’s school-based mental health professionals-to-students ratios remain much higher than recommended levels, even as 42% of high school students and 50% of middle schoolers in the state reported feeling sad and hopeless according to a 2023 study. Do you support allocating resources towards researching this topic, and what policies, if any, do you support to address youth mental health and well-being in the state? (Source - Advocates for children of New Jersey, Source - NJ Spotlight news)

Yes. I support increased research and resources for youth mental health. When nearly half of our young people report experiencing persistent sadness or hopelessness, we have to treat that as a serious public-health and educational issue—not something we can ignore until a crisis occurs.

New Jersey should invest in prevention, early intervention, and access to qualified mental-health professionals in schools. Students should not have to wait weeks or months to speak with a counselor when they are struggling. We need to work toward more appropriate student-to-counselor, psychologist, and social-worker ratios, particularly in communities where resources are limited.

I also support expanding partnerships between schools, healthcare providers, universities, and community organizations so students can receive additional support when school-based resources are insufficient. Research should help us understand the causes of youth mental-health challenges—including academic pressure, social isolation, bullying, family economic stress, and the impact of technology and social media—and identify which interventions actually work.

We should also provide educators with better training to recognize warning signs and connect students with appropriate professional support, while protecting student privacy and ensuring parents and families are appropriately involved.

Most importantly, we need to stop treating mental health as separate from a young person’s future. A student who is struggling emotionally may have difficulty learning, graduating, developing relationships, or preparing for the workforce.

New Thinking means addressing problems before they become crises. If we want New Jersey’s young people prepared for the future, we have to invest in the whole student—mind, education, skills, and opportunity.

Our children are not just tomorrow’s workforce. They are our future, and their well-being is an investment in the future of New Jersey.

Q1 Exposure to PFAS has been associated with weakened immune response and impaired liver and kidney function. In 2018, New Jersey passed a rule setting enforceable limits on PFAS in drinking water, one of the first states in the country to do so. Levels of two of the most harmful PFAS chemicals have since dropped by nearly 50% compared to 2006, when concerningly high levels were first found. Despite this progress, gaps persist, including soils, air pollution, and private wells, which have limited monitoring of but serve 10% of the state’s population. Do you think current policies related to forever chemicals have had a positive impact on NJ residents and what additions, changes, or different policies, if any, would you implement regarding managing PFAS levels in New Jersey’s air, soil, and drinking water? (Source - NJ Spotlight news)

New Jersey’s drinking water standards for PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA have proven that stringent regulatory limits deliver public health results. However, protecting 90% of residents while leaving private wells, soil, and air unmonitored creates an unacceptable disparity. As U.S. Representative, I support extending state and federal oversight across all exposure pathways. We must mandate baseline PFAS testing for private well systems, fully fund remediation assistance through the Spill Compensation Fund, and set strict discharge limits on industrial soil and atmospheric emissions. Environmental protection cannot stop at municipal water lines.

Q3 New Jersey’s school-based mental health professionals-to-students ratios remain much higher than recommended levels, even as 42% of high school students and 50% of middle schoolers in the state reported feeling sad and hopeless according to a 2023 study. Do you support allocating resources towards researching this topic, and what policies, if any, do you support to address youth mental health and well-being in the state? (Source - Advocates for children of New Jersey, Source - NJ Spotlight news)

The youth mental health crisis demands evidence-based public intervention, not administrative indifference. I support fully funding research into social and environmental stressors affecting students. In Congress and through state partnership, I advocate channeling resources toward meeting recommended student-to-professional ratios in public schools, expanding community health centers, and removing corporate algorithms that profit from youth psychological distress.

Q1 Exposure to PFAS has been associated with weakened immune response and impaired liver and kidney function. In 2018, New Jersey passed a rule setting enforceable limits on PFAS in drinking water, one of the first states in the country to do so. Levels of two of the most harmful PFAS chemicals have since dropped by nearly 50% compared to 2006, when concerningly high levels were first found. Despite this progress, gaps persist, including soils, air pollution, and private wells, which have limited monitoring of but serve 10% of the state’s population. Do you think current policies related to forever chemicals have had a positive impact on NJ residents and what additions, changes, or different policies, if any, would you implement regarding managing PFAS levels in New Jersey’s air, soil, and drinking water? (Source - NJ Spotlight news)

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.

Q3 New Jersey’s school-based mental health professionals-to-students ratios remain much higher than recommended levels, even as 42% of high school students and 50% of middle schoolers in the state reported feeling sad and hopeless according to a 2023 study. Do you support allocating resources towards researching this topic, and what policies, if any, do you support to address youth mental health and well-being in the state? (Source - Advocates for children of New Jersey, Source - NJ Spotlight news)

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.

Q1 Exposure to PFAS has been associated with weakened immune response and impaired liver and kidney function. In 2018, New Jersey passed a rule setting enforceable limits on PFAS in drinking water, one of the first states in the country to do so. Levels of two of the most harmful PFAS chemicals have since dropped by nearly 50% compared to 2006, when concerningly high levels were first found. Despite this progress, gaps persist, including soils, air pollution, and private wells, which have limited monitoring of but serve 10% of the state’s population. Do you think current policies related to forever chemicals have had a positive impact on NJ residents and what additions, changes, or different policies, if any, would you implement regarding managing PFAS levels in New Jersey’s air, soil, and drinking water? (Source - NJ Spotlight news)

Absolutely. Lower rates of PFAs in our soil, air, water, and foods should be celebrated. Likewise, we need to continue this work to reduce exposure even further through multi-pronged approaches including policy and community-centered messaging.

Q3 New Jersey’s school-based mental health professionals-to-students ratios remain much higher than recommended levels, even as 42% of high school students and 50% of middle schoolers in the state reported feeling sad and hopeless according to a 2023 study. Do you support allocating resources towards researching this topic, and what policies, if any, do you support to address youth mental health and well-being in the state? (Source - Advocates for children of New Jersey, Source - NJ Spotlight news)

Yes – the expansion of mental healthcare and mental health research is top priority of my campaign, as is appropriately funding educational systems through not only state-level departments but also via the federal government.

Q1 Exposure to PFAS has been associated with weakened immune response and impaired liver and kidney function. In 2018, New Jersey passed a rule setting enforceable limits on PFAS in drinking water, one of the first states in the country to do so. Levels of two of the most harmful PFAS chemicals have since dropped by nearly 50% compared to 2006, when concerningly high levels were first found. Despite this progress, gaps persist, including soils, air pollution, and private wells, which have limited monitoring of but serve 10% of the state’s population. Do you think current policies related to forever chemicals have had a positive impact on NJ residents and what additions, changes, or different policies, if any, would you implement regarding managing PFAS levels in New Jersey’s air, soil, and drinking water? (Source - NJ Spotlight news)

I do believe current reform policies related to forever chemicals have had a positive impact on NJ residents.

Q3 New Jersey’s school-based mental health professionals-to-students ratios remain much higher than recommended levels, even as 42% of high school students and 50% of middle schoolers in the state reported feeling sad and hopeless according to a 2023 study. Do you support allocating resources towards researching this topic, and what policies, if any, do you support to address youth mental health and well-being in the state? (Source - Advocates for children of New Jersey, Source - NJ Spotlight news)

I support allocating resources towards researching this topic. Additionally, I think that a single-payer “Medicare for All” healthcare insurance system would benefit youth by fostering a mental healthcare system that safeguards human dignity, respects individual autonomy, and protects informed consent.

Q2 In 2025, the National Institute of Health (NIH) awarded over $460 million for research grants and contracts to New Jersey universities and biotech companies, which directly supported over 5,800 jobs and $1.51 billion of economic activity in New Jersey. Additionally, New Jersey legislators have proposed a bipartisan bill that would repurpose tax revenue from tobacco sales as funding for cancer research. What policies, if any, do you suggest regarding maintaining current levels of federal support for health-related research and healthcare in NJ? Do you support a push towards channeling more of that financial support through state funding, and if so, through what policies?

I would work in Congress to maintain strong, predictable federal funding for NIH, medical research, cancer research, and programs that expand access to healthcare. Federal investment is essential because it provides the scale and stability necessary for long-term research that individual states cannot replicate. At the same time, New Jersey should strengthen its own research infrastructure rather than relying exclusively on Washington. I support creating dedicated, predictable state funding for cancer and other high-priority health research, including the proposed increase in funding for the New Jersey Commission on Cancer Research from $1 million to $10 million. State funding should prioritize competitive research grants, pediatric and rare diseases, clinical trials, prevention, and communities historically underserved by medical research. I would also support partnerships between New Jersey universities, hospitals, biotech companies, and government to move discoveries from the laboratory into affordable treatments. Federal and state investments should complement—not replace—each other, ensuring New Jersey remains a national leader in medical innovation while delivering tangible benefits to patients and families.

Q2 In 2025, the National Institute of Health (NIH) awarded over $460 million for research grants and contracts to New Jersey universities and biotech companies, which directly supported over 5,800 jobs and $1.51 billion of economic activity in New Jersey. Additionally, New Jersey legislators have proposed a bipartisan bill that would repurpose tax revenue from tobacco sales as funding for cancer research. What policies, if any, do you suggest regarding maintaining current levels of federal support for health-related research and healthcare in NJ? Do you support a push towards channeling more of that financial support through state funding, and if so, through what policies?

Yes. I strongly support maintaining—and where possible increasing—federal investment in health and biomedical research in New Jersey. NIH funding is not simply a line item in a federal budget; it is an investment in our universities, biotech companies, researchers, patients, and New Jersey’s economy. In FY2025, NIH awarded approximately $465.4 million to New Jersey, supporting an estimated 5,806 jobs and $1.51 billion in economic activity.

As Congressman, I would fight to protect competitive federal research funding and ensure New Jersey continues to receive its fair share. Research into cancer, cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders, and other serious illnesses saves lives while creating high-skilled jobs and strengthening our biotechnology economy.

At the same time, I support strategic state investment as a supplement—not a replacement—for federal funding. New Jersey should establish dedicated, predictable funding for priority areas such as cancer research, prevention, emerging diseases, and medical innovation. I also support using a portion of existing tobacco-related revenues for cancer research, provided those funds are protected from being diverted to unrelated purposes.

The state should also create competitive grants that connect universities, hospitals, biotech companies, and emerging researchers, with an emphasis on turning discoveries into treatments, companies, and jobs here in New Jersey.

My approach is simple: Washington should not be the only source of investment in New Jersey’s health future, but New Jersey should not have to carry the burden alone. We need a federal-state partnership that protects basic research, encourages innovation, and makes sure the benefits of that research reach patients and communities.

This is part of New Thinking: invest in science not only because it is good medicine, but because it is good economic policy. New Jersey can be a national leader in biomedical research, innovation, and the creation of the next generation of healthcare jobs.

Q2 In 2025, the National Institute of Health (NIH) awarded over $460 million for research grants and contracts to New Jersey universities and biotech companies, which directly supported over 5,800 jobs and $1.51 billion of economic activity in New Jersey. Additionally, New Jersey legislators have proposed a bipartisan bill that would repurpose tax revenue from tobacco sales as funding for cancer research. What policies, if any, do you suggest regarding maintaining current levels of federal support for health-related research and healthcare in NJ? Do you support a push towards channeling more of that financial support through state funding, and if so, through what policies?

Federal health research investments generate vital medical breakthroughs and local economic stability. I oppose federal budget cuts to NIH and NSF programs. To safeguard New Jersey against federal gridlock, state-level mechanisms—including channeling dedicated tax revenue directly into cancer research—provide necessary stability. We must protect public health from private capture by pairing state and federal research grants with strict public interest disclosures, ensuring taxpayer-funded breakthroughs yield affordable, accessible healthcare rather than corporate monopolies.

Q2 In 2025, the National Institute of Health (NIH) awarded over $460 million for research grants and contracts to New Jersey universities and biotech companies, which directly supported over 5,800 jobs and $1.51 billion of economic activity in New Jersey. Additionally, New Jersey legislators have proposed a bipartisan bill that would repurpose tax revenue from tobacco sales as funding for cancer research. What policies, if any, do you suggest regarding maintaining current levels of federal support for health-related research and healthcare in NJ? Do you support a push towards channeling more of that financial support through state funding, and if so, through what policies?

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.

Q2 In 2025, the National Institute of Health (NIH) awarded over $460 million for research grants and contracts to New Jersey universities and biotech companies, which directly supported over 5,800 jobs and $1.51 billion of economic activity in New Jersey. Additionally, New Jersey legislators have proposed a bipartisan bill that would repurpose tax revenue from tobacco sales as funding for cancer research. What policies, if any, do you suggest regarding maintaining current levels of federal support for health-related research and healthcare in NJ? Do you support a push towards channeling more of that financial support through state funding, and if so, through what policies?

I believe the federal government plays a critical role in NIH (and similar) funding and will work to restore those policies. While state funding is important, I do not believe that states alone should not bear the burden of funding research that benefits society at large.

Q2 In 2025, the National Institute of Health (NIH) awarded over $460 million for research grants and contracts to New Jersey universities and biotech companies, which directly supported over 5,800 jobs and $1.51 billion of economic activity in New Jersey. Additionally, New Jersey legislators have proposed a bipartisan bill that would repurpose tax revenue from tobacco sales as funding for cancer research. What policies, if any, do you suggest regarding maintaining current levels of federal support for health-related research and healthcare in NJ? Do you support a push towards channeling more of that financial support through state funding, and if so, through what policies?

I advocate increasing the levels of federal support for health-related research and channeling more of the financial support through state funding.