Where do Democrats in the CD1 Special Election stand on key issues? A complete guide

Where do the Democrats vying to represent Rhode Island's 1st Congressional District stand on a carbon tax, defense spending, student loan debt, and relations with China? What kind of earmarks would they fight to get for the district, and what would their dream vanity plate say?

The Providence Journal posed these questions — and more — to each candidate who will appear on the primary ballot. Below, you'll find their written responses, presented in alphabetical order by last name. (One candidate, Spencer Dickinson, did not respond to the questionnaire. The Journal spoke with him on the phone to make sure that he was aware of the survey and the deadline.)

Answers have been edited only to conform with AP style, and not for spelling or grammar. Additionally, each candidate was informed that they would have no more than 75 words to answer each question. In instances where candidates exceeded that limit, their responses have been truncated at the 75-word mark, as indicated by an ellipsis in brackets.

A separate questionnaire has been distributed to the two candidates who will appear on the Republican primary ballot. Their responses will appear in The Journal next Sunday.

Voter Guide: RI's Special Election: 2023 Congressional District 1

Should the U.S. government cancel all student loan debt, or should some Americans pay back what they owe?

Gabe Amo: I supported President Biden’s efforts to cancel $10,000 in federal student loan debt which was recently struck down by the Supreme Court. I would advocate to enact President Biden’s plan legislatively and would be open to canceling more than $10,000. We must cancel federal debt from predatory, for-profit institutions. Student loan debt holds back so many Americans from building wealth, buying a home, and growing or starting a small business.

Stephanie Beauté: The federal government's Troubled Asset Relief Program TARP provided a $700 billion bailout to keep troubled banks and companies in operation, utilizing $245 billion in taxpayer money to stabilize over 700 banks. More recently, the Paycheck Protection Program PPP provided loans to companies affected by the pandemic, and forgiven. Canceling student loan debt would boost the economy, give them the ability to buy homes, start businesses, and save for retirement.

Walter Berbrick: I’m a first generation college graduate with $50K+ in student loan debt. The system is clearly broken and Rhode Islanders need relief now. I will work hard to lower costs of college, extend the freeze, forgive all student loan debt and medical debt for Americans making under $200K a year, expand Pell Grants, and make college free and forgive student loan debt for each year of public service so we can fill critical jobs.

Sandra Cano: Student loan debt is choking our economy. Decades ago, it didn’t cost what it does today to get a higher education. College tuition has skyrocketed well beyond inflation levels, making it less accessible to everyday people who then must rely on predatory loans. The federal government has the ability to forgive student debt; it should leverage that power to alleviate the burden on working families so the money can go more productively into our economy.

Don Carlson: Student loan forgiveness should be linked to public service in chronically understaffed and underpaid professions like teaching, nursing, elder care, child care, and healthcare – as well as military service. For those professions, loan forbearance and forgiveness should begin on day one without the current 10-year waiting period. Let’s use student loan forgiveness as a way to encourage young people to pursue careers that serve the needs of the nation – and to reward those [...]

More: Three Rhode Islanders share their stories of 'life-changing' student-loan forgiveness

Stephen Casey: No, creating uncertainty in the banking industry and raising the country’s debt is not the answer. There’s also an issue of fairness for those who worked diligently to pay off their debts or the parents who paid off student loans for their children.

Taking on debt and honoring financial commitments contribute to personal but the government should offer student loan refinance programs with lower payments, providing relief to borrowers while encouraging responsibility and financial understanding.

John Goncalves: If the U.S. government can afford to forgive loans to major corporations, it can afford to forgive student loan debt. Young people took out loans because it was sold as a path to the middle class. That path has been closed for too long. Forgiving student loan debt would be a huge investment in our nation’s future by allowing young people to buy homes, start families, and create small businesses.

Sabina Matos: As the mother of an incoming freshman at URI, I personally understand how student loan debt is a heavy burden preventing economic mobility for millions of Americans of all ages. I support President Biden’s plan to forgive up to $20,000 per borrower and I am open to more forgiveness in the future. One aspect I like about the president’s plan is that it seeks to understand how these programs can benefit historically disadvantaged communities.

Ana Quezada: In Congress, I’ll fight to pass the College for All Act, which makes community college, public universities, tribal colleges and HBCUs tuition free. If we can afford to forgive PPP loans to large corporations, we can forgive student loans. K-12 education is free in the U.S. because it benefits all of society and sets up our kids for success, economic mobility, and wellbeing. I supported making CCRI and RIC free.

Aaron Regunberg: We’ve got to help the countless young people who are buried under mountains of student loan debt. Almost everyone with student loan debt has made payments – usually dramatic, life-restricting payments over the course of many, many years. We should start providing the millions of Americans trapped in this vicious cycle with as much relief as possible, and we should make public college tuition free to address this issue moving forward.

Allen Waters: The federal government should not cancel any student loan debt as it is immoral and very unfair to the many Rhode Islanders who have already worked and paid off their college loans. At minimum, the principal amount borrowed must be paid back in full. Relatedly, I support closing the U.S. Department of Education and getting government out of the student lending business as it is inflationary and has been significant to increasing college costs.

Do you think the United States should try to limit the power and influence of China? If so, please describe the policies you would support to accomplish that.

Amo: I agree with President Biden that China and the United States should be economic competitors, not engaged in economic and political conflict. We should pursue diplomacy, especially on combating climate change, but we must limit their influence on industries relevant to our own national security priorities, like semiconductor, artificial Intelligence, and quantum computing sectors. We must stand firm in our defense of Taiwan and in our opposition to Beijing’s movement towards Vladimir Putin and Russia.

Beauté: China's power is certainly a multifaceted and complex issue that can be viewed from various angles. From a trade and economic perspective, China's practices have been criticized for intellectual property theft, unfair trade practices, and state subsidies to domestic industries. Cyber espionage and hacking activities by China targeting other countries' governments and businesses have also been a cause for concern. This highlights the importance of having a woman with tech experience in Congress.

Berbrick: The China challenge provides Congress an opportunity to rise above partisan politics and chart a smart, long-term strategy centered on cooperation, competition, and conflict. We need to focus on preventing and winning wars in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. We need to compete in Latin America and Africa, global trade, and research and development. And we need to collaborate on transnational challenges like climate change and global public health.

Cano: China is an important but complex ally, and competitor, on the world stage. We must hold China accountable to their continued contributions to the global economy, including infrastructure investments in developing nations as well as innovations in sustainable energy technology. We should make this a priority while investing in our own small businesses and protecting manufacturing jobs in America.

Carlson: Yes. The most effective strategy is using our leverage wherever possible to bring manufacturing jobs back home. The CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act show we can decrease our reliance on Chinese manufacturing by providing incentives to buy American products and technology. Our supply chains will be more resilient, our economy healthier, and our planet cleaner if we can reduce our dependence on goods shipped from China. Moreover, our national security will be enhanced.

Casey: The United States and China are two of the world's largest economies, and their economic interdependence is significant. Working closely with RIMA I saw the impact of supply chain disruptions on Rhode Island’s economy. Fairtrade practices make it difficult for businesses to compete and highlight the need to support reshoring to bring jobs back. Competition, collaboration, trade negotiations, and domestic investment in critical industries will ensure a balanced approach to managing China's influence.

Goncalves: The best way that the U.S. can counter China’s influence is by growing our economy and rehabilitating America’s image with the world. As a millennial son of immigrants who grew up in a global world, I will bring a much needed fresh perspective to this effort. That includes supporting our allies and taking on threats like Russia’s aggression, but also tackling problems at home like gun violence and attacks on democracy that horrify the world.

Matos: China represents the greatest geopolitical adversary to the United States. The government in Beijing has made clear they have little interest in cooperation, while their unfair trade practices hurt millions of Americans. I support cracking down on harmful Chinese trade practices, such as their theft of American innovation, and curbing Chinese influence in the Pacific and across the globe.

Quezada: China continues to buy influence throughout the world, especially Latin America and Africa where the U.S. has failed to make investments in democracy and fair trade. We can limit China’s power through trade policy. We need to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. I also support the federal bill to ban oil exports to foreign adversaries like China and prohibit the Department of Energy from exporting petroleum products from the Strategic Reserve.

Regunberg: I strongly support policies to build American, rebuild U.S. manufacturing, and prioritize American workers over multinational and Chinese corporations that have benefited from a shift in industry from the U.S. to China. But we need a sober – rather than alarmist – approach to U.S.-China policy, and we can’t lose sight of the need to work together with China on issues like climate.

Waters: As it has grown to be our greatest adversary and an irresponsible global actor, China is an existential threat to American interests and values, internationally and domestically, like stealing trillions of dollars of intellectual property and a negative influence on American college campuses. To counter China in this New Cold War, I support polices growing the economy and providing energy independence, strong supply chains, secure borders, military deterrence and renewed Western global partnerships and leadership.

What Rhode Island projects would you fight for to receive federal dollars through appropriations in omnibus spending bills?

Amo: - Coastal resilience projects in communities like Barrington and Newport.- Expansion of workforce development and opportunities to place Rhode Island at the center of the clean energy supply chain, including the South Quay Marine Terminal in East Providence.- Additional funding to build out the Blackstone Valley National Park and protect and enhance the Blackstone Valley region- Public transit funding to close RIPTA shortfalls and improve our rail connection to Boston- Homelessness prevention funding for local providers

Beauté: As your next Congresswoman, I believe it is crucial to prioritize the state's economic development and growth. We need to provide small businesses with the necessary resources. Investing in the local economy will stimulate growth and increase the standard of living for Rhode Islanders. Lastly, the blue economy is an essential part of Rhode Island's economy, this will promote sustainable economic growth while preserving our environment. That IS a campaign promise!

Berbrick: To help working families and deliver a strong return on investment to taxpayers, we’ve got to make smart, forward-looking investments to lower costs for Rhode Islanders, protect our democracy, and tackle our climate crises. I’m focused on directing crucial federal funding back home on projects that improve Rhode Island’s public transportation and cleaner energy infrastructure, housing, K-12 education, retirement security, voter access, and protecting our air, water and public lands.

Cano: Rhode Island needs strong investments in infrastructure, with particular attention to projects that help bolster resiliency for municipalities across the district as we face the multifaceted threat of climate chaos. Sea level rise, flash flooding, extreme heat, deep freezes, storms and more threaten our communities while bridges and schools crumble. Investing in sustainable infrastructure will create well-paid jobs (especially by employing union workers) and help us transition to a green economy.

Carlson: I would do a comprehensive search of the District to prioritize projects in close consultation with local leaders and David Cicilline. Top of the list: new life for the Cranston Street Armory; creating affordable housing options in our urban core surrounding Providence; reimagining the huge tracts of abandoned Navy land on Aquidneck Island that have been fallow for far too long; and investing in climate resiliency in low-lying areas like Barrington and other coastal zones.

Casey: My priority is initiatives critical to economic development, public health, and education. I support the Pawtucket Development and the Housing, Jobs & Economic Development Initiative for Woonsocket and the recent $2 million request for Crossroads Rhode Island to build residential units.

President Biden’s Infrastructure package is critical for improvements to our electric grid, schools, roads, and bridges after years of cutbacks in funding. We must also address the potential shortfall for social security and Medicare.

Goncalves: We need to make Rhode Island a more attractive place to live and raise a family. In Congress, I will fight for federal funds to build more affordable housing, expand public transportation, and fully fund early education programs. I’ll also fight for funding that would invest in clean energy projects that reduce pollution, create good paying jobs, and move Rhode Island towards a carbon-neutral future.

Matos: I believe that Rhode Island needs to continue to build its infrastructure, particularly when it comes to public transportation and housing. The lack of available housing is driving the cost of living up in every community. I will support programs that build more homes in Rhode Island at all income levels. I also will make repairs to the Mt. Hope bridge a priority.

Quezada: I would fight to bring federal dollars to Rhode Island to support investments in its people. This includes building new schools, creating green jobs, investing in roads and bridges that are bike and pedestrian friendly, coastal protections to prevent catastrophic flooding, and expanding Medicaid funding to cover women’s health, housing, mental health, addiction treatment, and recovery services.

Regunberg: Our next Congressperson must be ruthlessly persistent in securing federal dollars for Rhode Island. I’d fight for funding from recently enacted programs to make our schools more energy efficient, upgrade classroom air quality, and transition to electric school buses. I’d advocate for resources to support our developing offshore wind industry and strengthen industrial infrastructure. And I’ll make sure we get as many dollars as possible from the Inflation Reduction Act for pollution reduction and decarbonization.

Waters: I support fiscal responsibility in Congress. Omnibus bills are haven for wasteful spending, earmarks and typically leave no time for debate, and must offer more cuts for budget deficit reduction to reduce the high inflation associated with excess government spending. Infrastructure. Community Development Block Grants. Fire Prevention. Affordable Cooperative Housing to promote ownership. Arts funding in schools.

Gina Raimondo says the CHIPS Act will restore critical domestic computer chip manufacturing, while Bernie Sanders calls it corporate welfare. Who is right?

Amo: President Biden and his administration, including Secretary Raimondo. The CHIPS and Science Act has already led to an increase in domestic manufacturing investment and will strengthen our national security. There is no question that the CHIPS and Science Act will be one of President Biden’s lasting accomplishments. I am proud to have helped get the bill across the finish line and will work as a member of Congress to steer that funding to Rhode Island.

Beauté: Bernie’s been wrong on some things, on this and his latest endorsement in this race. The CHIPS Act creates an opportunity that involves utilizing the state's industry to secure funds and create thousands of jobs while positioning the U.S. as a leader in this space. The initiative is expected to bring in billions of dollars in revenue and offer good-paying jobs at various levels. I intend to bring those dollars here to our state.

Berbrick: The bipartisan CHIPS Act allows American manufacturers to compete with China and bolster our economy. Investments in the semiconductor industry must prioritize good-paying jobs, support domestic supply chains, and respond to current national security challenges. American workers deserve the right to care for their families and retire with dignity and financial security. A worker-centered focus is critical to delivering on the CHIPS Act's promise of rebuilding the semiconductor industry and a strong middle class.

Cano: The global supply chain breakdown in recent years was the direct result of a globalizing, relatively unregulated economy. The CHIPS Act invests in domestic high tech manufacturing in order to reduce our reliance on foreign manufacturing while boosting our economy. It will provide well-paid jobs and opportunity for more Americans, and bring advanced manufacturing back to the United States, all of which will help position our economy for resilience and leadership in the next century.

Carlson: Secretary Raimondo is right. The CHIPS Act is essential to maintaining strong national security and reducing our dependence on China. Semiconductor chips are essential components for everything from refrigerators to phones and cars. Depending on our adversary leaves us vulnerable to hacking, spyware, and sudden supply cuts that cripple American industry and cause spikes in inflation – as we experienced so painfully during Covid. Shame on us if we don’t learn our lessons from that [...]

Casey: Semiconductor technology is critical to the U.S. economy and it’s importance cannot be overstated. Industries including advanced medical devices, industrial equipment, and defense systems combined with rapidly changing technology in areas of artificial intelligence, data analytics, and 5G networks are critical to global competitiveness. Maintaining a strong domestic chip manufacturing capability allows the U.S. to remain at the forefront of innovation while safeguarding national security, economic growth, and technological leadership.

Goncalves: I support the CHIPS Act, but I agree with Bernie Sanders that Congress needs to crack down on corporate welfare. Mega corporations shouldn’t be getting blank checks from the government in the form of tax breaks. Instead, we should be focusing on creating jobs by investing in small businesses and supporting companies that keep jobs in the U.S. That’s why I support a corporate minimum tax to make sure corporations pay their fair share.

Matos: I believe that the United States needs to establish its own ability to build the things on which we rely. Otherwise, we are vulnerable to global political and supply chain issues that could be beyond our control. Computer chip manufacturing is a glaring example of this dynamic and I agree with Secretary Raimondo’s position on the CHIPS Act.

Quezada: It’s corporate welfare. These corporations make huge profits. We need to stop giving handouts to large corporations and instead invest in people through education, housing, and health care. One potential hazard is that implementing the CHIPS Act may also inadvertently signal to the Chinese that we are unlikely to support Taiwan against an occupation.

Regunberg: This is absolutely an opportunity to do good things for local communities who need this investment – re-shore production, bring back domestic manufacturing, prevent shortages, and more. But we can’t simply throw billions in subsidies at the same old corporate conglomerates who made a mess in the first place. That’s why we need to make sure these dollars are attached to unions, good pay, and community benefit agreements.

Waters: U.S. semiconductor chip manufacturers are a highly profitable and the worldwide industrial leader with one-half of global market share. With the CHIPs Act, America moves away from a free-market philosophy to giving the government more leeway in manipulating the economy through industrial policy, a soft form of centralized control, using subsidies, regulation, and taxation. It puts Americans on the hook for $52 billion in subsidies and $24 billion in tax credits. I stand with Bernie.

Voter Guide: RI's Special Election: 2023 Congressional District 1

To fight climate change, should the U.S. enact policies, such as a carbon tax or bans on fossil fuel infrastructure, that raise the cost of oil and gas?

Amo: We must work to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and swiftly move towards renewable sources of energy. There are a range of factors that increase the cost of oil and gas. Ultimately, consumers will spend less money and use less energy as we build out our electric vehicle infrastructure, including a nationwide charging network, modernize our grid, and expand the production and use of alternative forms of energy like wind and solar.

Beauté: It is important to address the issue of climate change and its impact on our planet, but we must also be mindful of the impact it has on our working citizens. The rising cost of food and gas has sent a crippling ripple effect through our economy. Extreme shifts in policy will not immediately reset the planet. We need to do our part while also ensuring that our working citizens are not bankrupted by the [...]

Berbrick: As a career climate educator and policymaker, I speak with conviction in saying that a carbon tax is one of the most effective tools to reduce carbon emissions and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. To restore our position as a global climate leader, we must act now to save our planet. Moreover, revenue earned from carbon pricing can be used to reduce the effects of climate change on the most vulnerable communities.

Cano: All climate solutions need to be implemented through a lens of equity and justice: no intervention should burden the working class or marginalized communities. Nuanced analysis needs to be conducted on any policy. Higher fossil fuel prices would disproportionately impact lower income families for whom gas and utilities take up a higher percentage of the household budget, and for whom many green alternatives remain inaccessible. We must make sure our policies make sustainability broadly accessible.

Carlson: I was a proud signer of the Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends in January 2019. The Carbon Dividends plan is NOT a tax; no money sticks to the government. The entire amount of the assessment is rebated out to every U.S. citizen in equal lump-sum dividends – much like the Alaska Permanent Fund. As a champion of this idea, I was deeply gratified by its endorsement by thousands of respected economists.

Casey: As a 17-year EMT/Firefighter, no one sees the impact of climate change more than I do. I support initiatives to create a resilient infrastructure and allow the U.S. to transition to renewable energy sources that reduce greenhouse gases. Congress needs to encourage innovation and research to develop advanced renewables and research institutions. I support collaborating on grid modernization, expansion, and maintenance to accommodate renewable energy, energy storage systems, and advanced technologies for our infrastructure.

Goncalves: That’s a false binary choice. The cost of oil and gas is rising because our world is running out of easily-obtained fossil fuels. Last year, fossil fuel corporations received almost $50 billion in tax breaks, while climate-fueled natural disasters cost the U.S. $165 billion. Clean energy would reduce costs for American households, reduce the deficit, and ensure there is a world to pass on to our grandchildren.

Matos: The climate crisis is one of, if not the most, pressing threat to our economy, our way of life, and our future. At the federal level, we must crack down on polluters and incentivize businesses and individuals to move toward alternative, sustainable sources of energy. I would like to see us fast-tracking projects for offshore wind, like the one in Rhode Island, rather than implementing immediate bans on our existing infrastructure.

Quezada: Yes. Carbon is a pollutant and should be taxed like one. We should ban new fossil fuel infrastructure. I was a co-sponsor on the bill imposing a carbon tax on R.I. corporations selling fossil fuels. I fought to stop an LNG facility because pollution from the port already affects my community’s health. We need to help people, especially poorer people, transition to electric vehicles and renewable energy like wind and solar power for their homes.

Regunberg: We need to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible to have a shot at securing a livable future. And we must do it equitably. As a state legislator, I introduced carbon pricing legislation that would have protected working families from price hikes. In Congress, I’d continue fighting to make sure that the companies who brought our climate to the brink are the ones paying for our energy transition, not working families.

Waters: Renewable Energy is 12% of U.S. Primary Energy Consumption (2021) and of which wind power is 27% of the Renewable Energy 12% and solar is 12% of the 12%. It is undeniable risk of folly for the government to continue to push a climate change industrial policy agenda to reduce the risk of global warming, when doing so by actively reducing the use of fossil fuels will destroy the economy and cause a depression.

Should Congress scale back environmental regulations to allow renewable energy infrastructure to be built faster?

Amo: We should not. We can protect our environment and move quickly without doing away with important regulations. I would look towards the appropriate agencies to direct and improve the regulatory process rather than forcing political intervention. There are investments in President Biden’s historic Inflation Reduction Act to accelerate the growth of renewable energy infrastructure. We need a congressperson who is laser-focused on defending that legislation and its transformational impact from being gutted by Republican leadership.

Beauté: At the heart of this issue is a fundamental question: how can we foster innovation and creativity in the renewable energy sector while still protecting our natural resources and ensuring a sustainable future? It is a challenge I deem worth committing to, and one that requires a nuanced approach that takes into account the complex interplay between economic development, environmental protection, and technological advancement. Scaling back environmental regulations is not the answer.

Berbrick: Yes, we must build more renewable energy faster. But ignoring environmental laws isn’t the way to do it. We must make it easier to quickly build new transmission lines that would unlock a tidal wave of new wind, solar, and energy storage. I propose giving the FERC the ability to site new transmission lines across the country, require regional grid operators to strengthen connections, and require the voices of affected local communities be heard.

Cano: When renewable energy infrastructure conflicts with environmental regulation, another solution needs to be found. Cutting down trees to build solar panels might be the most expedient path to the infrastructure goal, however it’s counterproductive. We need to build the political will to get creative and utilize regulation to implement sustainable infrastructure solutions that make sense – like solar panels over existing parking lots and other paved spaces.

Carlson: Yes. We face a climate emergency right now. As with any crisis we need to respond decisively with action: grid upgrades, charging stations, rapid deployment of renewable energy generation. Fossil fuel interests are spending billions in a last ditch attempt to save their profits. If we want to save the planet these critical initiatives can’t be bogged down forever in court. We can’t be reckless, but full speed ahead with all reasonable new projects.

Casey: As our understanding of climate change evolves, regulations should be adaptable and updated to reflect the latest scientific knowledge and technological advancements. Regulations play a crucial role driving the adoption of cleaner technologies and protecting the environment, but we should focus on refining and targeting regulations to address specific areas detrimental to innovation or incentivizing clean energy; scaling back regulations could reverse progress. Instead, Congress should encourages innovation and promotes collaboration among stakeholders.

Goncalves: It doesn’t have to be either or. In Europe, infrastructure follows stricter environmental and labor regulations and is still built at a much faster pace. We should be looking to Europe and Asia for best practices and engineering expertise. Then Congress needs to approach infrastructure building like we did in the 1950s with the interstate highway system: a clearly defined vision, measurable outcomes, and sustained investment.

Matos: There is no question that we need to build renewable energy infrastructure faster. However, I believe that proper regulatory oversight is necessary to ensure the safe and responsible implementation of energy programs. Many of the biggest climate-impacting accidents in recent years have come at times when federal regulators had been reeled in by Republican-led deregulation efforts.

Quezada: While we need new renewable energy infrastructure, it doesn’t make sense to reduce the regulations that protect people. However, if we can make the paperwork processes easier, I’d be open to looking into that.

Regunberg: No – this is a false choice. Facilitating the urgent work of taking clean energy to scale doesn’t require us to gut bedrock environmental laws like the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). But we can – and, I believe, should – create fast-track pathways for projects that would lower emissions, to help speed the development of renewable energy infrastructure without throwing the door open to polluting and dangerous new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Waters: Infrastructures of wind, solar and electricity transmission run up against wildlife protection requirements because of bad effects they often have on migratory birds, marine mammals, and other biodiversity. Environmental protections are in place to protect the public, wildlife, and rights and powers of state and local jurisdictions. A problem with government actively replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar are the inherent unreliability of both. Waters for Congress supports nuclear power expansion with 24/7 reliability.

The U.S. continues to lead our peers around the world in terms of gun deaths and mass shootings. What country would you look to as a model for firearm legislation here and why?

Amo: I would look towards Australia. In 1996, there was a mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania that killed 35 people. They immediately responded and banned semi-automatic weapons and passed stricter gun ownership rules, some of which, admittedly, would not pass constitutional muster in the United States. However, Australia’s swiftness is something we should mirror in the United States so that we finally put an end to the plague of gun violence in our communities.

Beauté: I would model my legislation after Japan. Individuals must complete a series of steps. First, they need to attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve a minimum of 90% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Following this, they must pass a mental-health evaluation at a hospital and undergo a background check, where they will investigate any criminal records or ties and interview friends and family members.

Berbrick: As a veteran, I know firsthand the responsibility and risks of handling firearms. Like Australia, I’d ban automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles; require a license, registration, and firearm safety course; and create a permanent gun buyback program to remove illegal or unwanted guns off our streets. Like Israel, I’d raise the age for ALL firearms purchases to 21, and require gun owners be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, and pass a health screening.

Cano: We are the only country in the developed world with a gun violence epidemic. We must move past the rhetoric and build up our political will to pass lifesaving laws like banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, closing loopholes, and expanding background checks. Interventions like these will protect our communities – and keep all Americans safer.

Carlson: Evidence: A British gunman killed 16 people in 1987; U.K. banned semiautomatic weapons. Same with most handguns after 1996 school shooting. U.K. has one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the developed world. A 1996 Australia massacre prompted mandatory gun buybacks that saw as many as 1 million firearms melted into slag. The rate of mass shootings plummeted from once every 18 months to only one in 26 years since.

Casey: As a 17-year EMT/Firefighter, my focus is keeping people safe. I support President Biden's bipartisan "Safer Communities Act" which addresses children's mental health, housing, and related challenges and relies on evidence-based initiatives to prevent gun-related fatalities. I am a staunch proponent of strengthening universal background checks, terminating online sales of firearms and eliminating loopholes allowing anyone who should not be in possession of a firearm to acquire one; my priority is addressing the presence [...]

Goncalves: As a teacher, this is something I unfortunately think about every single day. I have to teach my fourth graders how to defend themselves from an armed shooter, because an extremist Supreme Court majority is hell bent on gutting gun control laws.

Our children would be safer if we had New Zealand’s political leaders, who acted decisively and swiftly after the 2019 Christchurch massacre to introduce a nationwide ban on assault rifles.

Matos: There are countless countries that have common-sense gun safety legislation in place and they have far less gun violence. That being said, the first country I would look toward as an example is the United States. From 1994-2004 the U.S. had a federal assault weapons ban in place. It was only after it was allowed to expire that the number of AR-15-style rifles and the number of mass shootings began to surge throughout the nation.

Quezada: Switzerland has very high rates of gun ownership and zero mass shootings because gun owners are required to apply for a license, pass red-flag checks, and undergo firearms training. As I’ve supported here in Rhode Island, we can and should pass common sense gun regulations like safe storage, background checks, red flag laws, and others which most Americans, including most gun owners, agree with.

Regunberg: In 1996 Australia experienced a horrible mass shooting. Instead of bowing to the gun industry with useless “thoughts and prayers,” Australian leaders passed the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which banned assault weapons and introduced a mandatory buyback program. Following the passage of the NFA, firearm suicide and homicide rates dramatically declined in Australia. We know what we have to do in the U.S. – we just need the political courage to do it.

Waters: Rhode Island and America have a cultural Marxism problem where the ideals of family values, individual freedom, personal responsibility, freedom of speech, civil order, and a fair and balanced rule of law are being slowly undermined and compromised. Waters for Congress does not wish to use another nations’ model of gun control as our right to bear arms under 2A of the Constitution extends our natural right of self-defense and to keep tyrants at bay.

Given your personal experience, which House committee assignment would you most desire? How would you use it to impact RI?

Amo: Obviously, I would love to be on Appropriations so that I can bring as many resources and jobs back to Rhode Island as possible. However, that would not be an option until I build up seniority. Realistically, I could join the Science, Space, and Technology Committee to invest in local jobs: at our federal labs, in agencies like NOAA, and research and development in critical industries in non-defense sectors.

Beauté: If elected, I would most desire to join the Small Business Committee. Small businesses are the backbone of our state and it's time we start treating them like it. As someone who attended Hope High School, I have seen firsthand the failures of our education system. That's why I am also committed to joining the Education & Workforce Committee. It’s a committee that I also would be eligible for as a Freshman.

Berbrick: The House committees on Foreign Relations, Armed Services, Intelligence, and Energy and Commerce are the most natural fits for me. But, I’m most interested in solving one of the greatest challenges facing Rhode Islanders today: HOUSING. As a member and eventual Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development & Insurance, I will advocate for increased affordable housing initiatives, streamlined access to housing assistance programs, and effective policies to combat homelessness.

Cano: I’m interested in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, as well as the Appropriations Committee. We need to protect and increase the federal investments that come back to Rhode Island to support our economy. Funding infrastructure improvements that improve our resiliency and climate preparedness is critical, and supports well-paid union labor jobs. We also need to ensure that schools are properly resourced and have what they need for students and teachers to thrive.

Carlson: Energy & Commerce. All the action in the coming decade will be around the rapid transition to a renewable energy economy. Rhode Island can be the renewable energy hub of the Northeast if we claim bold leadership of the offshore wind industry today. Then we can build an ecosystem of thriving sustainable businesses (like Flux Marine) using the resources I can secure under the Inflation Reduction Act. E&C is where I can make that happen.

Casey: House Veterans Affairs Committee because the Committee plays a critical role in addressing the needs and challenges faced by veterans. As a 17-year EMT/Firefighter, I see the struggles of those who served our country – they deserve better. I will advocate for increased funding to improve access to healthcare services and promote legislation and funding to address homelessness among veterans, including housing assistance programs that increase access to mental health services and job training.

Goncalves: As an educator, I would bring much needed expertise and perspective to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Rhode Island’s population is shrinking because young people grow up and move away to Boston or New York. We need to invest in the next generation to keep our state alive by increasing the federal minimum wage to $17/hr, passing paid family and sick leave, eliminating student debt, and expanding small business loans.

Matos: Having spent more than a decade in local government before becoming Lt. Governor, I know how important public transportation and its infrastructure is to communities at all levels. I would like to serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure committee where I would help push federal support to build robust, renewable public transportation infrastructure in Rhode Island.

Quezada: The Judiciary Committee. I serve on the Senate Judiciary because I’m passionate about criminal justice reform and human rights. I have been the most vocal champion for reforming LEOBoR, which unfairly protects police officers who abuse their power. I’m the only candidate who includes the words “Mass Incarceration” and “War on Drugs” in their website. The Federal Judiciary Committee will draft articles of impeachment against Justice Thomas for failing to disclose significant financial contributions.

Regunberg: I am passionate about the climate crisis. As an organizer, I worked to limit pollution; as a state legislator, I created new clean energy programs; and as a climate lawyer, I’ve supported cases holding Big Oil accountable for their environmental crimes. I want to take that experience to the Energy and Commerce Committee. I’d also hope to continue David Cicilline’s work of taking on corporate monopolies on Judiciary.

Waters: Based on my career experience of working as an investment consultant for various firms, the Financial Services Committee, would be a solid fit, but I would prefer to be assigned to the Committee on Education and the Workforce as one of my top choices because the goal of a receiving a solid grade level public education is failing too many students in Rhode Island which for most negatively affects their life long human capital potential.

What's one thing you'd like to see Congress do to address the housing crisis, or increase housing production?

Amo: Pass the elements of the Build Back Better proposal that were not included in the final Inflation Reduction Act, like massive investments in preserving our current public housing, building new rental units for extremely low income families, expanding rental assistance programs, and other programs to improve access to housing. I would incentivize zoning changes in communities and invest in housing-choice vouchers, known as Section 8, to make sure that they meet rising housing costs.

Beauté: I have many but I would advocate for Low Income Housing Tax-Credits: simply put I would expand the Housing tax credit to encourage investment in the creation of low income as well as affordable housing projects.

Berbrick: We need a bold, bipartisan response to reduce barriers to construction and build more homes that Rhode Islanders can afford now. I’ll do this by removing the federal volume cap on state’s private activity bonds (PABs) issuance, strengthening the Low-Income Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, promoting investment in entry-level starter homes, encouraging zoning reform, and creating a National Housing Loss Rate like the National Unemployment Rate to improve accountability and allocation of funding to local communities.

Cano: I support increasing funding for affordable housing programs, expanding transit-oriented development, providing rent subsidies, offering tax incentives for developers who build low-income housing, implementing zoning reforms, and protecting the rights of renters. Access to safe, stable, and decent homes isn’t a luxury; it’s a fundamental human right that must be upheld by our policymakers at all levels of government.

Carlson: The root cause of the housing crisis is spiraling inequality. We build far too many mansions and luxury apartments and far too few affordable houses for the middle class. We need to spread wealth around more fairly – as we did in the rapid growth periods of the past (except without the racism this time). We need to rebuild our urban core with affordable housing to relieve the present crisis, but fairness is the long-term fix.

Casey: I am proud as Chair, House Municipal Government and Housing Committee we passed the most comprehensive package in state history. Rhode Island’s history creating housing for employees would address the crisis. Formerly known as mill villages, these developments were built around factories to accommodate the workforce, providing housing, focused on smart growth design. Congress should incentivize employers and communities to encourage housing innovation. Drawing inspiration from the past will guide solutions for the future.

Goncalves: If elected, I will work to expand the Low Income Housing Tax Credit to incentivize additional development and fight for a comparable Middle-Income Housing Tax Credit. I’ll also fight for the rights of existing tenants by co-sponsoring Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s bill that would establish a national cap on annual rent increases, restrict evictions without just cause, and make it illegal for landlords to discriminate against people who receive federal housing assistance.

Matos: The most pressing thing that can be done at the federal level to address the housing crisis is to change the federal definition of homelessness. Right now, a family cannot receive federal support unless they are literally sleeping on the street or in a shelter. These people should be able to access federal support sooner so that they can avoid homelessness in the first place.

Quezada: In Rhode Island, I passed legislation allowing old abandoned buildings to be rebuilt as affordable housing. Increasing housing supply would be one of my top priorities. Housing that is affordable to poor people requires federal subsidies to build. Building enough housing gets us only half way. I would support making Section 8 vouchers an entitlement program, ensuring that our lowest income neighbors, veterans, single moms, and people with disabilities can afford their home.

Regunberg: New Deal Democrats launched housing programs that lifted millions out of poverty. We need that same energy today. I’d fight for direct federal spending and partnerships with states and local governments to build public, mixed-income housing in our communities. As a first step, I would advocate for the passage of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s American Housing and Economic Mobility Act, which would increase the national Housing Trust Fund by $445 billion.

Waters: Waters for Congress is a strong advocate of cooperative housing in which tenants do not own the units in which they live, but own common shares of the corporation that owns the building. In Rhode Island, our political leaders at the State House, especially acting as reactionaries in this avoidable housing crisis, promote rental property development. Paying rent enriches the landlord. Paying off a mortgage on co-op housing shares provides the growth of financial equity.

Is the Biden administration wrong to stop asylum seekers at the southern border?

Amo: The Biden Administration has made progress in relieving pressure at the border by creating a parole system for certain countries and establishing more outposts across the Americas to increase access to legal pathways. We need to provide more support to swiftly process people upon arrival. Additionally, I support giving migrants the ability to legally work once they reach the United States as a strategy to address the arrival of asylum seekers at the border.

Beauté: The issue of immigration reform has been a long-standing problem that needs to be addressed immediately. As someone with extensive experience in tackling complex issues, I believe it's time to resolve this roadblock. It shows instability in other nations and our own. Skipping the line is unfair to those who have followed the rules, and it ultimately breaks our immigration system. It's time for both sides to come together and work towards a solution that will work.

Berbrick: Congress must confront cruelty with compassion and common sense. We must act now on regulatory and operational reforms while preserving due process and avoiding widespread detention. I will fight for bipartisan legislation that offers a path to citizenship for current and future immigrants, makes the Dream and Promise Act permanent, provides an automatic pathway to citizenship for military enlistment, and funding for new regional processing centers, and a whole-of-government Latin America strategy.

Cano: The system is broken: it’s failing migrants and communities across geography and ideology. What gets lost in the southern border conversation is the humanity of those leaving everything behind to get to safety. As someone who sought asylum in America, and as a current legislator who understands what it takes to craft policy, I know there’s no easy solution. However, we risk violating our obligations under the U.N. Convention on Refugees by deporting asylum seekers.

Carlson: There is a humanitarian crisis at our southern border, and there are thousands of families looking to our great nation with hopes of a better life. I believe we should treat all asylum seekers with the utmost respect and dignity. However, our resources are limited, and we cannot simply open our borders without consequence. I believe all asylum seekers should be granted access to the proper legal process before a determination is made.

Casey: Refusing asylum to an asylum seeker involves complex considerations, with both pros and cons. We should enact strict security measures to keep Americans safe and prevent potential threats from taking advantage of the asylum process to gain entry. We must find a way to ensure resources are allocated appropriately because the immigration system is overwhelmed creating a humanitarian crisis.

Goncalves: We can secure our borders without criminalizing lawful asylum seekers. I’m the proud son of immigrants who came to this nation for a better life for themselves and their children. These asylum seekers are fleeing extreme violence to do the same. Allowing asylum seekers to enter the U.S. and work as they await their court date will reduce crowding at overfilled border shelters and help with our nation’s labor shortage with 10 million jobs unfilled.

Matos: As someone who came to this country as a young woman, in search of the American Dream, I understand the challenges of our immigration system. The United State's asylum program arose from our considerable history of exclusion toward certain groups and is an important part of our country's values. Every request for asylum should be considered carefully and individuals seeking asylum should be able to know they are safe while their request is being considered.

Quezada: President Biden is wrong. These people are fleeing oppression and coming to our country as political and climate refugees. This country was built by immigrants (and slave-labor) and we need to make sure we support those who are looking for a safe life for their families. Hard-working people who want to escape poverty and pay taxes are the American Dream. Investing in them will grow the economy and broaden our tax base.

Regunberg: Yes. As the grandson of a refugee from the Holocaust, my family knows all too well that asylum policy can be a matter of life and death. I believe the Biden administration must replace its “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways” rule with solutions that prioritize the protection of human life. We should end asylum bans and create a fair and orderly process to seek asylum at the border.

Waters: The primary role of government is to protect the American people. The Biden Administration has not only failed to protect us by enforcing and maintaining our immigration laws and the assumed civil order that is associated doing so, but has blatantly ignored our laws encouraging mass illegal migration into the U.S., increasing safety risks, financial burdens, and illegal competition for scarce resources such as jobs, housing, and medical care upon us. Asylum is subjectively qualitative.

Lastly, on a more fun note: If you could get any vanity plate, what would it say?

Amo: RI4EVR

Beauté: RIJOBS (“RI JOBS”) Rhode Island has consistently been ranked as the lowest for small businesses for several decades. If elected, I will prioritize policies that support small businesses and entrepreneurs, and work towards creating a more supportive environment for them to thrive in. When I win, I’ll request the plate name (assuming it hasn’t been changed, that’s a campaign promise!)

Berbrick: IWork4U

Cano: VOTE 11 – I am the 11th candidate on the ballot and it's important for people to vote.

Carlson: I currently have a vanity plate! “Loon82” is derived from my spirit animal and my Boy Scout Troop 82 on the East Side of Providence, led by the legendary Scoutmaster Donald C. Dewing after whom I am named.

Casey: RI CD1

For the record, I had the students at River’s Edge Arts in Woonsocket design my Casey for Congress RI business cards – which are designed using the backdrop of our Ocean State plates

Goncalves: EDUC8 ME since I’m a teacher and I believe you never stop learning. As a city councilman, I learned so much from my constituents by being willing to meet with them and engage and that’s the energy I’m going to bring to Congress.

Matos: WMN2W1N

Quezada: ¡ SI SE PUEDE !

Regunberg: I’m not cool enough to pull off any vanity plates. I never used my state representative plates either. But I love seeing funny vanity plates when I’m driving!

Waters: CFMILK [Waters explained this stands for coffee milk.]

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: RI Special Election: How Democratic candidates for CD1 feel about issues