Elliott Scheirman, Libertarian, District 2:
I believe that over 15,000 deaths in Texas and over 200,000 in the US is far too high. Viral outbreaks shouldn’t be politicized and they shouldn’t be dismissed as a hoax. The government should be providing education, best practices, and proper safety equipment. It shouldn’t be making things into a wedge issue.

Christopher Claytor, Libertarian, District 3:
No, the government at all levels has, yet again, failed us. We cannot rely on the government or the CDC to protect us during this crisis — this pandemic has proven they are incapable. The lesson for America is simple — while regulations are sold by big government politicians as a way to protect the public, they end up having unintended consequences that hurt the very people they’re meant to help. The Libertarian Party calls upon the CDC and FDA to stop obstructing the private sector’s response to the crisis, and upon the president to remove all import restrictions on coronavirus tests and to stop putting political considerations ahead of the American people. This is an emergency that bureaucrats are ill-equipped address. Instead of drowning the private sector in red tape, the federal government should get out of the way and free the creative genius of America’s scientists and businesspeople to tackle this emergency head-on.

Kevin Hale, Libertarian, District 5:
The CDC would not allow testing for COVID 19 until after an illegal test confirmed our first case on 1/20/2020 and then mass testing wasn’t made available until after the National Emergency on 3/13/2020. We had 53 days of basically zero testing, before our government acted. Some Congress Critters had this information and decided to make stock trades, instead of warning us of the dangers. NO the response was late and a total knee jerk reaction to a pandemic that got out of control because government agencies like CDC and FDA have manipulated the healthcare market for their crony buddies. My pandemic preparedness is not the problem, it's the government that fails to be transparent and acts too slowly.

Carolyn Salter, Democrat, District 5:
I do not believe the response has been appropriate on either the state or federal level. Our elected officials wavered on shelter-in-place and mask mandates and in doing so, allowed for the exposure and spread of this disease. This event has not changed how I view pandemic preparedness because I—like most experts—have known for a long time, since Trump first started stripping our pandemic preparedness measures in 2018, that this sort of crisis would be catastrophic. I believe that we need to have measures in place that protect the American people, from scientific experts constantly tracking potential new viruses to federal funding allocated specifically for this reason.

Melanie Black, Libertarian, District 6:
Considering how little information was known about this virus, the handling of it was likely as well as can be expected from government. Information and recommendations changed quickly and we're still learning.

Hopefully more people and communities have learned from this and start their own preparedness plans to gather supplies and collect funds. Local businesses, churches and relief organizations can get help to people faster and more efficiently.

Ted Brown, Libertarian, District 17:
The response has been terrible from the start. The initial problem was not enough testing, and this was mostly caused by FDA regulations that prevented use of tests that were working in other countries. The same problem came in with masks, which are obviously needed but were limited by federal regulators. Then there was a shortage of respirators where different governments were fighting for the same equipment. It was just total incompetence at the federal level, combined with President Trump only being concerned with numbers and how it affected his election chances. What is needed is universal testing, including tests that can be done at home like pregnancy tests, so that people know if they are infected or not and decide how to protect their families.. It's pretty basic. People were worried right out of the gate and started to stay home and limit activity. But governors and mayors panicked and started the very unfair lockdowns, business closures, and limiting of medical procedures. I was opposed to this from the start, since these emergency measures violate our constitutional rights. At this point, we need to get economic activity moving again across the country. And we still need universal testing. And certainly an effective vaccine and/or cure would be great.

Vince Duncan, Independent, District 18:
Please keep in mind that the Covid 19 Pandemic has been a Global Crisis that started in Wuhan China, and there is no real time table on just how long the Chinese Government covered up the fact the Virus had been spreading throughout China. Also we have to note that it could have been years that this Virus had been spreading, and to Protect its Economic interest around the World China remained Silent. Given that this Pandemic was an Unprecedented Global Crisis there was no BluePrint to follow. I think the President was Proactive in Shutting Down Border Entries that could have spread the Virus even Faster.This Event has Changed the Worlds perspective on Airborne Diseases and how quickly that can spread. As a Nation We Have To Invest More Into Public Health Issues to Teach The American Public how to protect themselves from Future Pandemics.

Darren Hamilton, Libertarian, District 24:
After six months of hearing the varied responses in our media news feeds, I think I can safely state that the initial governmental response to COVID-19 erred on the side of caution while simultaneously being excessively overreaching. Libertarians, as a general rule, oppose the idea that the government has the ability to 'force' anyone, or any private business, to do anything. Our view has been to open everything, but do so mindfully and let the owners and patrons decide what level of risk they are comfortable with. This event has not changed my views on pandemic preparedness which were aligned with the preparedness posture in place before it was recently eviscerated. Science and medicine may not be perfect, but decisions like this should be removed from the political arena and returned to acknowledged experts in their fields.

Bill Kelsey, Libertarian, District 25:
I believe most people did the best they could with the information they had during confusing times. That being said, it is noteworthy that such a huge section of the population is so distrustful of authority now that they would believe some rather outlandish conspiracy theories. I would advocate for a world in which the reaction to such situations is based purely on science, and not political considerations, and that those in authority would refer to the best scientific information available, and be trustworthy enough that people would accept guidance on appropriate voluntary action.

Phil Gray, Libertarian, District 27:
The government has signally failed in one parameter in the pandemic response. To my knowledge, no decision maker has told the public what conditions would warrant extraordinary government intervention, such as mask mandates, limits on crowd size, or shutdowns. If the entity believes that limitations on the availability of some item, say ICU beds, requires a mandated response, they should tell the public what they are watching, the level at which mandates may become necessary, and the current level. Allow the public to respond to ensure we never reach that level. Tell the people what steps they can take to prevent reaching the dangerous level, and the people will respond, and will be prepared to weather the approaching storm, should the mandate occur. Beyond that, trade practices and government regulation have combined to create shortages. Hoarding of scarce supplies has added to the difficulty. Government should have eliminated bottlenecks that prevent the people from arming themselves with necessary masks, sanitizing supplies, and test kits. Licensing test kits, both for the virus, and for antibodies, would make it possible for the people to establish whether they are asymptomatic carriers, or capable of donating plasma to cure the stricken. Misinformation, from the White House on down, has complicated the response. It is imperative that the people be told the truth, as best as it can be known. I have never believed that the US could be so poorly prepared to cope with a pandemic. I believe that informing and arming the people is the best preparation for future pandemics, that and eliminating certificate of need limitations. While the government might have a vested interest in making sure that rarely used but necessary equipment remains available, they have no need to limit that availability.

Bekah Congdon, Libertarian, District 28:
I do not agree with the overall government response to the pandemic, either nationally or in Texas. The only role the government should have filled was to provide the most accurate and up-to-date information, and to make the best suggestions for businesses and individuals. Instead, both Republicans and Democrats politicized a disease and made responses to this disaster from a partisan position, rather than a scientific one.

Jaimy Blanco, Republican, District 29:
The Houston Chronicle prints a daily county-by-county graphic of the Covid-19 cases in Texas. Their highest number is 150 cases per 10,000 people. That means that 9850 out of 10,000 people DON’T have the disease. The key response requirement seems to keep the current rate of severe cases low enough to prevent the filling of available hospital beds and available ICUs with more cases than can be handled. This has been done on a statewide basis. It is clear that the manufacturing processes for medicines and surgical masks and other medical equipment need to be located within the United States or USMCA countries and not imported from overseas.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat, District 30:
As a non-practicing registered nurse and a Senior Member of US Congress I am deeply concerned about the COVID-19 spreading within the United States and the current administration’s handling of this potential public health crisis.

The American people deserve and desperately need strong, organized leadership at this moment, but the response to date has been dangerously inadequate.

The potential of a pandemic is not a matter of economic or political benefit, it is a matter of life and death.

From the start, I urged the Administration to establish a strong chain of command for the U.S. government’s pandemic response with clearly identified authority to coordinate an administration-wide response.

Clark Patterson, Libertarian, District 31:
Libertarians believe that no solution to the Covid pandemic can involve mandatory shutdowns of the economy or lockdowns of Americans with compulsory stay-at-home and shelter-in-place orders. Free people, free markets and the private sector could have and should have developed virus testing, contact tracing, PPE equipment and ultimately any vaccine(s) to the virus. Consequently, Libertarians oppose funding for government programs such as Operation Warp Speed.

Colin Allred, Democrat, District 32:
It is clear that the COVID-19 crisis was a result of a lack of national leadership. We have lost 200,000 American lives and counting to COVID-19, and it did not have to be this way. For months, the President dismissed the threat of the virus and took no serious action to prepare for the health crisis we faced, costing thousands of North Texans their lives.

The way we beat this virus is with a nationally coordinated, comprehensive plan to protect our public health that is mirrored on the state and local level. We must listen to public health professionals, ramp up testing to be accessible and affordable for everyone with quicker and more accurate results, increase contact tracing and ensure that our frontline workers have access to the resources and supplies they need to continue to care for as many people as possible. We must also continue to deliver economic relief to North Texans and support our local governments.

In Congress, I voted for the CARES Act to ensure North Texan families get the economic relief they need during this crisis and I also passed the HEROES Act which includes more funding, expands state and local coronavirus relief funds to help first responders, provides more economic relief including expanded unemployment benefits and small business relief.

It is unacceptable that this Administration has failed to put in place a coordinated, national coordinated strategy on testing, tracing and treatment. To ensure that the reopening of our communities is safe for everyone, and we hope to prevent the spread of a widespread pandemic in the future, we must have plans backed by science. As North Texas continues to face mounting positive cases, action is needed. I will keep working in Congress to dramatically ramp up testing, tracing and treatment, deliver economic relief to North Texans and support our local governments.

Christy Mowrey, Libertarian, District 32:
No, We should've had testing out much sooner and voluntarily quarantined those who test positive with symptoms. We never should've closed the economy or mandated masks. Allow people to decided the risks they are willing to take and protect the elderly and immune compromised. The role of the government in Covid-19 is to inform and educate not to dictate and mandate.

Jason Sigmon, Independent, District 32:
• The pandemic response in Texas and across the United States has been a disaster. Our neighbors have died, businesses have closed, and our government's response has been to play petty dictator and ignore community needs.
• My perspective on pandemic preparedness has not changed. We are not a healthy country and have created cities designed for cars, not people. We make that problem worse by encouraging and subsidizing food that leads to obesity, not long-term health.

Anthony Cristo, Libertarian, District 34:
I believe the handling of the pandemic has been heavy-handed and myopic. The opinion of one doctor should not be the sole basis of making a decision on handling a health crisis. A comparison of numbers shows that the light-touch used by Sweden was more effective than the extreme measures taken in Texas and the United States.

Texas, with a population of 29.9 million people, presented 771 thousand COVID-19 cases since the pandemic. This amounts to 2.57% of the population being infected. Of those 771 thousand cases, 15,840 resulted in death. This means that of the 2.57% of the population infected, there was a 97.95% survival rate.

Sweden, with a population of 10.23 million people, presented 90,923 COVID-19 cases since the pandemic. This amounts to 0.89% of the population being infected. Of those 90,230 cases, 5,880 resulted in death. This means that of the 0.89% of the population infected, there was a 93.52% survival rate.

A number of doctors I personally spoke with all said that measures to protect yourself should be taken but not to the extreme as it has. They particularly stated that the elederly, newborns, and those with compromised immune system should be particularly careful, but that a person in relatively good health should be able to handle it without hospitalization.

As for pandemic preparedness, I say we consult more than one doctor before making decisions. We should get a “second opinion,” like we do when we have a doctor with a questionable prognosis.

Jason Mata, Independent, District 35:
NO, I DON’T BELIEVE THAT THE COVID-19 RESPONSE IN TEXAS AND U.S. WAS APPROPRAITE. YES, MY VEWS REGARING PANDEMIC READINESS HAS CHANGED. I FEEL THAT WE NEED TO TAKE STEPS TO BE PREPARED FOR FUTURE PANDEMICS AND TERRIORST ATTACKS.

Hal Ridley, Green Party, District 36:
I think the response to the pandemic is criminal negligence. Covid19, means Nov.-Dec. 2019, it was named and people knew the threat was coming. PPE, masks, gloves, robes and ventilators, hand washing, and 6' distancing was too much to expect from this government. A straight answer and clear information could not be heard from this administration or congress. Toilet paper was too much to ask. They failed and are still failing.

Elliott Scheirman, Libertarian, District 2:
Using insurance as a metric for access to healthcare is a problematic premise. Health care in this country would cost 1/3 of what it does now if the government were less involved in restricting competition, open markets for medicine accessibility, and mandates for one-size-fits-all coverage for insurance. Imagine being able to buy insulin from India for ¼ the price or to run to a clinic in your neighborhood shopping center for some quick stitches that you just pay cash because they advertise a competitive price.

Christopher Claytor, Libertarian, District 3:
I, as all Libertarians, favor a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

Kevin Hale, Libertarian, District 5:
They have to compete for customers; and therefore are more likely to offer advanced technology and services at lower cost to attract customers. I know, some will freak out about wanting to turn all the medical services over to the consumer driven market, but that is exactly what we had before Insurance and Government interfered with the Doctor/ patient relationship, essentially becoming the buyer of services and leaving the patient out of the decision making process for treatment.This action added cost to the doctors services, because in order to collect their pay, the Doctors had to hire administrators, to file all the necessary paperwork to collect. These administrators have "zero value added" to the doctors services, they only add cost.

How do I know returning to a model that removes government and insurance interference will be cheaper? We have a couple working examples in Ft Worth and Oklahoma.

Surgery Center of Oklahoma, doesn't accept Insurance or Medicare they are Cash only service providers and their cost is typically 1/15th to 1/20th that of traditional hospitals. Their Pricing is online so use it to negotiate with your insurance/hospital. https://surgerycenterok.com/

The DPC Healthcare model is also a good way to approach this need. This membership model of healthcare is very reasonably priced and can handle close to 90% of regular healthcare needs. Here is a link, check it out for yourself. https://dpchealthcare.com/

I would work to have up front pricing required by all medical providers, as that alone would make healthcare more affordable.

NOTE: Neither of these private companies have given any money to my campaign.(I would return it, if they did) I only highlight their services to show that we do have working solutions that operate outside the current paradigm.

Carolyn Salter, Democrat, District 5:
Our healthcare system needs to be transformed. Our current system, which relies on employer-based healthcare, has failed to be tenable in a pandemic. The core of these reforms needs to be creating a system that puts patients over drug and insurance company profits. I want to fight for healthcare that is affordable, accessible, and financially transparent, regardless of whether we have commercial insurance, public access to Medicare, or some other model. Public health systems are clearly lacking and need reinvestment. We need a healthcare system across this country, not just a national system of payment that is more responsive to the medical-industrial complex.

Melanie Black, Libertarian, District 6:
I would propose we take steps to untangle insurance from employment. Rather than offering benefits, the employer could pay a benefit package that the employee could spend as they wish. This would encourage more insurance companies to enter the marketplace, could help save employers money as well as employees. Job loss is a frightening thing, and losing healthcare coverage is a big part of that. It would be easier for a person on unemployment to cover their insurance premiums this way.

There is no easy, one size fits all answer to this. Hospitals will continue doing charity care where they can and communities can make use of low cost clinics whenever possible.

Ted Brown, Libertarian, District 17:
There is too much government involvement in health care now, reducing choice and driving up costs. I believe in a free market in health care. For now, we need some basic reforms. People should be able to buy health insurance across state lines and buy prescription drugs from other countries. Licensed doctors and nurses from other states and other countries should be welcome to do their jobs here, without requiring Texas licensing. And of course Texans should be highly encouraged to modify their diets and to exercise more. If you are healthy, you are less in need of medical treatment.

Vince Duncan, Independent, District 18:
We have to Clarify the Difference between Good Health Care And Health Insurance Policies.We have been Conditioned to believe that if you don't Have Health Insurance you Will Die, it is very Important to Note that even the Best Medical Attention Available people are still Dying. With That Said Healthcare has to Be a Personal Priority For Every American, Here In Houston for example we have Charity Hospitals and County Hospitals That have been caring for the Common Good of All Texans for Decades. In Order to Get an Idea of the Cost Of Healthcare we should have the Healthcare Institutions and Providers to Publish the Prices. Consider this they have as an Industry been Funded by Federal and State Governments and they receive Generous Donation from Private Donors in addition to that the Patients Pay.

Darren Hamilton, Libertarian, District 24:
In general, the Libertarian mindset would be to remove government influence from healthcare as much as possible and let the free market determine which insurance plans are worth keeping and which are not. Quite frankly, I remain unclear as to what any federal legislation can do to make such assurances. At a federal level, my efforts would be directed toward streamlining the FDA, and removing the administrative roadblocks set by the government to prevent private and free market enterprises from developing and testing new medications. Protecting the health and safety of Americans is important, but not at the expense of limiting potentially life-saving medications from being developed and tested.

Bill Kelsey, Libertarian, District 25:
I would seek advice from those health professionals who know more than I do. In an enlightened society no one will go without medical care for lack of funds. My hope is that as much as possible can be accomplished simply, and through voluntary actions in the free market and private charity. I have doubts about the situation in which government, health providers, and insurance are all doing their best to outwit each other and inflate costs at the expense of the consumer and taxpayer.

Phil Gray, Libertarian, District 27:
To increase healthcare coverage, I would allow organizations to negotiate healthcare coverage for their members. To bring down the cost of healthcare, I would require that insurers state on their website what they would pay for a procedure. I would require that participating providers state on their website what they would charge for a procedure or medication, and let the consumer decide among available coverage, care and providers. Beyond that, I have proposed that we begin to pay down our national debt, and make the monies freed up available to loan. Loan it to those with catastrophic losses, so they can get the treatment they need. Later on, they can figure out how to pay it back, through donations, congressional assistance, or otherwise. We have some of the most expensive healthcare in the world, but we are not rated number one in outcomes. We must reduce the cost, and find and address the causes that prevent us from being world class.

Bekah Congdon, Libertarian, District 28:
Government has to get out of the business of healthcare. Anything the government attempts to take over becomes more expensive and less efficient. Without government regulation and red tape in the healthcare market, more options become available, and quality of care increases.

Jaimy Blanco, Republican, District 29:
While the first statement above is correct in that Texas has the lowest rate of health insured persons in the country (from a 2019 U.S. Census study), the corollary statement that this necessarily causes worse outcomes is not exactly correct.

According to Kaiser Family Foundation Data, Texas has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States as a whole, despite having a lower than average abortion rate. It is also true that Texas has one of the lowest rates of breast cancer in the United States and an average mortality rate from breast cancer. Texas also has an average range percent of childbirths funded by Medicaid, which shows that (lack of) health insurance coverage can be and is supplemented by other programs. Also, the life expectancy of the average Texan is just slightly higher than the U.S. average.

In the end, health care access is an individual responsibility, and the payment of health care costs is not necessarily the same as the acquisition of health services. The best solution is the provision of more free market solutions, the pre-posting of service prices and rates, the enabling of competitive market forces to drive down excessive prices, the reduction of excessive testing and defensive medical practices to reduce the likelihood of lawsuits, and the education of individuals to engage in price shopping and cost-benefit analysis as they do for other services.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat, District 30:
As a non-practicing registered nurse, I understand how important access to quality, affordable health care is for all Americans. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of Texans are already seeing lower health care costs and receiving better insurance coverage. I support making tweaks when necessary to keep our healthcare system successful because no law is perfect but the Affordable Care Act has served us well thus far.

Clark Patterson, Libertarian, District 31:
Libertarians believe that Obamacare should be phased out. We should also phase-out Medicare and Medicaid within one to two generations. Libertarians believe there should be no governmental involvement in healthcare. Unfortunately, too many Americans today believe that healthcare is a right. It is not. Removing all levels of government from healthcare would, in the long run, greatly reduce overall health care spending. In a complete healthcare free market, Americans would pay almost all of their health care costs "out of pocket." Health insurance, if it even existed in a healthcare free market, would likely only pay for medical emergencies.

Colin Allred, Democrat, District 32:
Texas is home to the largest uninsured population, and that number has risen since the spread of COVID-19. Everyone should have access to high quality, affordable health care, regardless of income, medical history or employment status. That’s why I led the effort to protect our health care from partisan attacks and fight back against the Trump Administration’s lawsuit that would gut the Affordable Care Act. We must stabilize health care markets and protect the Affordable Care Act. Texas should expand Medicaid and extend coverage to Texans who need help. I’ve also stood up to pharmaceutical companies and helped lead the effort in the House to pass sweeping legislation that would lower prescription drug prices across the board. I also support lowering the age of Medicare and allowing people to buy into a Medicare like public option which would create competition and lower costs. Health care is my top priority and I’ll continue this work in Congress on behalf of North Texans.

Christy Mowrey, Libertarian, District 32:
Privatize healthcare and make it easier to get low-cost prescription drugs. Stop the corruption from big pharma.

Jason Sigmon, Independent, District 32:
• Create federally funded community clinics that focus on prevention and early diagnosis. These clinics would also handle most Medicaid patients who are frequently taking advantage of in private practice.

Anthony Cristo, Libertarian, District 34:
First of all, there is a huge difference between having health insurance and having health care. Forcing people to buy insurance, even when subsidized by taxpayer funds, simply causes the prices to artificially inflate because hospitals and pharmaceutical companies know that payment is guaranteed no matter the price.

A good example is Mylan Pharmaceuticals, the company that manufactures EpiPens. After the Affordable Care Act guaranteed payment for their product, the price of EpiPens increased 500% without any increased cost to production. It is also important to note that Heather Bresch became CEO of Mylan Pharmaceuticals, shortly after ACA passed, with a $50 million a year salary. Heather Bresch is the daughter of Senator Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia who led the charge in passing ACA. My solution would be Health Savings Accounts and price listing of services, pharmaceuticals and equipment.

Currently, a Health Savings Account lets you set aside money on a pre-tax basis to pay for qualified medical expenses.You can only use these untaxed dollars in a Health Savings Account (HSA) to pay for deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and some other expenses. However, HSA funds are generally not permitted to pay for premiums.

If we allow people to use HSA’s to cover their medical expenses tax-free, we will put control of your medical care in the hands of the individual and the doctor instead of the medical board the insurance uses, which may not even have a specialist in the field you need.

Jason Mata, Independent, District 35:
I WOULD FIRST WORK TO ASSURE THAT TEXAS ACCEPTS FEDERAL MATCHING BLOCK GRANTS AND LOOK INTO MODIFING QUALIFING INCOME GUIDELINES TO ENSURE THAT MORE INDIVIDUALS MAY QUALIFY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE LIKE MEDICAID.

Hal Ridley, Green Party, District 36:
Health Care in modern nations is a human right except for the U.S. Here health care is to maximize corporate profit to whatever the market can bare. The pandemic proves when people have no health care we all suffer. Medicare and Medicaid should be expanded to those with need. To repeal ACA is a clear sign we need Mental Health Care as well.

Elliott Scheirman, Libertarian, District 2:
Unfortunately, this needs to be stated up front: Climate change is real. Denialism is a major threat to the future of our species. Texas has 3,359 miles of coastline and nearly ¼ of our 26.5 million population lives near enough to be affected if seawater rises as a result of melting polar ice caps. We need to hold polluters accountable and remove artificial corporate limits to liability, enact foreign policies that punish polluters abroad, and encourage responsible personal consumption habits.

Christopher Claytor, Libertarian, District 3:
Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.

Kevin Hale, Libertarian, District 5:
The challenges are not limited to Texas; they are global. Warming greenhouse effects will cause oceans to rise and flood our coastal residence. Rising temperatures will force changes in plant life and could threaten our ability to grow enough food. We could see massive animal extinctions. Not a great outlook if you take this seriously, which I do. Can Hemp be a green energy source and environmental savior? Yes.. Hemp can be used to make both biodiesel and ethanol based fuel for our vehicles. It can also be used to make batteries, which are very efficient by the way. Hemp can be used to make textiles that compete with cotton, and it uses less water and zero pesticides compared to cotton, saving our water consumption and keeping our planet's inhabitants safe from poisonous pesticides. Hemp can be used to make paper products, saving the forest from massive pulp cuts. Hemp can also be used to make plastics that can biodegrade in 80 days, saving our future oceans from plastic pollution. Hemp can also be used to pull heavy metals from the soil to reestablish a productive plot of land. Hemp concrete and pressurized wood products are CO2 negative products that actually help us address global warming. I want a vibrant and consumer driven hemp infused economy that isn’t over regulated or licensed. Hemp could make my rural counties far more prosperous as the diversity of this plant could make the farming industry very profitable for those early adopters.

Carolyn Salter, Democrat, District 5:
We absolutely need to address the climate crisis which is now becoming a catastrophe. I have been concerned with this crisis since I was a young girl, and as we’ve barreled toward the obvious outcome of decades of environmental neglect, I’ve become increasingly worried about our future. One of our priorities should be shifting jobs to the renewable energy sector. As a Congressperson, I would support rejoining the Paris Agreement.

Melanie Black, Libertarian, District 6:
The involvement of government in 'fighting' climate change will likely only lead to more waste and bureaucracy.

We have seen the problems in areas like Flint Michigan where the EPA and state government failed the community.

An industry who wishes to have a positive image in the community will find ways to manage their waste and emissions in the best way possible. There are a plethora of regulations on the books already.

Nuclear energy is touted as a very low carbon emission source of energy. Pros and cons to this should be explored, preferably by private industry.

Ted Brown, Libertarian, District 17:
I'm not certain that Texas can do much about the climate by itself. Climate is always changing from natural phenomena, and now due too human activity as well. The problem is what to do about it. Most of the proposals I have seen are a long wish list of policies that would damage modern industrial civilization while not doing much to reduce emissions or cool the planet. Alternative energy sources are a good idea, but at this stage they can't produce the amount of energy that fossil fuels can. We have to look closely at nuclear power, since it's a relatively clean energy source without the emissions that fossil fuels produce. I favor a free market in energy, rather than government command and control.

Vince Duncan, Independent, District 18:
Environment is right at the top of my Political Platform, Without Clean Air, Water and Soil We Can Not Survive. As Texans We Are The Energy Capital Of The World and it is a Trade Off, to maintain Refining Capacity to Fuel The World and Provide a Huge Economic Base for our State.

Darren Hamilton, Libertarian, District 24:
The largest issue with climate change predictive models is that nothing is ever certain except that we believe something will happen. In Texas, all of the conditions we have seen that can be attributed to climate change are viewed in hindsight and, while they point to the effects of climate change, they cannot be used to predict future effects with any degree of certainty. The area that most directly affects global climate change has to do with America's energy needs in the 21st century while simultaneously addressing climate change. Renewable energy production is probably the most effective method to combat known man-made climate effects, and Texas leads the country (and most of the world) in wind energy production. If elected, any policies that I would co-sponsor or introduce would work toward retaining Texas as a leader in multiple sources of renewable energy production.

Bill Kelsey, Libertarian, District 25:
A major challenge is that the science is politicized. Attempts to understand the phenomenon are clouded by references to political preferences. I am always seeking information on the subject from purely scientific sources and hope for enlightened guidance.

Phil Gray, Libertarian, District 27:
Climate change has already increased hurricanes, in number, in severity, and in speed of advance, with increased flooding. I seek to reduce the national debt, and to make the funds freed up available to the victims of natural disasters, so they can more swiftly get on with rebuilding their shattered lives. I propose that funding be freed immediately for loans, upon declaration of disaster, so they can buy a car, get a hotel, start to rebuild. With that funding readily available, building supply houses will be able to set up supply depots in stricken neighborhoods, to facilitate the rebuild. Initial losses may be underwritten by FEMA, the first time, and insurers may pay the remainder. Subsequent losses will be on the property owner, and the insurer. Failure to incorporate flood control, hurricane strapping, and fire protection would prevent FEMA from assisting again. Other effects of climate change may include drought, and increased wildfires. This danger can possibly be ameliorated with desalination plants and piping. Controlled burn programs will reduce the severity of wildfires, as will responsible stock handling. Funding may be found in loans from the debt fund. Sea level rise will eventually necessitate pulling back from low lying areas. This will get quite expensive in the case of refineries, and chemical plants now grouped along the Houston Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, and many other Texas locations. Loans may underwrite some of the expense of those moves, along with those of the people affected. It must be noted that all of the repayment of these loans will be applied to reduce the principal of the national debt, and every dime will be available immediately to loan to others.

Bekah Congdon, Libertarian, District 28:
We see the challenges daily, but especially in the quantity and severity of hurricanes. I don’t believe that we have a clear government solution to Climate Change, and the US Government is one of the largest polluters in history, so there isn’t a positive track record there. I believe the market is clearly demanding climate healthy options from producers, and I believe that we seriously need to move toward nuclear power.

Jaimy Blanco, Republican, District 29:
The statement suggests that there is a significant short term change in the climate and that there is something mankind can do to address it. The biggest factor in the earth’s climate is the irradiance of the earth by the sun (that is why we have seasons), and we have no control over that at all. We may have some input into climate due to our emission of gases into the atmosphere, but it should be noted that rainfall preferentially helps wash carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (as compared to other gases), Most of the carbon dioxide on the planet is actually locked up in carbonate rocks such as limestone, dolomite, and marble. According to the geological record, the earth has gone through several cycles of ice age and interglacial warm periods in the past 2 million years. Such geological structures as Long Island NY, Cape Cod MA, and Jutland DK, are terminal moraines of previous continental glaciers. There well may be another ice age in the future, if the cycle continues.

The human species has adapted to climate events over the time span of recorded history. In ancient times, the Romans built reservoirs in elevated locations and aqueducts to bring water to where it was needed. Now, one thing that can be done, for example, to mitigate the effects of drought is to build dams and water storage reservoirs. One thing that can be done to mitigate the effects of floods is to build levees, and another thing that can be done to mitigate the effects of flooding is to not build within known floodplains. In Houston, the Harris County Flood Control District has developed dozens of individual planned projects to mitigate the effects of flooding, and it is the job of Congress to appropriate money to help fund these projects.

The plain and simple facts are that there is no short term increase in tropical cyclones or tornados. This is clear from the collected data over the past 50 years since reliable satellite data became available (before that time, there was no way to determine the existence of tropical cyclones away from land or shipping lanes). This has been clearly stated in Congressional testimony by various scientists. Of course, the dollar cost of incidents has increased as the value of property has increased, and the value of the dollar has decreased. The key is to plan and build adaptive and mitigating public works to accommodate weather events and potential climate variations.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat, District 30:
As the Chairwoman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, addressing the challenge of climate change by listening to and working with the scientific community, the environmental community, and constructive partners in the private sector has been one of my top priorities. In fact, the first hearings I have held each session since becoming Chair have focused on understanding the state of climate science and finding innovative mitigation and adaptation strategies to address the climate crisis. Additionally, the Science Committee has committed to passing bipartisan legislation that invests in nearly all forms of clean energy R&D, consistent with the recommendations in this thoughtful report, as well as innovative research into ocean acidification and plastic waste reduction. I look forward to passing that legislation into law very soon so we can begin to develop abundant strategies to reach a net-zero carbon emission America.

Clark Patterson, Libertarian, District 31:
Even if human activity is contributing to climate change, Libertarians oppose all attempts to regulate or limit private property rights. We must realize that the earth's climate was changing even before the advent of mankind. We must also recognize that cold weather kills more humans each year than does hot weather. The answer to climate change, whatever "problem" it poses, is to expand private property rights and human freedom, not restrict them. With full private property rights in place, mankind will be able to "change the climate" by combating the harmful effects of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural weather disasters.

Colin Allred, Democrat, District 32:
The effects of climate change are already impacting our communities right now. We need a bold plan to tackle the climate crisis, which supports local economic growth and protect communities of color and low-income communities who are going to bear the brunt of this issue. In Congress, I cosponsored the Climate Action Now Act which has called on the Trump Administration to remain in the Paris Climate Accord to establish new goals to reduce emissions and develop a plan for how we can protect the environment. I also support policies that incentivize innovation and promote public and private investment in clean and renewable sources of energy—which can lead to the creation of good-paying jobs for North Texans and I voted for the Expanding Access to Sustainable Energy Act which would support investment in renewable energy. I also support the independence of the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to ensure they are able to carry out their missions to keep our environment and communities safe and preserve our planet for future generations.

Christy Mowrey, Libertarian, District 32:
N/A

Jason Sigmon, Independent, District 32:
• Texas faces many of the same challenges other states face. Our air isn't clean due to excess pollution. Industrial runoff/dumping has contaminated our water leading to higher cancer rates and other health problems. Many people don't have access to fruits and vegetables and instead eat whatever is available at the convenience store. I would focus on reducing big food subsidies and removing "slap on the wrist" penalities.

Anthony Cristo, Libertarian, District 34:
Climate change is real, but contrary to media reports, there is not a consensus as to whether or not it is anthropogenic (man made).

Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, wrote a testimony to Congress stating that the information is inconclusive as to say with any certainty that climate change is caused by man. Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever, has also expressed similar doubts about the cause and even the predictions of the effect of climate change. Finally, Dr. John Stamatakos (Director of Technical Programs at the Southwest Research Institute has pointed out that there are dozens of known factors involved in climate change and many more we probably have not realized yet. He also said that mankind thinking they can control the temperature of an entire planet is human arrogance at best.

However, there are several good reasons to reduce air pollution that have nothing to do with changing the climate. Annually, the world pumps out 40 billion tons of air pollution every year. This is the equivalent of 400,000 fully loaded aircraft carriers. When these particulates go into the air, we breathe them in and they cause health issues, which claim 4.6 million lives worldwide annually. This is just from inhalation. When the rain washes these particles out of the atmosphere via the hydrologic cycle, they land on the plants we eat and get into the soil which grows them. The animals we consume also ingest these toxins from plants. Humans, animals, plants, and sea creatures are affected by the toxins in the water that have fallen from the sky.

Our general health is the reason to reduce air pollutants and I propose lifting restrictions for nuclear energy to become more widespread.

Jason Mata, Independent, District 35:
TEXAS BORDERS THE GULF OF MEXICO AND THE THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING CAUSE REAL CONCERNS OF FLOODING INTO MAJOR CITIES AND RURAL COMMUNITIES. GLOBAL WARMING MAY ALSO ADVERSLY EFFECT ARGICULTURE, DEVELOPMENT, AND SUPPLY. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT AND TO REGUALTE GREENHOUSE GASES.

Hal Ridley, Green Party, District 36:
Texas oil and the refining industries invented man made climate change and they have worked to discredit and ignore it for decades. The only clean, stable, secure, and local alternatives here now are residential solar, neighborhood wind, and area geothermal power. The grid can be taken down with the tail of a kite. I know this as a boy, as I did it. The grid is not secure nor stable. The hurricane arriving later on today right here will prove that fact, I'm sure.

Elliott Scheirman, Libertarian, District 2:
The government should neither subsidize nor prioritize any private industry. Making a business-friendly environment in Texas and letting innovators figure out which forms of production make sense is the best way to keep Texas at the forefront. We have a wealth of natural resources and landscapes that accommodate renewables, traditional fossil fuels, and welcoming nuclear as a long-term sustainable source of energy.

Christopher Claytor, Libertarian, District 3:
While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

Kevin Hale, Libertarian, District 5:
Open the markets to all sources; wind, solar, nuclear, oil and gas, hemp, corn, geothermal and make sure we don’t favor one over the other as a government, via subsidies or tax loopholes and or regulations that limit competition. We want consumers to choose their energy source. My hope is that consumers embrace the new generation IV nuclear power plants and hemp based energy products mentioned above.(ie Fuels and Batteries). The Generation IV nuclear power plants are super efficient and can actually use the old spent fuel rods from the generation one reactors. Imagine that. using the waste to produce power again, We as a planet of consumers, have over the decades released tons of CO2 into our atmosphere and we are going to continue to warm up globally, if we don't get to a carbon negative position when it comes to our energy sources. Nuclear is the only reliable energy source that addresses this directly. The technology of these new reactors is phenomenal, and we should start getting them online as soon as possible. This will give future generations an opportunity to live in a better balanced environment.

Carolyn Salter, Democrat, District 5:
Living in east Texas, I have seen how the reliance on oil leads directly to an unstable and unpredictable boom-and-bust economy. We must start investing in renewable energy; we have seen the busts becoming much more frequent than the booms. There are thousands upon thousands of new jobs to be created in the renewable energy field, and it would help propel many rural communities to new economic opportunities for stable, reliable long-term job growth.

Melanie Black, Libertarian, District 6:
No conversation about renewable energy is complete without exploring the nuclear energy option.

As wind and solar power options increase and become more affordable, I would expect less dependence on fossil fuels with better use of renewable energy.

It must be remembered, that alternative energies exact an environmental cost as well. Unfortunately the Gas and Oil industries appear to heavily rely on cronyism.

As of 2019 there were what amounted to federal subsidies of 400 million a year for imported oil.

Government should back out of propping up industries.

Ted Brown, Libertarian, District 17:
As I mentioned in the prior answer, we need to look at alternative energy sources like nuclear power, but be sure we have a free market in energy so that the best alternative will prevail, not the one that has the most political supporters. Energy independence is a national security issue, so we need to be sure of that whichever energy source or sources prevail.

Vince Duncan, Independent, District 18:
I am a Pro American/ Pro Texan Politician That Supports The Texas Energy Corridor. I would encourage Investment In American Human Resources and Build up the Infrastructure To Move Energy Products Around The Nation Safely and efficiently.

Darren Hamilton, Libertarian, District 24:
Texas currently produces more wind power than any other U.S. state. If Texas were a country, it would rank fifth in its production of wind power worldwide. Additionally, Texas is poised to lead the country in its production of solar power which would allow the state to remain an energy-exporting state over the long term. If elected, these are the renewable energy sources that I would prioritize to keep Texas at the forefront of energy production, both within and outside of the United States.

Bill Kelsey, Libertarian, District 25:
I would allow the market to explore alternative sources of energy without government subsidies. The fossil fuel industry should not be subsidized or protected or privileged with eminent domain rights. I am a booster of mass transit and consider the taxpayer funding of highways to be a huge subsidy for the auto industry and for fossil fuels.

Phil Gray, Libertarian, District 27:
Let’s let the market and innovation decide the mix. We can readily assist the wind industry by allowing railroad right-of-ways to double as power corridors. Help the rail lines electrify their system, they can become the buyer for all the wind industry can generate, and use it to power their locomotives, selling their excess to the grids. In like manner, they can buy from the grid when the wind fails. Net savings in diesel and greenhouse gas generation will be huge. The wind industry can expand without worry about additional right of way for transmission lines. Solar will play a part, as will other household based sources of power. Excess generation must be bought by the utility, at a fair price, but one that allows the power company to profit. Power plants must be compensated for their presence providing capacity when the other sources fail. This can be accomplished in part by offering funding through the debt fund, perhaps with a set amount repaid per megawatt generated. During idleness, the debt will not grow, but will be reduced during times of activity. Loans for all forms of hydro generation, wave, current, temperature gradient, should be available, as are those for clean nuclear and clean coal. While power plants are efficiently run on natural gas, coal seams contain ample natural gas. Finally, make natural gas a transportation fuel, so that those who wish can burn it in their existing cars and trucks. Loan them the money to convert, and install a compressor, they can enjoy cheap, clean burning natural gas, for as little as 80 cents per gallon. We need a year round market for our abundant natural gas, to get the price up where it is profitable to produce, while saving the people money. Currently, it is only competitive to produce as LNG if the world price for diesel approaches $3 per gallon. To slow warming, we need to make both CO2 and methane capture profitable. I seek market based solutions to accomplish both.

Bekah Congdon, Libertarian, District 28:
Nuclear.

Jaimy Blanco, Republican, District 29:
In a general sense, the greatest driver of the sources of energy usage is the cost of energy, and the direct economic costs of fuel source extraction and fuel preparation are compounded by governmental regulations. The definition of so-called “renewable” energy sources is something of a misnomer. For example, the Obama administration refused to include hydroelectric power (not important in Texas) in their discussion of “renewable energy”. Why not? If the dam produces electricity by water going through a turbine, what is non-renewable about that as long as the rain falls in the mountains? But then, the State of California (where hydroelectric power is very important) has refused to build new dams over the past few decades commensurate with the growth in energy demand, and now California is suffering from occasional brownouts and electricity shortages.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration study of September 2020, Texas produces 41% of the petroleum and 25% of the natural gas in the United States. Texas has 30 petroleum refineries that produce 31% of the refined petroleum products in the United States. Texas produces more electricity than any other state, and about half of the energy used in Texas is used by industry. Gas fired turbines and combined cycle power plants produce over half of the electricity produced in Texas. Natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel, produces the least particulate matter, and the lowest ratio of carbon dioxide to water vapor in the combustion process. The Texas Railroad Commission has developed stringent rules regulating drilling and extraction such that petroleum and natural gas are produced with minimal environmental impact.

Texas is also the largest producer of wind turbine energy in the United States. This is, contrary to popular belief, not an energy free construction because, according to the United States Geological Survey, wind turbine blades are made from glass or carbon fiber reinforced epoxy (natural gas is used to make glass, acetylene is used to make carbon fibers, and epoxy resins are made from such petrochemical product as epichlorohydrin and bisphenol-A). And, of course, spinning turbine blades kill birds. The towers are made of steel, and steel production releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But, of course, once built, the wind turbines are relatively free energy producers. Wind power also requires frequency conversion electrical devices to match the operating grid frequency.

Transportation requires mobile fuel storage of electricity or combustible or flammable liquid or gas fuel within the transportation device, whether rail engine, truck, personal vehicle, or aircraft. The choice of fuels is largely driven by economics and the type of engine used for propulsion. It is possible to convert Otto engines to the spark ignition of natural gas or hydrogen, both of which burn with less particulate matter than liquid fuels. Electric Storage Batteries are a potential problem, too. Batteries contain chemicals with the potential to leak or overheat. And batteries have to be charged from another source. In a general sense, the government should not pick winners and losers (with economic disasters like the Solyndra bankruptcy) but rather let market forces decide the best sources of energy using an all-of-the-above strategy.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat, District 30:
Energy is crucial to operating a modern industrial and services economy, especially here in Texas. Concerns about the availability and cost of energy and about environmental impacts of fossil energy use have led to a wide variety of federal incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. These incentives aim to implement renewable energy and energy efficiency measures and to develop and commercialize renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

Many of the existing energy efficiency and renewable energy programs have authorizations tracing back to the 1970s. Many programs have been reauthorized and redesigned repeatedly to meet changing economic factors. The programs apply broadly to sectors ranging from industry to academia and from state and local governments to rural communities.

Since 2005, Congress has passed several major energy laws: the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005; P.L. 109-58); the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140); the Energy Improvement and Extension Act (EIEA), enacted as Division B of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA; P.L. 110-343); and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5). Each of those laws established, expanded, or modified energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D) programs.

The Department of Energy (DOE) operates the greatest number of efficiency and renewable energy incentive programs, including RDD&D grants and contracts, weatherization assistance, production incentives, loan guarantees, and technology transfers. DOE also provides grants to states for energy policy development and assists other federal agencies in developing and implementing energy efficient and renewable energy resources.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) runs several programs that largely focus on biofuels, such as ethanol and wood energy. Other USDA programs include assistance to rural communities with high energy costs, biomass crop assistance, grants and loans to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy for agricultural producers and rural businesses, assistance to general consumers for rural energy savings, and sustainable agricultural research.

The Department of the Treasury administers tax credits and other incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Eligible activities include energy efficient home improvements, renewable energy production, and business investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Other federal agencies with energy efficiency and renewable energy programs include the following:

• Department of the Interior (DOI), with programs on tribal energy production and use;
• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), with energy efficient mortgages and loan programs;
• Small Business Administration (SBA), with loan programs to help borrowers upgrade their facilities and fund energy efficiency or renewable energy projects;
• Fannie Mae, with a "Green Initiative" loan program;
• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which provides energy assistance to low-income households; and
• Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which provides energy efficient mortgages.

A wide range of entities are eligible for these energy efficiency and renewable incentives, including biofuels producers; state, local, and tribal governments; businesses; schools and universities; research organizations; builders and developers; homeowners; utilities; and veterans. Eligibility also includes a variety of energy-related technologies, such as advanced batteries, heating and cooling systems, vehicles and biofuels, appliances, building envelope technologies, renewable energy production technologies, lighting, and electricity generation and transmission.

Clark Patterson, Libertarian, District 31:
Libertarians oppose both energy independence and energy dependence, in favor of energy interdependence. Also, Libertarians believe that only the private sector, subject as it is to the price system of supply and demand and the profit-and-loss motive, should engage in energy development. Libertarians oppose the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement and the 2005 Kyoto Protocol. Libertarians believe in treating air pollution as a tort as part of civil law, under a legal theory of strict liability. Once pollution is viewed as a tort, which is a violation of individual rights, then private energy companies would be forced to develop completely clean fossil fuels and completely clean coal. Finally, Libertarians don't believe in subsidizing renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, nor in protecting nuclear power. Solar, wind and nuclear power should be forced to withstand the competition of a 100 percent free market, without support or hindrance from any level of government.

Colin Allred, Democrat, District 32:
It is a false choice to say that we have to pick between protecting our climate and supporting our local economy. Texas is the leader in wind energy and we can lead in solar. We should work to grow renewable and clean energy sources, such as wind and solar, to utility-scale, while continuing to invest in reducing some of the harmful impacts of current energy sources. I support policies that incentivize innovation and promote public and private investment in clean and renewable sources of energy—which can lead to the creation of good-paying jobs for North Texans.

Christy Mowrey, Libertarian, District 32:
I would pursue every type of energy and encourage the free market system of competitive production.

Jason Sigmon, Independent, District 32:
• Nuclear. It's the only renewable energy source that will power an industrial economy at scale. We should focus on further improving the latest reactors and continuing to reduce nuclear waste.

Anthony Cristo, Libertarian, District 34:
The demand for renewable energy will reduce air pollution, but it is not enough. Fourth generation nuclear reactors are safer and more efficient than the nuclear reactors in place that have 40 plus year old technology and design.

My brother was a nuclear engineer for the Navy and he informs me that the fourth generation reactors can actually take current nuclear waste, and pull out an additional 80% more energy than the antiquated reactors being used now.

People have a fear of nuclear power because of accidents caused by the old and antiquated design. The newer designs are far more efficient and significantly produce less waste.

Jason Mata, Independent, District 35:
TEXAS LEADS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY PRIMARILY BECAUSE ITS’ USE OF WIND ENERGY. HOWEVER, TEXAS ALSO USES OCEAN AND WAVE ENERGY. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT TEXAS CONTINUES TO FOCUS ON THESE RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND CONTINUE TO BUILD RENEWABLE ENERGY AREAS AND OFFER INCENTIVES FOR CONSUMERS TO USE SOLAR ENERGY.

Hal Ridley, Green Party, District 36:
Texas leads in solar and wind power but as long as oil rules, we will fail. These corporations are not too big to fail, they are too big to succeed. There are a number of technologies here now, or near, that can replace oil, coal, and nuclear, if not for the fact that those industries have great power over and ownership of congress and our government. To lead you must invent and innovate, that's all we have.

Elliott Scheirman, Libertarian, District 2:
I support destigmatizing care for mental health. I oppose disincentivizing people from seeking care with laws that threaten gun rights. We could fund a lot of services if we stop spending trillions on endless war.

Christopher Claytor, Libertarian, District 3:
Same as the answer the second question: I, as all Libertarians, favor a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

Kevin Hale, Libertarian, District 5:
I'm not sure that the federal government has any authority here. (not listed as an enumerated power in the Constitution. I would like to see more facilities that care for the mentally disturbed opened. Perhaps there are federal regulations that are preventing that from happening. I would work to remove those barriers so investors could open those types of facilities faster.

Carolyn Salter, Democrat, District 5:
People with mental illness should be able to access the therapist best suited to their needs, not the one they can afford. If we require parity of pay and uniform mental health coverage, regardless of source, that begin the mental needs of our communities. Mental health professionals need to be paid commensurate with their primary care counterparts. There should be more mental health training programs to provide more professionals. Primary care physicians themselves need more training in the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders. Access to mental health treatment and addiction treatment should be expanded and pay parity guaranteed to mental health telehealth providers meeting quality criteria. Programs such as ACCESS in Texas need to be widely available and adequately funded in all counties. Medicaid expansion, if payment is adequate, would be helpful, especially in rural areas.

Melanie Black, Libertarian, District 6:
This would more appropriately be dealt with by the state legislature and the communities involved.

Ted Brown, Libertarian, District 17:
I'm not sure how to answer this. There seem to be more impaired people around all the time. Is this because of social reasons? economic reasons? environmental reasons? I just don't know but am willing to listen to people who do have ideas and proposals.

Vince Duncan, Independent, District 18:
Mental Health Is Now At The Forefront of Our Nation's Attention.Some Mental Health Issues are Medical In Nature Meaning that you were Born with Medical Issues that have created Mental Health Issues. Other Mental health Injuries Are Caused by Not Having the Proper Coping Skills, What I would Do Is Introduce Coping Skills to our Nation's Children In the Fourth grade. We asA Nation Have To Learn How to Deal with Loss. Disappointment, Betrayal at an Early Age.In My Opinion this Action Would Dramatically reduce Mental health Injuries caused by the Difficulty of Life.

Darren Hamilton, Libertarian, District 24:
If elected, I would work toward a three-part effort to address mental health concerns. First, prioritize telemedicine. Make it low-cost and available to all people living in the United States regardless of income, age, or citizenship status. This can be achieved through smartphone apps and other smart technologies. Second, develop community and neighborhood-level emotional support systems, then train a new group of local providers who can focus their time and efforts on enhancing social cohesion and empathetic listening. Many faith-based groups can serve as a model for this, and can also help to facilitate its activities. And third, be prepared to offer a wide range of necessary mental health resources and support structures. In my opinion, mental health receives inadequate attention and funding because its beneficial results are more subjective than concrete making it difficult to determine the success of any mental health program in a society that places a premium value on tangible, concrete results. (As a side note, as someone who would personally benefit from further research on this topic, I would refrain from describing them as 'disorders' and refer to them as 'conditions'.)

Bill Kelsey, Libertarian, District 25:
I would liberalize the process whereby many schools of thought could examine the mind and mental health and personal growth without government interference or subsidy. When resources are required I would prefer to rely on voluntary public contribution.

Phil Gray, Libertarian, District 27:
Reduction of the national debt, in part with loans that replace many on budget items, will free up funding for states to address their citizen’s mental health needs. Beyond that, I seek to decriminalize the use of drugs, and license vendors. We need to stop incarcerating the ill, many of whom have underlying mental health issues best dealt with by professional care, both in and out-patient. These can be funded with loans to the states, and repaid out of savings in police and prison use. Beyond these, the states can also save by prisoner taught education, with the prisoner earning a fee per head count for those they teach. The prisoner has to learn something to teach it, and a motivated population is a quiet population, reducing yet more the cost of prisons.

Jaimy Blanco, Republican, District 29:
Too many people in this country are caught in a vicious cycle of addiction and drug dependency. In some cases the drug use is a self medication for an underlying mental disorder. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Texas has one of the lowest death rates due to drug overdose in the United States. Texas also has a lower reported rate of mental illness than most states. But 45% of respondents did not receive the desired mental health care because of cost. Private, volunteer, and religious organizations can help people in need. But can charitable organizations cover the needs of the thousands of Texans who cannot afford the mental health care they need? The state provides funding to community mental health services. The Federal Government could supplement this expense by providing block grants to the states, but the Federal Government should not be involved in the micromanagement of these grants.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat, District 30:
As a former chief psychiatric nurse, I have spent my legislative career advocating for more accessible mental health resources in our communities, especially considering the significant needs in these difficult times. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that in late June, 40% of American adults struggled with mental health or substance abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, it reported that communities of color, essential workers, younger adults, and unpaid caregivers had disproportionately worse mental health outcomes and elevated suicidal ideation.

This is exactly why I am determined to pass one of my legislations, as it directs the Federal Communications Commission to designate 9-8-8 for the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system. It also provides the necessary state funding guidance, federal reporting, and specialized service training to effectively implement the new dialing code. This three-digit phone number – instead of a full ten-digit number – is much easier to remember, especially when you or a loved one are in a crisis and in need of help. As such, this redesigned and upgraded suicide prevention lifeline will save lives.

As the country’s mental health and suicide crises have worsen during the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress has an urgent responsibility to fulfill the promise of 9-8-8 and develop a modern mental health and suicide prevention crisis hotline system. I am especially proud of the efforts in this legislation to support communities at higher risk of suicide, including veterans and LGBTQ youth. This new system will include the Veterans Crisis Line to specifically support veterans seeking mental health support. The bill also authorizes states to collect a fee designated solely to supporting local crisis call centers affiliated within the national network, which includes the Suicide and Crisis Center of North Texas in my district. This provision will ensure that the local call centers experiencing increased call volume due to the more accessible dialing code will have the financial resources needed to expand their operations and serve all who are seeking help.

We must not allow the tragedies of this coronavirus to be compounded by preventable losses of life due to mental health distress. As a former mental health professional, I am committed to improving mental health resources d supporting research on mental health disorders.

Clark Patterson, Libertarian, District 31:
Libertarians oppose all governmental funding of research and development, believing that only the private sector, subject as it is to the price system of supply and demand and the profit-and-loss motive, should engage in R & D. Consequently, Libertarians would phase out and privatize all activities currently conducted by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NASA, and all other government-run science programs.

Colin Allred, Democrat, District 32:
As this public health crisis continues, mental health is more critical than ever. We must fund mental health research and ensure that our mental health providers have the resources they need to care for our community and ensure that every North Texans has access to help with mental illness or addiction during this crisis. I’ve met with and talked to Mental Health America of Greater Dallas and will continue to work alongside mental professionals to address the mental health crisis.

Christy Mowrey, Libertarian, District 32:
Move obstacles out of the way of private companies and churches providing these services as a supplement for those who do not have access to this help.

Jason Sigmon, Independent, District 32:
• Re-fund mental hospitals to provide a safe place for people beyond the streets. Fund mental health counselors at every school or provide a central platform, so every child has someone they can trust. I will support research that focuses on permanent treatment, not continual reliance on therapy or drug.

Anthony Cristo, Libertarian, District 34:
I am a veteran being treated for PTSD so mental health resources are important and personal to me. First thing I would do is move to return our troops from abroad and adopt a non-aggression policy so that we are not policing the world with American lives. Twenty two veterans commit suicide every day. That’s 154 a week, and 8,030 a year. Considering we have been at war since 2001, that comes to 152,570 American lives lost.

The VA does all it can but a push needs to be done in order to meet civilian mental illnesses as well. Unfortunately, there is not a universal approach to addressing mental illness because not everything works the same way on people.

I would, however, reduce government red tape that hinders non-profit entities from providing full aid at a reduced or no charge cost.

Jason Mata, Independent, District 35:
TEXAS RANKS ALMOST LAST IN MENTAL HEALTH SPENDING. MY FOCUS WILL BE TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH IN TEXAS AND UTILIZE PROVEN METHODS TO ADDRESS MENTAL ILLNESS. I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE ALTERNATE WAYS TO HELP DEAL WITH MENTAL ILLNESS.

Hal Ridley, Green Party, District 36:
I have dealt with the mental health of a family member who never received the help they needed and ended in tragedy. Mental health is often the root cause of other health problems or caused by other problems. The mentally ill are cast out like lepers. Dropping some change in the cup of the homeless under an overpass is not the change we need.

Elliott Scheirman, Libertarian, District 2:
I would like to allow voters to allocate a portion of their tax dollars to effectively crowdfund what they prioritize, rather than politicians deciding. That way, no one can be upset that their own pet projects aren’t getting attention.

Christopher Claytor, Libertarian, District 3:
There should be no Federal Government funding of scientific research and development. I, as all Libertarians, believe, all persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. We support any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax and oppose any increase on any tax for any reason. To the extent possible, we advocate that all public services be funded in a voluntary manner.

Kevin Hale, Libertarian, District 5:
Why are we asking the federal government to take tax payers money and invest it in research that may or may not benefit us. I see a lot of waste in government spending and we are $27Trillion in debt. We actually funded a study to find out whether or not a bird in fiji would be more promiscuous on cocaine.If the Science community needs money for R&D then find the investors in the private or consumer markets. Our great grandchildren cannot afford any more debt.

Carolyn Salter, Democrat, District 5:
I think there needs to be more funding for basic scientific research through the NIH. We need to do more research on energy storage and renewables. I would like to see more focus on genetic therapies for treatment of disease and prevention of disease.

Melanie Black, Libertarian, District 6:
If there is a need and a way to market it, there will be entrepreneurs to direct and fund it. As of December 2019, Texas was the number one destination for companies leaving California. We need to continue learning from that and keep the policies that encourage businesses to come here.

Ted Brown, Libertarian, District 17:
I believe in the free market and in private research and development as much as possible. The payoff for private individuals and companies devising new technologies, drugs, chemicals, etc. is so great that there isn't much need for the government to be involved.

Vince Duncan, Independent, District 18:
N/A I need More Information On The Research and Developments that need our Attention

Darren Hamilton, Libertarian, District 24:
As a statistician and analyst, I work with computer systems and computer security on a regular basis and, without any hesitation, I believe that the most pernicious threat to American interests is cyber-warfare. The sheer volume of information available for anyone (especially foreign agents) with the skills to get it makes this a paramount domestic policy issue. If elected, I would work toward ensuring that funds for cyber-security projects are not starved, and would also encourage the expansion of more advanced cyber-security systems, including research into and development of quantum computing, and of artificial intelligence. The advancement of these projects will do more to address additional domestic threats, such as human slavery and sex trafficking, than any increase in enforcement could hope to accomplish.

Bill Kelsey, Libertarian, District 25:
To be clear, I take a dim view of government choosing the priorities and prefer scientists and their backers choose their own priorities. My personal priorities would be contained in the words of Teilhard de Chardin: "The day will come when, after harnessing space, the winds, the tides and gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, we shall have discovered fire."

Phil Gray, Libertarian, District 27:
Study of artificial intelligence, its safe use, and the vulnerabilities that it may generate
Radiation shielding, both heavy and light weight
Unfueled propulsion, both terrestrial and space based

Bekah Congdon, Libertarian, District 28:
I obviously prefer private and market-funded research, however if the government is going to be spending money at all, I’d prefer it to be in the areas of developing treatments and cures for the diseases that we are all so affected by, like cancer and new pandemics.

Jaimy Blanco, Republican, District 29:
Federal funding of Research and Development must put national defense as its foremost priority. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has outlined several key areas for current research, including: hypersonic research and defense against hypersonic weaponry (Long Range Anti-Ship Ballistic missiles), micro-electronics and solid state devices, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cyber deterrence and defense, bio-surveillance and bio-threat detection and mitigation (e.g. Covid 19), detection of weapons of mass destruction by rogue nations or extra-national terrorists, space plane and space weapons delivery, the development of unmanned sea vessels (ACTUV), improved utilization of the electro-magnetic communications spectrum to include automated intelligent frequency optimization shifting, additional research of means to prevent enemy jamming of communication signals, etc. Other research area priorities include: space exploration and aeronautics, veterans prosthetic devices, infectious disease modeling and prediction along with diagnostic, therapeutic, and vaccine development. Additional R & D priorities include: advanced automated and robotic manufacturing, domestic bio-manufacturing technologies, and advanced polymeric materials especially those used in medical and exploratory research.

The American economic system should be designed in a sufficiently resilient manner, such that all critical to life items, where available, are produced within the USMCA or near location nations. Regulations that make it prohibitively expensive to produce critical items within North America should be modified so that such items can be produced domestically or in neighboring countries. This is to include, not only critical medical equipment and pharmaceuticals, but also advanced semiconductor and superconductor materials that may include the use of rare-earth or rare transitional element materials.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat, District 30:
Maximum appropriated amounts.

Clark Patterson, Libertarian, District 31:
Libertarians oppose all governmental funding of research and development, believing that only the private sector, subject as it is to the price system of supply and demand and the profit-and-loss motive, should engage in R & D. Consequently, Libertarians would phase out and privatize all activities currently conducted by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NASA, and all other government-run science programs.

Colin Allred, Democrat, District 32:
I have been a steadfast supporter of ARPA-E which is a vital advanced federal energy research initiative, that currently provides some grant funding to University of Texas at Dallas and countless others across the nation. Additionally, I have advocated for increased research funding at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. In order to be competitive globally the federal government must invest in the kind of innovative research that will help us lead the world and create good jobs along the way.

Christy Mowrey, Libertarian, District 32:
Leave this to private investors. If an idea is worth doing somebody will invest in it.

Jason Sigmon, Independent, District 32:
• MDMA treatments and improving lifespans

Anthony Cristo, Libertarian, District 34:
Research funding should be left up to individuals and not the government.

I personally donate money every year to the American Cancer Society because I know that their board of oncology doctors that review grant proposals from scientists are efficient in selecting research that will provide the most good for the most people. I also donate to Saint Jude’s Children’s hospital to help the children and support the research findings there.

There are numerous ways of obtaining research funding other than from tax dollars.

Hal Ridley, Green Party, District 36:
I believe scientific research and discovery has created the world we have, and technology must continue to solve the many problems we face, a number of which have come from the very technology we now have.

Elliott Scheirman, Libertarian, District 2:
Lower barriers to entry for science and tech industries to grow here in Texas. Federal legislation should focus on creating a level playing field for all Americans and Texas legislators should work in tandem with that to attract growth in those industries.

Christopher Claytor, Libertarian, District 3:
Innovation is best promoted by supporting free markets. I, as all Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise.

Kevin Hale, Libertarian, District 5:
Innovation is best handled by the private, and consumer markets. I have yet to see a government program bring about innovation in an economically viable way. I would work to eliminate regulations and or subsidies that favor one particular service provider. I want consumers choosing the winners in the marketplace. If it’s a good idea, people will pay for it.

Carolyn Salter, Democrat, District 5:
The best way to do this would be to set up Centers of Excellence based on our existing university systems. These would be set up according to each university’s strengths and in conjunction with their existing research and academic departmental foci. Universities should be centers of innovation and be able to engage in or emphasize private/public collaboration.

Melanie Black, Libertarian, District 6:
See the answer on # 6. Continue and improve making an economic climate that attracts industry to Texas.

Having said that, I feel this is a state related issue and Federal government doesn't need to have a role here. States should be able to decide where their unique needs are.

Ted Brown, Libertarian, District 17:
Get the government out of the way. Let the companies in these fields come here and prosper under a relatively good tax and regulatory system vs. that in other states like California.

Vince Duncan, Independent, District 18:
Huge Supporter of Science and Technology, Need more Information on Impending Science and Technology Projects.

Darren Hamilton, Libertarian, District 24:
Much of this would occur at the state level, not at the federal level. Texas is rapidly becoming the landing zone for technologies and industries that find themselves hard-pressed in other areas of the country. Much of that has to do with advantageous state-level policies, not federal ones. If I were to be elected, I would encourage state policy-makers to retain what makes Texas the go-to location for these businesses.

Bill Kelsey, Libertarian, District 25:
I would stay out of the way.

Phil Gray, Libertarian, District 27:
Reduction of the national debt will make funding available for many purposes. It will replace many on budget items with loans that reduce the debt. This will serve to both balance the budget and free up funds for purposes not amenable to replacement with loans. I do not see government as a source of funding, so much as a facilitator of funding. The private sector is quite capable of the expansion of science and technology. Government’s role may be simply to ensure that they do so in a manner that does not harm the people or the environment.

Jaimy Blanco, Republican, District 29:
Congress, of course, has appropriation authority over all federal R & D spending, but money often flows to pre-existing Federal agencies. In the Houston area, N.A.S.A. is a key Federal program that is doing research on human reaction to space and weightlessness while preparing for the return to the moon mission in 2024. The moon missions will become a stage for the exploration journey to Mars. The Federal Government will support the research although much of the work is subcontracted to corporations.

Other research areas with significant Federal dollar input in Texas include: medical research, petroleum research, and petrochemical research. For example in 2019, just the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) awarded 4683 grants in Texas metropolitan counties for a total value of $1,485,043,836. Exactly 1988 of those medical grants were awarded into Houston. The grants are available to those who wish to apply.

In general, the Federal Government provides tax incentives and credits for research and development. The State of Texas also allows either franchise tax or sales tax exemption for qualified research and development. This method allows for market forces to play a role in the direction of technological advances and does not engage the government in the process of picking winners and losers.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat, District 30:
Texas as well as our nation needs to lay the foundation and make the necessary investments in industries like artificial intelligence, quantum information science, biotechnology, 5G wireless networks, and advanced manufacturing so our workers can continue to lead in the jobs of the future.

I am committed to work with our partners and leadership in Texas growth of advanced manufacturing, bioengineering, and artificial intelligence.

Clark Patterson, Libertarian, District 31:
Libertarians oppose all governmental funding of research and development, believing that only the private sector, subject as it is to the price system of supply and demand and the profit-and-loss motive, should engage in R & D. Consequently, Libertarians would phase out and privatize all activities currently conducted by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NASA, and all other government-run science programs.

Colin Allred, Democrat, District 32:
In addition to supporting our research universities, we must have a federal budget that reflects the opportunities for Texas to lead the world in science and technology. After all, North Texas is the home to Texas Instruments and many other industry leaders. I have worked with my colleague Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson who is chair of the House Science Committee and I will continue that important work for North Texas.

Jason Sigmon, Independent, District 32:
• Science and technology are already expanding due to our robust business environment. I will support initiatives that continue to make our cities attractive to the workforce those companies and organizations attract.

Anthony Cristo, Libertarian, District 34:
I would support this by eliminating the bureaucratic red tape that hinders science and technology entities from getting started or maintaining their operational status.

Hal Ridley, Green Party, District 36:
Innovation comes from free thinking and critical thinking, not group think. Seek out, find, and test any and all promising ideas. We need more solution people as we already have plenty of problem people. Solutionation?

Elliott Scheirman, Libertarian, District 2:
Implement a ‘return on investment’ analysis for college freshmen to take that shows them career income trajectory outcomes by educational focus. Tie tuition lending to that as well. Students will see an automatic incentive to take on STEM majors as a result, as they frequently number among the highest compensation routes.

Christopher Claytor, Libertarian, District 3:
Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability, and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.

Kevin Hale, Libertarian, District 5:
Staff development and training on best practices in STEM. A funding focus on hands-on materials and technology supporting the latest TEKS, especially in low income areas where these resources are scarce. Elimination of unnecessary standard testing. Engaging the community to recruit mentors and more supplementary programs and funding.Allowing local districts to decide what is best for their populations’ needs, rather than the state dictating a one size fits all approach. ( tongue in cheek...You could also Show students the salaries of those that work in STEM fields! )

Carolyn Salter, Democrat, District 5:
The first thing to do would be to hire certified teachers whose sole function is to teach science and math. These teachers would ideally have professional degrees and would be paid accordingly. On a broader scale, though, we need to adequately fund our public schools and the facilities for teaching math and science as well as athletics is funded. The Texas Academy of Mathematics and Sciences (TAMS) model at UNT has been successful, and I believe more university systems across the state should have programs like that.

Melanie Black, Libertarian, District 6:
I don't feel that the Federal Government belongs in public education. The states, Districts, and Counties can decide best how to address this.

Ted Brown, Libertarian, District 17:
Education should be less political, so it's unfortunate that an elected Board decides curriculum. It's vital for kids to learn about math and science. I don't have any kids in Texas schools, since my daughter grew up a long time ago, so I can't give an assessment of how Texas is doing in those areas currently.

Vince Duncan, Independent, District 18:
I Support Education across the Board. What I would Like to See happen is Early Identification Of Students That Would accell in These Areas and Cater a Curriculum to Develop Their Skill level.

Darren Hamilton, Libertarian, District 24:
At a federal level, I would work toward removing government interference in what is clearly more of a state and local matter. The dichotomy here is that we cannot force our children to learn science and math; they have to WANT to learn them. There needs to be a change in the popularity of science and math. Private industries that capitalize on STEM disciplines, such as Tesla (which is moving to Texas), should be encouraged to donate time and resources to STEM programs. Additionally, as long as the government insists on remaining involved in college student loans, loan rates for STEM majors could be incentivized based on lifetime earning potential over liberal arts majors. The popularity of such an incentive program, while not as "romantic" as the space program of previous decades, can easily be made to filter down to high schools where students who have STEM aptitudes (and their parents) can determine which of many scientific disciplines would be the best fit for the student.

Bill Kelsey, Libertarian, District 25:
I would hope that schools can figure this out on their own. I would also like students to learn more basic home survival skills ranging from cooking to simple plumbing, carpentry, and electrical repairs.

Phil Gray, Libertarian, District 27:
Education starts with the parents. Let them seek the education that they want for their children. If it were possible, I would ask parents to pay teachers directly, and teachers rent their classrooms from the school. Perhaps the parent could receive a credit for applicable STEM classes, reducing their expense. The parent could borrow any shortfalls from the fund that accrues as we pay down the debt, and they, and the child, could pay it back when the child matures. Perhaps some degrees could also have a credit that reduces some of that expense, upon completion.

Jaimy Blanco, Republican, District 29:
Public Education is primarily a state and local function in the Federal System of Government. Two problems currently exist in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S.T.E.M.) education.

The First problem is the overbearing nature of Federal interference in education. Many laws, purportedly to promote equality and social justice, have resulted in an overwhelming administrative expense, especially in large urban areas. In Houston, according to a legislative review, teachers are only 45% of the work force. Auxiliary staff and administrators are 38% of the work force. According to the Legislative Budget Board Management and Performance Review of November 2019, Houston is top-heavy in administration, has duplication of effort and non-standardized policy implementation. Again, according to the legislative Review, Houston has a teacher – student ratio of 18 to 1, but this is district wide for all grades. At one high school, the physics teacher had 206 students divided into 6 class sections, providing a teacher – student ratio of 34 to 1. At one high school a mathematics teacher had 47 students in a single room, some sitting on the floor, but technically in “two different classes for the record”, it just happened that the 2 classes were happening in the same room at the same time. There is critical shortage of mathematics and hard science teachers. Most teachers with the skill level to teach this material can get higher salaries in private industry. Two things can be done to help this situation, the first is to concentrate on subject matter teaching and learning by reducing the administrative burdens imposed by both Federal and State authorities. The second is to pay bonus stipends to critical shortage teaching subjects.

The second problem is the ineffective utilization of Texas Education Agency Technology courses as a substitute for science courses. By law, the T.E.A. has established a large number of career and technical education (C.A.T.E.) courses that are designed to provide hands-on technical education to those students who are mathematically and linguistically challenged. Some of these courses provide sufficient science education to substitute as science credits for graduation. However, most schools insist on students taking the traditional college prep “physics” courses, when the student would be better prepared for a future career by the C.A.T.E. science/engineering course.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat, District 30:
Expanding STEM education is the key for America to remain a leader in innovation in the global economy. As the Chairwoman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, I’m committed to expanding STEM education in our state as well as in our country and getting our students interested in STEM fields. I devoted my legislative career to this issue and introduced numerous legislations that would incentivize college graduates with degrees in a STEM field to teach. I’ve also worked with STEM professionals across my congressional district such as the Texas Instruments to build STEM platforms where distinguished experts serve as teachers, mentors and role models to inspire students.

Clark Patterson, Libertarian, District 31:
Libertarians oppose all governmental funding of research and development, believing that only the private sector, subject as it is to the price system of supply and demand and the profit-and-loss motive, should engage in R & D. Consequently, Libertarians would phase out and privatize all activities currently conducted by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NASA, and all other government-run science programs.

Colin Allred, Democrat, District 32:
The next Einstein could be right here in Texas, and we need to make sure that she has all the resources she needs to reach her full potential. This starts with ensuring that we fully fund our public schools. Our teachers, staff and students deserve our full support to ensure that—regardless of where they grow up, whether their family is rich or poor, or the color of their skin, everyone can live their version of the American Dream. Those investments include ensuring teachers have the resources they need to support their students as well as universal Pre-K so that every child can get a good start to their education. In Congress, I supported bipartisan legislation which will work to better support veterans in STEM careers and my Congressional office provides a STEM Scholars program that aims to connect students interested in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics with hands-on learning experiences throughout our district.

Christy Mowrey, Libertarian, District 32:
Partner with private companies and organizations.

Jason Sigmon, Independent, District 32:
• I will support programs that focus on hands-on learning and develop the skills needed for 21st-century jobs. Creating a STEM curriculum that teaches towards a test won't help anyone.

Anthony Cristo, Libertarian, District 34:
Education should be in the hands of the educators and the parents, not the state.

That being said, I support providing school vouchers and allowing parents to select the school they feel will best educate their child in the manner desired. Currently, there are a lot of brilliant minds that cannot attend science and technology schools because they cannot afford to live in the district or pay the tuition required to attend. School vouchers will give parents control and choice as to where their child is educated.

Hal Ridley, Green Party, District 36:
Public schools first need to teach STEM and as a close second, critical thinking and free thinking. Creationism is not science and whitewashed history is not history, it's programing and propaganda. The true scientific method is the best way to teach to learn and to progress together as our planet is the only world we have.

Elliott Scheirman, Libertarian, District 2:
I fully support expanding and streamlining our immigration process to allow supply for innovation and labor to meet domestic demand for it. There is no reason the government should restrict who an American employer wants to hire.

Christopher Claytor, Libertarian, District 3:
Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose who they wish to work for and who they hire.

Kevin Hale, Libertarian, District 5:
I want people and products to move freely across borders...yes I support the H-1b and F-1 visas, the brain power we can recruit to our country is vitally important to helping us reach our greatest potential as Americans. ...Republicans and Democrats have been saying they were going to fix immigration for my entire life. I’m 50! We need a total reset; I really would like to see us create welcoming facilities similar to Ellis island. Where people wishing to join the American dream, can do so without fear of having their children separated from them. A facility that can first do a health screening, then a background check, and finally issue a work visa and a way for them to pay taxes. It would be very innovative to have “job recruiters” bid to have on sight offices to assist those that come here without a job in hand, to find one!

Carolyn Salter, Democrat, District 5:
I think most scientific advancement we’ve seen would be impossible without the hard work and dedication of our nation’s immigrants. The wonderful ideal of America as a melting pot of cultures, ideas, and experiences is especially true in the scientific field. I absolutely support the programs provided through H-1B and F-1 visas. Innovation is spurred when new talent from different parts of the world is pooled. It is one of the greatest advantages the US has in technological competition on a global scale. I also do not want to lose the talent of our Dreamers—we need a new generation of talented, tenacious students who call this country home. I believe we need to invest in the future: young people.

Melanie Black, Libertarian, District 6:
I am in full support of work and training visas. It's a great benefit to have talent from all over the world coming here to share their knowledge and ideas.

Ted Brown, Libertarian, District 17:
I am strongly in favor of immigrants, who are a great benefit to this country. Both of my grandfathers were immigrants. In the scientific field, a lot of U. S. Nobel Prize winners have been immigrants. I believe in an unlimited number of H1-B visas and F-1 visas. The H1-B visas shouldn't be tied to a specific employer so that the immigrant workers can change jobs whenever they want. Businesses should be able to hire talent from anywhere in the world, without worrying about immigration status.

Vince Duncan, Independent, District 18:
I am a Pro American Politician and I think it is an Embarrassment that we have allowed American Employers and Institutions Of Higher Learning, To bring in and Develop Foreing Talent and Ignore American Students and Workers. As A Part Of my Political Platform I would Cancel Any Visas That Recruit Foreign Talent In Place Of Americans on Any Level. I Like To Use Baseball as an Example The Two Leading Home Run Hitters Of All Times are American Born Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron Then Why Are We Recruiting So Many Foreign Born Baseball Players?

Darren Hamilton, Libertarian, District 24:
I think that immigration, as an issue, has very little to do with scientific innovation and more to do with people willing to work to make a better life for themselves and their families. The advantage of skilled work and training visas is that those companies who need people with specific skills and aptitudes in their industries are not required to look solely within domestic populations to find them. That these people might take acquired, possibly classified skills back to their countries of origin is a possible risk, but new minds and fresh ideas are generally considered a benefit in the larger human community.

Bill Kelsey, Libertarian, District 25:
I am very enthusiastic about the presence of immigrants and recognize their contributions to all facets of our economy. I would campaign to make all such visas easier to obtain and welcome immigrants every chance I have.

Phil Gray, Libertarian, District 27:
I support open immigration. We absolutely need the best and the brightest. We also need workers. I propose that those seeking entry be given the opportunity to pay a fee, perhaps 3000, for expedited entry. They can sign a waiver stating that they are not eligible for federal assistance, are issued an ITIN and are fingerprinted. Once in, they renew their visa by filing a tax return, and including an extra 10% of income to reduce our national debt. Their 1040 becomes their renewable Green Card.

Bekah Congdon, Libertarian, District 28:
I support the free movement of peaceful people, regardless of what industry they will eventually work within.

Jaimy Blanco, Republican, District 29:
Skilled workers are certainly welcome as immigrants. Many visa holders have contributed to America’s success. Between 1901 and 2019, 35% of American Nobel Prize winners in: Chemistry. Physics and Medicine have been foreign born. But a problem exists when a foreign worker on an H-1B visa replaces an American citizen worker at a lower salary. And this does happen. There are two ways to avoid this sort of problem. The first is to limit the number of H-1B visas issued. Sponsors of H-1B visas should be able to document their inability to find sufficient American citizen workers to fill their job requirements. The second and more vigorous solution is to instill rote memorization of basic mathematical facts in the lower grades of elementary school and to stop social promotion. Basic mathematical skills must be drilled into America’s youth and the study of S.T.E.M. coursework should be encouraged. There should be a re-emphasis on technical and scientific education, with skill acquisition as its goal and the internal education of American youth to pursue these careers. Part of the reason for the large number of visas issued for scientific workers is the unwillingness of many American students to commit to the hard work of acquiring mathematical and scientific skills. F-1 student visas are only a problem if the foreign student admitted for study takes the place of an equally qualified U.S. citizen student.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat, District 30:
I believe we can and should create a twenty-first century immigration system that will stimulate jobs, enhance global competitiveness, and help to grow a highly skilled U.S. workforce. North Texas has one of the most diverse economies in the state with trade, transportation, utilities, hospitality and health services making up some of our fastest-growing industries.

The House of Representatives passed the bipartisan Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act with my support gives American businesses the freedom to hire and retain the skilled workers they need by eliminating the per-country cap for employment-based green card applications.

Many of our tech-sector companies depend on foreign professionals who graduate with critical science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, degrees from U.S. universities to fill specific high-skilled positions. I do support skilled work and training visa if the candidate is qualified to enter our country.

Clark Patterson, Libertarian, District 31:
I ardently support comprehensive immigration reform based on greatly increasing legal levels of immigration. In a 2012 Gallup poll, roughly 150 million foreigners expressed a desire to immigrate to the US. With some procedural vetting, we should allow the vast majority to do so. Contrary to the current conventional wisdom, immigration is a win-win proposition. Immigrants benefit from moving to the US, but so do natives. Consequently, we should grant the current 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants and DREAMERs a pathway to citizenship. Allowing much more legal immigration would almost completely end all human trafficking and sex slavery.

Colin Allred, Democrat, District 32:
Immigrants enrich every facet of our communities, and ensuring that everyone, regardless of who they are or where they come from, are able to live your version of the American Dream benefits us all. I support comprehensive immigration reform that includes securing our borders, protecting DREAMers, and providing a pathway to earned citizenship for those who are working hard and paying taxes. I have fought to protect DREAMers, and voted for the bipartisan Dream and Promise Act—a common-sense solution to ensure these young people who are here through no fault of there can stay in the only country they have ever know and I support skilled work and training visas such as H-1B and F-1 visas.

Jason Sigmon, Independent, District 32:
• Immigration is an integral part of America's innovation. This system, though, has become corrupt and controlled by IT outsourcing and multinational firms. An effective immigration system should attract top talent and entrepreneurs to grow and create leading companies. We need reforms that focus on creating American jobs and not making H-1B workers indentured servants once they get here.

Anthony Cristo, Libertarian, District 34:
Immigration plays a very HIGH role in scientific innovation. The two greatest scientific minds of the 20th century were Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla. Both of these men were immigrants from foreign countries. America needs to be more welcoming of everyone. I would eliminate F-1 visas and make them all H-1B visas so that transitioning paperwork is unnecessary. I would also absorb the H4 visa work into the H-1B application so that the spouse and children of these science and technologists can live with them during their stay.

Hal Ridley, Green Party, District 36:
I believe in lawful, legal immigration once we are beyond this pandemic. I'm not in favor of H-1B or F-1 visas, and one reason is we are stealing the very best talent that other nations need for their own advancement. Sometimes we have homeless PHD's here and people with thousand's of dollars of student debt without opportunity. We are great at education people for jobs that aren't here.

Elliott Scheirman, Libertarian, District 2:
Climate change mitigation, sustainable food and water sourcing, vaccine and medical development.

Christopher Claytor, Libertarian, District 3:
Promote free market advancements in science by “Getting Government out of the way!” Reduce regulations, reduce taxes, promote free a labor market so companies can hire the best scientific talent from wherever they happen to be from.

Kevin Hale, Libertarian, District 5:
I have to be honest, I’m not a scientist, salesman by trade and choice. My reasons for running for congress have little to do with science. So please don’t crucify me too much for choosing these three. Environment improvements via Hemp and Nuclear, Life Longevity research, and Space travel.

Carolyn Salter, Democrat, District 5:
My top priority is implementing solutions rapidly to address climate change. There is no future if we do not take drastic steps. That is why I believe we need to focus on clean renewable energy. As an East Texan, I understand communities which rely on agriculture, and I know that our agricultural industries are often struggling. We need to support restorative agricultural policies and clean, sustainable agriculture that support local farmers and ranchers.

Melanie Black, Libertarian, District 6:
Getting government out of science as much as is feasible as it can become politicized when government funding is involved. The libertarian viewpoint is to encourage as much private industry, research, and development as possible. If it's beneficial and people want it, the market will lead the way.

Ted Brown, Libertarian, District 17:
No response at this time.

Vince Duncan, Independent, District 18:
I Need More Information On Projects That Need Our Nation's Attention.

Darren Hamilton, Libertarian, District 24:
First, advancing technologies in renewable energy production. This is necessary for a number of reasons, but such advances lead to benefits in other areas. Second, cyber-security which will become, in my opinion, a paramount domestic issue in the coming decades. Finally, quantum computing and A.I. engineering which will do more to address additional domestic threats than any increase in enforcement could possibly hope to accomplish.

Bill Kelsey, Libertarian, District 25:
My priorities are to listen respectfully to scientists and get out of their way and let them discover and create.

Phil Gray, Libertarian, District 27:
We need to make the ISS a commercial depot in the sky, from which space farers can branch out and explore. Similar stations at the top of gravity wells in orbit around the moon, Mars, and some of the Jovian moons will facilitate space trade, colonization, and exploration. These will be readily funded with loans from debt reduction.

Cybersecurity must be a focus of policy, as well as the safe use of artificial intelligence, and defense against its use against us. Cloud storage, particularly of police bodycam video, must be readily available. Public access to similar storage for personal cameras will soon become a necessity. Making shielding of infrastructure from vulnerability to an EMP economically viable will also pay dividends.

Atmospheric reduction of CO2 and methane will ameliorate some of the effects of climate change. Renewal of the Sahara Sea may reduce the sea level increase that necessitates the removal of shore based installations. It may also ameliorate the genesis of hurricanes.

Jaimy Blanco, Republican, District 29:
The modern world is so complex and interactive, that it is nearly impossible for central planning authorities to properly direct the flow of goods and services as effectively as the free market. Many economists have described this very well, and we need only look to our neighbors in Cuba and Venezuela to see the failures of socialism and central planning. But Congress does have budget and tax authority and is capable of allocating vast resources for specific national goal projects. One such project is the return to the moon, scheduled to take place during the next administration. Some argue that such projects ignore the basic needs of people, but if all are reduced to the lowest common denominator, then social, technological, and scientific progress will come to a screeching halt.

Three areas where Congress can constitutionally provide resources are:

1.) The development of space and deep sea exploration as adjuncts to national defense and the provision of national warning systems for events from enemy attack to weather events to tsunamis. This research can particularly help stimulate private partners of the Johnson Space Center in Houston. Congress also has broad authority to provide for national defense, and defense related research. This may include: advanced materials science and composite material research, semiconductor and superconductor research, radio spectrum dominance research, and cyber coding research.

2.) The development of medicines and patient care and treatment procedures can be assisted by Congressional appropriations, including the issuance of grants as indicated above for medical research. In many cases, the precursors and basic chemicals needed to produce medicines are derived from the petrochemical industry as well as by extraction from specific plants. The development of synthesis, separation, extraction, and purification of medical compounds is in many cases an expensive process. Congress has the authority to promote scientific research through the patent process, and grants could be coordinated with patent development. Houston is a center of medical research in the United States.

3.) The Congress has broad constitutional authority over transportation infrastructure, and may direct the construction of vast public works to improve commerce between the states. Projects such as highways, navigable waterways, locks and dams, river levees, flood mitigation, dockyards and shipyards all fall under the direct responsibility of the Federal government. By extension, the Federal government may direct research into engineering materials used for these and related purposes. In a similar way, research into the materials and construction of the vehicles that use the transportation system can be an important advantage for the United States as multiple types of transportation methods are possible. Much of the work in this area is privately directed, and the government should allow market forces and efficiencies to direct research and not pick winners and losers.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat, District 30:
Please Chairwoman Johnson’s priorities are not in any particular order:

1) Promoting Climate change research in general, including research focused on mitigation and adaptation and clean energy technologies
2) Working to advance our competitiveness through investments in R&D and emerging technologies and through increasing the diversity of our nation’s STEM workforce
3) Working to restore scientific integrity, which has been under assault, at our federal science agencies

Clark Patterson, Libertarian, District 31:
Libertarians oppose all governmental funding of research and development, believing that only the private sector, subject as it is to the price system of supply and demand and the profit-and-loss motive, should engage in R & D. Consequently, Libertarians would phase out and privatize all activities currently conducted by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NASA, and all other government-run science programs.

Colin Allred, Democrat, District 32:
My top three science priorities are combatting the current spread of COVID-19 and pandemic preparedness, addressing the climate crisis which is already affecting our most vulnerable communities and investing in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar to ensure Texas is a leader in clean energy and the good jobs that go with it. Additionally, this means we need to prepare our workforce in the STEM fields, by investing in our public schools and investing in jobs and technical training programs.

Christy Mowrey, Libertarian, District 32:
Privatize schools, increase magnet and charters focused on STEM, create partnership with private companies for outreach.

Jason Sigmon, Independent, District 32:
• Nuclear Energy
• MDMA Treatments
• 5G Development

Anthony Cristo, Libertarian, District 34:
1. Get rid of the bureaucracy holding back nuclear energy progression.
2. Allow school vouchers for students with potential from indigent backgrounds can attend science and technology schools.
3. Make immigration of the brightest scientific minds and their families easier and more streamlined.

Hal Ridley, Green Party, District 36:
I am an inventor and was a CAD Drafter who could not find steady work myself in that field, other than the drawings I made for my patent which was worth the effort. I have researched many new ideas and innovations. I believe that everything we need to create the world we want, from the world we have, is here now, or near. We must gather up the best of our technologies and piece them together in a new holistic, synergistic model, and step into the new paradigm. Inventor and futurist Buckminster Fuller believed "if you want to change things don't confront reality head on, create a new model that makes the old model obsolete." We need metamorphous change, caterpillar to butterfly. Escape the cocoon.