Speak to the campaign

The potential benefits of future technologies are immense. It's where we will likely find solutions to climate change, health and wellness, universal education, and socioeconomic disparities. While we work towards the full realization of these advances, we must take care not to infringe on the rights and safety of Americans. It is the job of Congress to effectively legislate to achieve these outcomes.

The speed of innovation in the areas of science and technology has propelled the United States into the forefront of the development of cutting-edge technologies. Vast improvements in the quality of life we currently experience were made possible by brave entrepreneurs working with academia and governments to deliver solutions to problems big and small. As technology has become an inseparable part of our everyday lives, however, the Silicon Valley mantra of "move fast and break things" doesn't work when we start talking about people's lives and livelihoods.

While we acknowledge the benefits that technological advancements have given us, we must not ignore the harm it has caused, as well as the unequal access that has and continues to prevail.

those in charge of making laws do not themselves understand technology

Lawmakers have failed time and time again to address these issues, often leaving it up to profit-driven companies to police themselves. This has resulted in many harmful and disproportionate outcomes, such as

• Low internet penetration in rural areas
• A failure to address the digital divide, which limited access to communication technologies for many communities
• Not addressing the harms inflicted on young people by social media, resulting in an increase in suicides and creating a crisis of depression
• Not developing and enforcing personal data protection laws
• Allowing the unregulated proliferation of digital currencies with no protections for citizens

These are just a few examples where Congress's failure to act with speed has caused great and, in many cases, irreparable harm to Americans.

The speed with which technology takes over aspects of our lives is increasing, and the areas it touches are becoming more widespread. As we move into an age of Artificial Intelligence, self-driving cars, and a completely digital economy, it is no longer acceptable for Congress to continue on their current trajectory. Citizens must demand a change in course to make sure we can address the world ahead of us.

The problems we face are not surprising, as those currently in charge of making laws do not themselves understand technology and are therefore ill-equipped to hold companies accountable [1] [2] [3] [4].

I will bring my years of experience working in science and technology to craft laws and policies that enable America to remain at the forefront of technological development while protecting citizens and ensuring equitable access to the benefits of these advancements!

Artificial Intelligence is an inflection point the likes of which the world has not seen for generations; not only for technology, but in every aspect of our lives. It represents change in our economy, the labor market, education, law, medicine, and every other facet of our society. This is not an area where the government can have the luxury of sitting back, watching it develop, and then attempt to legislate from behind. The impact is being felt right now and will only increase. We must take steps to ensure the continued development of AI, but also to make sure the rights, privacy, and opportunities for citizens are protected. Congress must prepare for the inevitable disruption that AI will bring and put legislation in place to mitigate the harm it may cause. This includes:

• Ensuring public safety is a priority of all companies involved in the development and deployment of AI. This must be done through auditable public disclosures with enforcement through a watchdog agency.
• Re-imagine taxation of businesses as AI will allow downsizing of the workforce with a potential increase in productivity. This means the taxing of wages will not be sufficient to fund local and federal governments; companies will need to be taxed based on the production and output of goods and services.
• Investigate appropriate ways to implement a Universal Basic Income to ensure the needs of citizens are being met after the inevitable disruption in the labor market. These initiatives should be funded through the taxation of companies that leverage AI to reduce their workforce and increase production.
• Prioritize the protection of and equal access of communities that have historically been exploited and disenfranchised by prior societal change and innovations.

I will sponsor and support legislation that examines and implements protections for citizens as AI increases its prevalence and impact on our society.

I fully support a woman's right to choose. We should also take some time to understand how this issue has been misleadingly framed. The debate is often focused on the choice of the woman, putting her decision in focus; instead, this debate should be focused on something far less nuanced: What is the government's role in her reproductive choices? This question has a much less complicated answer: none. Outside of this being an issue of the woman's health, the government has no say.

Let's look at this from 2 different perspectives.

First, both in tradition and in law, the government has historically been concerned with personhood established at birth, with the only germane exception being laws covering violent acts. You aren't allowed to claim a fetus as a dependent on your taxes, in the same way they're not counted on the census.

Bodily autonomy is a fundamental freedom

The government is only concerned with when and where a person is born; it has no claims or concerns until they exit the womb. It is how citizenship is conferred or denied and marks the beginning of a relationship with the state. To create a new standard for the government's interest hinged on precedent that doesn't exist is disingenuous.

Second, that the government should instruct a citizen on what they must do with their own body is immoral on its face! Not since the abolishment of chattel slavery has the state presumed to exert such control over another human being. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental freedom that must be granted to everyone. Carrying a child can be rewarding for many, but it can also be harrowing and impact a person psychologically, emotionally, physically, and financially. Ultimately, it should be nobody's decision other than the woman's as to whether it is something she wants to endure.

We must recognize that this is likely one of the most difficult decisions a woman may ever have to make, and as a legislator, I would support initiatives and sponsor bills that would give options to women, such as:

1. Increasing access to and education of resources relating to adoption
2. Expand and enshrine the Child Tax Credit into law so that it will never expire and help reduce the financial burden often faced by parents

I also support giving individuals and concerned groups that take the "pro-life" position the opportunity to broadly make their case and attempt to change hearts and minds, as long as this is done without fear-mongering, disinformation, and intimidation.

The debate around reproductive rights can be seen through religious, philosophical, and biological lenses, and those debates are sure to continue. We must simply acknowledge that the government has not, does not, and should not be involved in the decisions a woman makes about her own body.

The United States has the highest rate of maternal mortality of all developed countries. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, this number is buoyed by the staggeringly high rate for women in minoritized communities, with some studies showing Black women dying at a rate more than three times that of their white counterparts. The reasons behind the disparities in this statistic are complex and multi-factored, but one major contributor is the inequity of care received by Black women during pregnancy. The population of Pennsylvania's 3rd district means that this is an issue of special concern.

We must investigate the root causes behind this phenomenon and ensure that practitioners/clinicians, labs, and ancillary services provide equal levels of care for all citizens.

What often gets left out of conversations around healthcare are topics where embarrassment and indignity are experienced by those that may speak of their experiences. These issues are no less important, however, and deserve our attention and solutions.

One such problem is experienced by many of menstruating age, as well as those who support them: Menstrual Equity, where they are unable to afford menstrual hygiene supplies. According to recent studies, this issue affects 40% of the population in some way, with higher concentrations in urban, low-income neighborhoods. This is especially an issue for students and their ability to learn, but it poses a problem to the general population as well. We must ensure that people who menstruate have dignity and privacy by removing barriers and proving easy access to period products regardless of income level.

The social inequities faced by marginalized groups have many complicated root causes. There is, however, general consensus that the state of the education system, especially in dense population centers like the city of Philadelphia, is a major contributor to the state of affairs. Quite simply, children in these environments are often times placed in public schools that, despite the stated intentions, fail to prepare them for the world they'll be entering. In the years to come, this issue will be exacerbated as technological advances in society will require students to have deeper mastery of more diverse skills in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM).

At the beginning of Computer Science Education Week In 2013, then President Obama put out a call for all Americans to learn how to code with his oft cited charge: "Don't just play on your phone. Program it." I was appreciative then and now for the spotlight it placed on the importance of computer science in society, and I believe we're seeing the result of that call today with more young people than ever getting involved in STEM.
This call to action, however, was not taken up by all populations equally, and even though many of the obvious barriers to entry have been reduced over the years, historically underrepresented groups still face many challenges in participating in this ongoing paradigm shift. What we find is that the level of unpreparedness for participation in STEM fields is higher among minoritized groups because their pre-collegiate environments are under-resourced and do not prioritize these skills. These groups are then often playing catch-up or simply declining to participate.

To address this, we must ensure that the fundamentals of our K-12 education system center curricula that prepare students for success in STEM. This begins with strong foundations and a renewed focus on reading comprehension, and mathematics in schools and other environments where standards, resources, and expectations have been lowered or are nonexistent. These are the pillars on which specializations in STEM are built and will ease the matriculation into these fields.

I will support legislation that takes a holistic approach to K-12 education that includes curriculum development, support programs both in and out of school, school breakfast and lunch programs, and ongoing teacher training professional development.

The effects of climate change are real, increasing, and challenging our survival and way of life. The effects are felt daily with extreme weather events, prolonged droughts and heatwaves, melting ice caps, and rising sea levels. The years 2023-2024 had the hottest months on record, and experts predict that by 2030 we may have a 14% increase in average global temperatures. We are witnessing a cateclismic event that will change the lives of future generations in ways that are difficult to imagine. Our only hope to prevent this is to take action NOW. As one of the biggest contributors to the climate crisis, the US government must take steps to slow global warming. This includes:

• Setting achievable targets to reduce the production of greenhouse gases
• Strengthen the EPA to enforce stated targets and bring punitive action to organizations that run afoul
• Encourage the development and popularization of green technologies, including wind, solar, and hydropower generation, electric cars, heating systems, and stoves
• Use our influence on the world stage to encourage other developed nations to reduce their own production of greenhouse gases
• Incentivize developing nations to employ renewable sources of energy as they move to achieve Developed Nation status

We must take firm and purposeful steps to address the issue of climate change before it is too late!

For far too long, marginalized communities have borne the brunt of our ever-worsening climate. Whether by their communities being ignored and underfunded or their unavoidable exposure due to the types of jobs often peopled by these groups, there is a callus disparity between those who make the largest contribution to climate change and those who feel its impact. Citizens who find themselves on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder live in communities where heat islands are present without the relief of green spaces, where factories release toxins into the air, and where dumping and litter is an everyday occurance. They have no means of receiving even temporary reprieve and are often not granted any agency in deciding how their communities should be developed or changed.

We must address this injustice by investing in these communities and engaging with the residents as full stakeholders. We must create more green spaces to help address urban heat islands and improve air quality. We must set standards that govern and reduce the negative impact of manufacturing operations that are often entrenched in these communities, and we must provide a clean and safe space for residents in these communities as we do for any other.

The measure of a civil society is determined by how it treats its weakest, and there are few weaker than those incarcerated by the state. These individuals are often the most disenfranchised, where their rights are stripped and their every action controlled. It is understandable and necessary that those who pose a risk to the general population be held apart from it; however, it is uncivil that this separation should ever be prespecified for the life of the individual without cause or effort to make this person fit to rejoin society. Additionally, the death penalty should be eliminated as a form of punishment. It should never be the prerogative of the state to take away from its citizens that which it cannot return. The notion that we, collectively, would treat another human being purely punitively due to a wrong they commit is, quite simply, taking the easy way out. We should endeavor to treat these individuals as needing our help and understanding. We should recognize the hurt in others that leads them down unsound paths. Indeed, the result may be the same; an individual, despite the best efforts of the state, may never be deemed fit to return to society, but in this scenario the determination is continuous and post hoc, which is at bottom more humane.

I would support legislation that eliminates the death penalty at the federal level and would support initiatives to encourage its elimination in the various states where it persists. What's more, I would also support initiatives that deemphasize Life in Prison as any kind of civilized, acceptable punishment or reasonable alternative to the death penalty and would instead support rehabilitation efforts focused on addressing the emotional and psychological contributors to criminal activity in an effort to have more individuals matriculate from the criminal justice system back into society.

I have never smoked. Whether cigarettes, cigars, or weed, I never partook, despite these substances being all around me and readily accessible for as long as I can remember. It was simply never my style, and at this stage in my life, I certainly don't foresee that changing. My own likes and preferences, however, should not be forced onto others. I do not believe anyone should be made to abide by my moral compass and value system through force of law. What's more, the discrepancy that allows for cigarettes, cigars, and alcohol to be freely imbibed while marijuana use is often criminally prohibited should raise many questions in your mind about equity and equal treatment under the law. Studies continue to increase our understanding about the effects of marijuana, but what seems abundantly clear is that there are many substances, such as those manufactured by pharmaceutical companies, that cause much greater harm but remain legal and accessible.

I believe where we ultimately come down as a society on the use of marijuana and similar substances should be informed by science. Until such time, I do not believe that puritan beliefs should be used to govern the lives of free people. I support the immediate decriminalization of marijuana at the federal level, with the ultimate goal of full legalization. The state should also make efforts toward restitution for those that were snared in the criminal justice system for such offenses as possession without intention to sell.

As the contours and capabilities of the world’s financial systems are redefined with the introduction of new technologies such as digital currencies, we must ensure that all members of society are given equal access and opportunities to fully engage in this new world. Unfortunately, history shows that the benefits received from the financial services of today by Americans in underserved communities have been abysmal!

Low-income households are more likely to be "unbanked", with Black Americans being two-and-a-half times more likely to fall into this category than their white counterparts. They are also less likely to have physical access to a bank branch near their homes. That Pennsylvania's 3rd district is more than 50% Black with a lower median income than the rest of the city and state, this injustice disproportionately affects our residents.

The discrepancies in access to banking and financial services between majority and minoritized communities create unequal outcomes that go far beyond the choices available for transacting business. The barriers to access not only mean these individuals are not able to transact business quickly and easily, but also place on them an unequal financial burden.

In... Pennsylvania, a check cashing business [can] charge 10% of a check’s value

When forced to make cash purchases from local retailers, the purchaser absorbs the cost of credit card transaction fees, which are often amortized in the price of goods and services, without being able to reap the compensatory benefits offered by credit card companies such as points, cash back, etc. What’s more, these individuals are prevented from comparison shopping with online retailers, which leads to paying higher prices.

Those left out of modern banking are also plagued with higher prices for services that those with access forgo. In the state of Pennsylvania, a check cashing business is allowed to charge up to 10% of a check’s value when cashing it, compared to this service being free of charge when the bearer deposits the check into their own bank account. The effect is those without the means to access banking services, who are often those already facing the biggest financial hardships, come out with even less. Additionally, many banks offer services such as mobile deposits with instant cash availability, removing the need for an individual to schedule a visit to a check cashing or retailer location in order to receive their funds.

We must examine the systemic and acute causes of this discrepancy in access and take steps to address it.

I will sponsor legislation to reduce and remove the barriers to accessing the full suite of services offered by America’s banking system and ensure that physical and virtual access is improved for individuals living in underserved communities.

Whenever there is an act of gun violence in this country, there is a loud and immediate pivot by some that America is suffering from a mental health crisis and the shooter should have gotten help. I agree. Putting aside any position on Americans having access to military-style weapons and having more guns per capita than any other nation on earth, we can all agree that we, like many other countries, are in the throws of an epidemic of mental distress. We should invest in resources to make sure that troubled individuals in society are able to receive the help they need before the worst takes place.

While having this conversion, it's important that we acknowledge the plight of the many silent sufferers. Those who go day to day without lashing out, that go unnoticed, but that deal with the same issues and more. We must redouble efforts to ensure that all individuals have access to mental health resources with no more friction than it would take to see their family doctor. Recognizing the importance of mental health, putting together the infrastructure to allow unfettered access, and encouraging safe discussions around it will go a long way in encouraging those that need help to seek it and help mitigate this silent epidemic.

An underdiscussed issue is the health disparities experienced between low-income and older adults in relation to oral health. Studies show that poor oral health leads to high rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and Alzheimer's. This issue can be exacerbated in seniors, who can often times have numerous missing teeth from extended periods of low or no dental care. When this happens, their overall health and quality of life suffer, and many things we take for granted, like sitting for a meal or eating a healthy snack, become onerous. Increasing access to prosthetics such as implants will go a long way in restoring their quality of life. We must enact legislation or strengthen the Affordable Care Act to grant easy access to dental prosthetics for the 1 in 5 seniors and other members of the public experiencing edentulism.

Child hunger is an insidious problem that robs from the wellness, happiness, and productivity of those that experience it. It stunts both physical and mental growth, which will ripple through their entire lives. Children are often chided with the refrain "There are hungry children in Africa" whenever they fail to finish a meal, but this offensive and trite aphorism obscures the fact that hunger is a very real problem right here in the United States, affecting both urban and rural communities. Addressing this problem is complicated and multipronged. It will involve ensuring the nutritional needs of children are always met, whether they are home, at school, and at all times, including holidays or times when school attendance may not be possible.

I will support legislation that bolsters school breakfast and lunch programs, bolsters the Child Tax Credit, and sures up the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I will also support initiatives that seek to address food deserts and provide healthy food options to reduce the scourge of childhood obesity, often prevalent in minority communities.

With more than three-quarters of Americans being unable to afford the median-priced American home and more than half unable to afford a home valued at $250,000, it is clear that America is in the midst of a housing crisis. With the average 30-year mortgage hovering at a 20-year high, home affordability for Millennials and Gen-Z is often times an unrealizable dream. This has resulted in a larger percentage of these groups living with their parents than any other generation in recent history.

To address this issue of inaffordability, I will support legislation to reduce the acquisition cost of a first home. Additionally, we will take steps to increase the development of affordable housing as well as the supporting infrastructure and services to ensure that these units neither suffer from food or service deserts nor put an undue strain on already established communities.

In the United States, one of the few types of debt that cannot be discharged when someone files for Chapter 13 bankruptcy is student loans. This means that regardless of your financial situation, you may be required to continue to make payments on this loan where your obligation to most other types of debt would be removed.

The notion here is that persons may be driven to take on student load debt with the prior intention of having it discharged after graduating. This fear is unfounded, with no data to suggest that this activity was rampant. What's more, that such fears exist sans supporting data raises the obvious question of the true cost of higher education and whether, just like with healthcare and other high-cost necessities, practitioners simply charge what they can instead of what it may be worth.

We live in a society where children are encouraged to seek out higher education to increase their earning potential. We sell this dream, leading many to take on debt that they may not fully understand and from which they cannot unshackle themselves, even if the promised outcomes were not achieved.

The issue of student loan discharge during bankruptcy should be revisited, with more tailored legislation put in place to allow those that are experiencing true financial hardship to have student loans treated as any other form of debt.

By and large, the federal government has a pretty good idea of the taxes you owe, or the refund that's owed to you. It wouldn't take much effort for the IRS to send you a simple letter asking you to confirm if their numbers are correct. If they were, you'd sign the letter and send it back, and your tax filing for the year would be complete. If it wasn't, then you could hop over to your favorite tax preparation software and go through the process of correcting the information provided.

This process, EasyFile, has been championed by some in Congress for years, but lobbyists from companies and special interest groups have stalled any real movement on enacting laws that could see EasyFile become a reality. While it's understandable that companies would have profit-driven motives to ensure that systems such as EasyFile never see the light of day, it's unacceptable that Americans should suffer through the tedious and error-prone process of putting together tax returns to tell the government what it already knows and to pay these companies for allowing us to do so.

I will support legislation to make EasyFile a reality for Americans so that tax filing can be done for free in a few minutes using a postcard instead of hours and days using complicated software or tax preparation services, potentially costing taxpayers hundreds of dollars.

Perpetual incumbency is a blight on a democracy that purports to represent the interests of the people. Career politicians that have mastered the art of campaigning or that find themselves in safe, partisan districts are not incentivized to put the issues that are important to their constituents ahead of their own self-interest. Additionally, the slow pace with which new members, and thus new ways of thinking, enter the body means it is necessarily slow to understand and react to changes in society.

I support term limits for members of Congress to ameliorate the ineffectiveness of lawmakers that hold office for decades and to ensure the well of new ideas is constantly refreshed.

I would support legislation that sets limits of 5-9 terms for members of the House (10-18 years) and 2-3 terms for senators (12-18 years).

Those who are term-limited out of office can continue to live politically aligned lives as senior staffers for other congresspersons, providing consulting, or joining think tanks. If all else fails, they also reserve the option to, and I recognize this for the novel idea that it is, return to being productive members of society having given of themselves in service of their constituents.

In the United States, the average retirement age is 63. May persons continue to work past that age, and even those that do retire often continue to engage in meaningful activities for many years. In the end, age is just a number, but we also recognize that the human body has its limits, physically, emotionally, and cognitively, and acting in any way that fails to recognize this is done to our detriment.

I support enacting age limits for individuals serving as members of Congress. Age restrictions are already in place on the other end, where individuals must be at least 25 years old to assume office. We recognize that an individual of insufficient age may lack the maturity and experience deemed necessary to handle the difficulties inherent to the job of being a congressperson. We must now also recognize that there are distinct but similar challenges faced by individuals of an advanced age.

I acknowledge the obvious criticism that it should be up to the voters to decide who they want to represent them in Congress, but in response, I put forward that the power of the incumbency can often stifle the elevation of viable alternatives, leaving constituents with few or no options.

I recognize the sensitive nature of this topic, as well as the bluntness of the proposed approach, and am willing to explore alternatives. There is a broader conversation to be had on how to ensure that those who lead our country's government have the necessary faculties to do so. This could include alternatives to age limits, such as cognitive testing, which may allow for individuals to hold office as long as they are capable of doing so.

Lawmakers' necessary access to privileged information must not be exploited for personal gain. Insider trading by members of Congress must be prohibited.

In 2012, then Sen. Joe Lieberman introduced the STOCK Act, which was aimed at preventing members of congress from trading on privileged information. The idea was to ensure that lawmakers would have the same restrictions against insider trading as the rest of the public. It was the right idea; however analysis has shown that it has been widely ineffective at its stated goals.

I support revisiting the goals of the STOCK Act and introducing new legislation that addresses the shortfalls of the original law. Members of Congress should play by the same rules as everyone else, and the public should expect the highest standards considering the volume of information made available to them through their office.

Despite the express wish of the founding fathers, America has fully entrenched a two-party system of government. This system, as feared, has led to the development of factions in the government and society. It polorizes our citizens and exerts pressure that pushes us to the fringes. Every day, more and more extreme voices are being elevated, which undermines political discourse. Additionally, it forces independently-minded individuals who may want to seek elected office to ultimately throw in their lot with one party or the other, regardless of how well their political philosophies align, or be relegated to obscurity. This is because the current system of elections (First Past the Post) disincentivizes voting for a third party, as it's often seen as a wasted vote, or at its most impactful, a spoiler for one of the candidates of the major parties. First Past the Post dilutes the full responsiveness of the candidate pool, limiting the practical choices available to voters.

I support initiatives that encourage states to investigate and adopt Ranked Choice Voting as one mechanism to address this concern. This system of voting allows voters to express, instead of a single choice for an elected office, multiple choices ranked from most to least preferred. This allows a voter to express their preference for a potentially non-mainstream candidate, safe in the knowledge that if their preferred candidate does not garner enough support, their vote isn't wasted as it is simply reassigned to their next preferred choice. Ranked Choice Voting can take some effort to fully explain and be understood, but it is a far superior way to allow the electorate to express their will and would allow us as a country to be less hamstrung by the current system of factions and the problems it brings.