Lambert backs $7.7B school bill, explains why he voted for vouchers
BIG COUNTRY, Texas () – As the Texas legislative session barrels toward key deadlines, District 71 State Representative Stan Lambert says lawmakers are making critical progress on major public education bills — some of which stirred strong reactions across the state.
Texas governor signs $1 billion voucher bill in milestone for school choice supporters nationally
Two major bills — House Bill 2 and Senate Bill 2 — have now passed in both chambers. HB 2 focuses on public school funding, while SB 2 includes a controversial education savings account (ESA) program, often referred to as a school voucher system. Despite concerns from rural lawmakers about the potential impact of vouchers, Lambert says the most important takeaway is the $7.7 billion investment in public education.
'We wanted to make sure that before we took up and discussed the voucher bill, the ESA and SB2, we had made strong commitments and a strong investment in public education,' Lambert explained.
That basic allotment, increased by nearly $400 per student based on Weighted Average Daily Attendance, now has built-in inflation protection. Lambert noted that about 40% of the increase is now statutorily dedicated to teacher pay and raises.
'There were some additional measures to make sure that even if enrollment drops in some of our schools, which is what we have seen in the last few years, those school districts will continue to be funded. We've ensured, and we have put into statute now, once the governor signs the bill, that those monies will continue to be invested in public education, in addition to the ESA voucher program,' Lambert shared.
Lambert flips to support HB2 after changes to voucher program
Though Lambert previously opposed ESAs, he voted in favor after key amendments were added to protect rural schools.
'It was very hard for me, because I have been a very staunch opponent of the conceptual idea of using public dollars to fund private education. But again, once the amendments were accepted by the governor's staff and the Senate and our House public education committee chairman, then I felt obligated, once those amendments were accepted and put on the bill, I was obligated to support the legislation,' Lambert shared.
He explained that the $1 billion voucher program is divided into tiers—or 'buckets'—starting with the neediest students.
'The lowest bucket is those families with the greatest need, in other words, the lowest income levels, as well as those students with disabilities and special educational needs. Then the buckets increase a little bit up to the final bucket, which is the 20% that basically is the universal one, where any family can apply,' Lambert explained.
He emphasized strict guidelines for how voucher funds can be spent.
'There's still a lot of a lot of things that are restricted, as far as how the money can be spent, how if you're a homeschool kid and your parents want to take you on a ski trip and use the $2,000 voucher, you can't do that. It's got to be used for tuition, for educational supplies. There is just a list of things there that will make sure that the money is being used effectively and efficiently, and will be accountable as far as the taxpayers' funding of that program.'
Rep. Stan Lambert discusses election integrity, school vouchers & future goals for West Texas
Senator Ted Cruz recently stated that competition from voucher programs will improve public schools. Lambert agreed that the competition can improve education, though he believes this is more of an urban issue.
'I think competition can improve and make us better. It gives us a kind of insight as to what others are doing, how they're doing it, and how effective they are,' said Lambert. 'I really think that that though, in West Texas and certainly in our rural areas of the state, we're not going to see as much impact necessarily, because I do think that this is more really of an urban issue, a metropolitan major, major city type issue, versus what's happening in our rural schools. That's why I've been such a strong opponent of a voucher program, because I think that it doesn't really impact what's happening in our schools like Abilene and like Wiley and so forth. While I'm a big supporter of private education, I think we have some private schools in West Texas that are doing a very good job. So I'm not trying to say one is better than the other.'
Lambert also weighed in on testing reform, saying the STAAR test may soon be on its way out.
'The fact that we put so much emphasis and so much weight on one day, one test, that's not fair to our students, it's not fair to our teachers. So, anything we can do to try to move away from that kind of system where we put so much weight on one day of testing,' Lambert said. 'I think that's what we'll see come forward as a result of House Bill 4, which has not been on the floor yet… that will be the way that we address the elimination of the STAAR test and introduce some type of norm referenced testing so that all of our public education, and to some degree, our private schools as well, will be held accountable to. That way, we have at least some metrics, some way of evaluation that makes good sense, and makes us be able to at least have data moving forward as we add an additional program that's going to use taxpayer dollars to fund private schools.'
Just weeks ago, Lambert joined a bill with ACU alum Representative Caroline Fairly — House Bill 1481 — which limits digital device use during school hours.
'There's way too much opportunity for students to pull out their cell phone, to be playing games or to be engaging with social media. I know that's a very controversial issue, because I know parents are concerned about safety and how they could communicate with their child if they needed to, on an as-needed basis,' explained Lambert. 'I went back and watched the layout of representative Fairley's bill in state affairs, it was a pretty lengthy layout where the idea that these devices would not be allowed in classrooms there, there will be some funding that could allow for some type of apparatus in the classroom for those phones to be placed in so they're going to be within reach if there's some type of situation where parents do need to reach their children.'
WATCH: KRBC'S Exploring School Choice in Texas Special
He's also proud of legislation moving forward to strengthen Texas's workforce, especially a bill supporting Texas State Technical College (TSTC).
'We were very instrumental and very involved in making sure that Texas State Technical College is going to receive a large endowment that will allow them to expand their campuses across the state. We know how good and effective TSTC is in workforce education, and so we've carried that bill through the House. It was just approved the other day with 129 votes in the House. So it'll move to the Senate now,' Lambert added. 'We're excited about what's happening in terms of not just that bill, but many other bills that are addressing the workforce shortages that we have throughout the state… We talked a lot about this over the last interim, about the workforce shortage and how that would be a very significant thing that we would need to address in this legislative session. So excited to see those bills moving forward, and we're looking forward to the next 32 days here in Austin.'
With the session's final weeks approaching, Lambert said lawmakers are bracing for long nights and tight deadlines.
'This is a really critical time in the legislature. We're getting into some deadlines as far as when bills can be heard, how many more calendars we're going to actually see, and we're going to start seeing a backup in terms of the number of bills that are going to be coming out of calendars. There's going to be some long, long nights here in the Capitol, which is fine, that's part of what we signed up to do. I'm very proud of the fact that most of the legislation that we've focused on this session is moving forward.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
12 minutes ago
- CBS News
GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Washington — The White House and Republican leaders in Congress are urging lawmakers to quickly get behind the centerpiece of President Trump's legislative agenda, saying the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles adds urgency to the push to secure additional resources for border security. House Speaker Mike Johnson said on X on Monday that the legislation, which addresses Mr. Trump's tax, energy and immigration priorities, "provides the ESSENTIAL funding needed to secure our nation[']s borders." Republicans call the legislation the "one big, beautiful bill." "The lawlessness happening in LA is ANOTHER reason why we need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill IMMEDIATELY," Johnson said, pledging that Congress will support Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who he said are "fighting to keep Americans safe against illegal aliens AND the radical left." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a similar message earlier Monday, saying the scenes unfolding in some areas of Los Angeles "prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources." "America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country," Leavitt said in a post on X. "That's why President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill funds at least one million annual removals and hires 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officers, and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents." Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds a press conference after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Trump's agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025, in Washington, legislation is now in the hands of the Senate after the House narrowly approved it last month following weeks of intraparty disagreement over its components. Though the bulk of the funding allocated in the legislation goes toward tax cuts, it also includes resources aimed at bolstering border security and defense. It provides $46.5 billion for the border wall, $4.1 billion to hire Border Patrol agents and other personnel and more than $2 billion for signing and retention bonuses for agents. It also imposes an additional $1,000 fee for people who are filing for asylum in the U.S. The disagreement among Republicans over the bill has largely centered on cuts meant to offset the bill's spending, including restrictions to Medicaid. In the House's razor-thin GOP majority, the disagreements threatened to tank the bill's progress at every stage. And as the bill moved to the Senate for consideration last week, Johnson warned the upper chamber against making significant changes that would throw off the delicate balance. Senate Republicans initially voiced support for separating the complicated tax components and border security provisions into two separate bills to deliver Mr. Trump a victory on immigration early on in his tenure. But House Republicans opposed the approach, expressing doubts that the president's agenda could pass through the narrow GOP majority in the lower chamber in separate parts. Senate Republicans are now seeking to amend the House-passed bill, sending it back to the House for approval with a goal of getting the legislation to the president's desk by the July 4 holiday. And with a 53-seat majority, the upper chamber can afford to lose just three Republicans. Last week, opposition from Elon Musk threatened to throw a wrench into the legislation's progress, after he stoked concerns by fiscal hawks about the bill's impact on the deficit. The episode, which began with Musk calling the bill "a disgusting abomination," erupted into a dramatic and public feud between Musk and the president last week. But the dispute did not appear to spark significant new opposition the the bill in Congress. The urgency expressed Monday surrounding securing additional border resources comes as Mr. Trump called for the National Guard to enforce order in the L.A. area amid protests over activity by ICE, prompting a clash with California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom warned that the move would inflame the situation, while urging that there is no shortage of law enforcement. The governor indicated late Sunday that his office plans to sue the Trump administration over Mr. Trump's move. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the president's move on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday, claiming Newsom "has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that [Newsom] makes bad decisions, and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Gov. Newsom to get some sanity," Noem added.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline
A privately owned company is proposing a pipeline across five states. While some of the state governments appear to be on board, the project is facing backlash from a large and formidable population: property owners. The pipeline, known as Summit Carbon Solutions, would span 2,500 miles and transport carbon dioxide (CO2) captured at 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas to a permanent underground storage site in North Dakota. Construction of the $9 billion pipeline is expected to begin this year, with operations kicking off in 2026. In June 2024, the project received regulatory approval from the Iowa Utilities Commission, despite landowner protests. Julie Glade and her husband, Paul, are Iowans who oppose the project because of its use of eminent domain. Their property aligns with the proposed route, and in 2022 the couple was visited by a land agent. "The guy who came to our door wanted us to sit down and sign it without reading it," Glade tells Reason. "They swooped in and tried to contact as many people as possible right away before the people knew what the consequences were. It's very unethical." Several other landowners in the state share the Glades' worries. During a hearing conducted by the Iowa Utility Commission, landowner Joan Gaul testified against the pipeline, which she said would cross a large portion of her farmland. Gaul said Summit Carbon Solutions mailed two easements, which would give the pipeline a legal right to her land, to her without notice. "This letter came telling us about taking our land using eminent domain. It was a difficult pill to swallow," she said. Gaul said she didn't accept the easements and has indicated that she will continue to fight the project. The Glades visit the Iowa Capitol nearly every week to voice their opposition to the pipeline. They are joined by what the couple calls a diverse coalition united by their concern for the basic constitutional right to land ownership. "We have MAGA Republicans and we have lefties. We put our differences aside and we work together," she says. The Glades' efforts could soon pay off. In May the state Senate passed House File 639, which would prevent CO2 pipelines from using eminent domain unless the company proves the pipeline meets the definition of public use. The bill would also prevent CO2 pipelines from operating longer than 25 years. The bill is awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who is reportedly weighing opinions from pipeline supporters and detractors. If passed, the bill would represent a significant win for the rights of Iowa property owners. It would also be the latest setback for the Summit Carbon Solutions project. After the company launched a blitz of eminent domain lawsuits in South Dakota, Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law in March preventing carbon dioxide pipelines from receiving eminent domain permission in the state. The post Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline appeared first on
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Democrats are looking for answers — outside Washington
On the campaign trail, President Trump made a lot of promises. He promised to strengthen our economy. He promised to make our government more efficient. He promised to bring down costs. But after more than 100 days in, our economy is not strengthened, our government is certainly not more efficient, and costs are not down. The president has entangled us in trade wars with some of our closest trading partners — wars that erased $10 trillion from the stock market this spring and threaten to decimate family farms in my district and across the country. And with the help of the Department of Government Efficiency, he has waged an all-out assault on the federal government in an effort to weed out 'waste, fraud, and abuse.' I believe the American people elected Trump because they wanted solutions to pocketbook issues and a government that took action to get things done. But the president's agenda isn't working, and Democrats need to deliver. That's where the New Dem Coalition comes in. Before I explain why, I want to acknowledge that Democrats haven't always gotten everything right. During the election, we saw many working class voters drift away from the party. At times, our emphasis on identity politics or concepts like 'saving democracy' — while undeniably important — overshadowed the core economic issues that affect people's everyday lives. Instead of meeting voters where they are, we sometimes come across as telling them where they should be. That approach can feel out of touch and give the impression that the party is elitist, disconnected from the realities of everyday people. Working class voters are focused on how they'll afford their mortgage, put food on the table, or save for their kids' college — not necessarily on abstract debates about the soul of the nation. Don't get me wrong: the threat to democracy is real and urgent, especially with a president who shows little respect for courts or the Constitution. But if we're truly going to save democracy, we must build a broader coalition and bring more voters along. That means meeting people where they are, rather than telling them what should matter most. We need to address the tangible, kitchen-table issues that keep folks up at night. The New Dem Coalition has always done this. We have prioritized the needs of hard working Americans over the politics of D.C. We understand that we should be finding ways to make our government more efficient. We understand that we have to work across the aisle when we can — without compromising our values. That's why New Dems are crafting a proactive agenda — not only to win the House majority in 2026, but to maintain it for the long term. So, we're getting out of the D.C. bubble for a new series known as 'New Dems On the Road.' We'll be engaging with communities across the country, and gathering the critical feedback we need to guide our work. We're tackling every issue — from improving education outcomes to bolstering our national security — and working to find practical, lasting solutions that reflect the values and priorities of the American people. For our first stop, we zeroed in on immigration. Immigration isn't a problem we're going to solve overnight, but it's one that is consistently top of mind for the American people. We've come close to bipartisan solutions, only for selfish interests to squash our efforts in the 11th hour. That's why New Dem Immigration and Border Security Working Group members Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.) and Lou Correa (D-Calif.) sat down with Arizona leaders to talk about immigration. They met with industry and union representatives, members of the Arizona business community, and DACA recipients to discuss the importance of immigrants to Arizona's economy. The panel addressed the need to secure our border and pass a long-lasting immigration reform policy. It was instructive. And it showed the folks in these communities that we are listening to them. We know we don't have it all figured out — that's why we need real, local voices to help guide our work. Voices on the ground who are living and breathing these problems every single day. Then, it was my turn. I joined my friends Reps. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) and Wesley Bell (D-Mo.) for a conversation around clean energy and potential opportunities for bipartisan cooperation. We discussed the actions the Trump administration has taken to gut clean energy tax credits. There is no way around it — this is going to have a negative impact on people's utility bills. They will feel this. We also discussed what's ahead — like permitting reform, carbon capture and ultimately ways we can lower costs for people trying to keep the lights on, not raise them. Last month, Reps. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) and Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) got together to talk one-on-one with Delawareans about paid family and medical leave for working families. This is just the beginning. In total, we'll be conducting at least nine New Dems On the Road events — across the country. We need to come together, share ideas and forge a new path forward. A path that can address the issues that demand our attention: whether it's a single mom struggling to afford child care, a farmer looking to break into new markets, or a family who wants a good, public school education for their kids. We should all be committed to finding effective ways to achieve our shared goals and ensure that the government serves the people better. This isn't a partisan objective; it's a matter of common sense. However, real progress requires thoughtful strategy and careful action, not reckless cuts. Simply slashing budgets without consideration doesn't eliminate waste — it erodes the very foundation of what our government is meant to do: serve its citizens. New Democrats understand this deeply. We recognize that this moment calls for a meaningful response and an agenda that inspires — not the status quo. Our communities have elected us to take action, to solve problems and to improve lives. Now, more than ever, Democrats need to prove we can deliver Nikki Budzinski represents the 13th District of Illinois and is vice chair for policy for the New Dem Coalition. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
