Theodore Schramm

I support aggressive, science-based eradication of the New World screwworm outbreak and stronger long-term agricultural biosecurity for Texas.

The June 2026 detections in South Texas, now totaling dozens of confirmed cases, threaten our livestock industry and regional economy. A full-scale outbreak on the scale of 1976 could cost producers hundreds of millions and the Texas economy well over a billion dollars. Protecting cattle, sheep, goats, and the producers who raise them is a core Texas interest.

I support full continuation of the USDA–TAHC response centered on the sterile insect technique—the same proven method that previously eradicated this pest from the United States. That includes rapid sterile-fly releases, targeted quarantines and movement controls in defined zones, intensified surveillance, and practical support for producers to prevent and treat wounds.

I also support accelerating domestic sterile-fly production capacity in Texas, maintaining strong livestock import inspections and border surveillance, and ensuring producers have workable pathways to move healthy animals. Requirements should be time-limited, results-driven, and free of unnecessary bureaucracy.

The evidence is clear: sterile insect technique works, delay is expensive, and prevention at the border is cheaper than cleanup after the fact. Texas agriculture deserves decisive action and accountability, not half-measures.

I do not support special tax incentives or preferential treatment that shift costs onto Texas families and businesses for data center development.

Data centers consume large amounts of land, water, and electricity while creating relatively few permanent local jobs once construction ends. ERCOT has more than doubled its 2030 forecast for data-center power demand in a single year. That surge stresses the grid and risks higher utility costs for residential and small-business customers. Water use is also substantial in a state already managing drought and growth pressures. Tax exemptions for these facilities have grown into a multi-billion-dollar cost to the state budget with limited broad-based return.

Texas should not subsidize projects that deliver low job density and high resource intensity at the expense of residents. I support policies that require large industrial users to pay the full cost of the power and water infrastructure they demand, so ordinary ratepayers are not left covering the difference. Water and energy allocation should prioritize existing communities, agriculture, and higher-value uses that produce more sustained local employment and economic benefit for constituents.

Local governments need clearer authority and transparency on proposed projects so communities can weigh real impacts rather than being presented with finished deals. Fiscal responsibility means rejecting incentives that primarily benefit outside corporations while straining the systems Texans rely on every day. We can pursue economic growth without giving away taxpayer resources or scarce natural assets for projects that do not deliver proportional returns to the people who live here.

I support targeted investment in Texas water infrastructure that addresses both flooding and scarcity while protecting the agricultural economy that underpins much of the state.

Texas faces the dual challenge of flood risk and long-term water shortages driven by drought, groundwater depletion, and growth. Hundreds of waterways remain impaired. Agriculture is the largest user of groundwater and must be treated as a partner, not an adversary, in any workable solution.

Policies I would support: • Prioritize funding and permitting for projects that deliver measurable results: reservoir expansion and new storage where scientifically justified, flood-control infrastructure in high-risk basins, and upgrades to aging treatment and distribution systems that improve both quantity and quality. • Expand voluntary, market-based conservation tools for agricultural producers—cost-share programs for efficient irrigation, aquifer recharge projects, and water-marketing options—rather than top-down mandates that threaten farm and ranch viability. • Strengthen local groundwater conservation districts and regional water planning groups so decisions stay closer to the people who live with the consequences, while ensuring clear accountability and data transparency. • Require that major industrial users (including data centers) pay the full cost of the water and wastewater capacity they demand so residential customers and agricultural producers are not subsidizing them. • Support practical water-quality improvements focused on the highest-impact pollutants without creating new regulatory layers that slow infrastructure delivery or raise costs without clear benefit.

Considerations guiding this approach: Agriculture feeds Texas and the nation. Policies that undermine producers through excessive regulation or water cutbacks without alternatives will damage rural economies and food security. At the same time, unchecked groundwater mining and polluted waterways harm everyone downstream. The guiding principle is results over process: build the infrastructure we need, protect property rights, keep costs transparent, and treat farmers and ranchers as essential partners in conservation rather than targets of restriction. Texas can secure reliable water supplies without sacrificing the agricultural foundation that has sustained the state for generations.

I support policies that put grid reliability first for Texas families and businesses.

Extreme heat and rapidly growing demand—especially from large new loads such as data centers—continue to stress the ERCOT system. Reliability is not optional. When the lights go out, lives, livelihoods, and the economy are put at risk.

Policies I would support: • Require large industrial users, including data centers, to secure or build adequate firm generation capacity so they do not free-ride on the existing system or drive up costs and risk for residential and small-business customers. • Expand incentives and streamlined permitting for reliable, dispatchable power—natural gas, nuclear, and other firm resources that can run when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. • Strengthen weatherization and maintenance standards for critical generation and transmission assets without creating endless new bureaucracy. • Ensure market rules reward actual performance and availability during peak demand rather than subsidizing intermittent resources that leave the grid short when Texans need power most. • Maintain transparency on costs so ratepayers can see who is driving demand growth and who is paying for it.

Texas must keep its independent grid, but independence only works if the system delivers power when people need it. My priority is clear: protect reliability for everyday Texans and the businesses that employ them, require big new loads to carry their own weight, and reject policies that sacrifice dependability for ideology or special interests.

I support protecting the stability of Texas research institutions against sudden federal policy shifts that create unfunded costs, while insisting on accountability for how research dollars are spent.

Texas universities and hospitals receive roughly $1.9 billion in annual NIH funding that supports tens of thousands of jobs and advances medical and scientific work with real benefits for patients and the economy. Indirect cost reimbursements cover the facilities, administration, and infrastructure required to conduct that research. An abrupt 15% federal cap would cut an estimated $300 million per year that institutions would be forced to absorb or shift onto other sources.

Policies I would support: • Oppose arbitrary federal caps that ignore negotiated rates and suddenly shift hundreds of millions in costs onto Texas institutions and, ultimately, Texas taxpayers or tuition payers. • Require greater transparency and efficiency in how indirect cost rates are calculated and used, so funding prioritizes actual research capacity rather than administrative bloat. • Maintain competitive federal research investment that rewards results and excellence, not simply volume of spending. • At the state level, resist pressure to automatically backfill federal reductions with new general-revenue spending. Institutions should first examine internal efficiencies, and any limited state support should be targeted, temporary, and tied to clear performance expectations.

Texas benefits when its research enterprise remains strong. Federal partners should not impose sudden, across-the-board cuts that undermine that capacity while claiming to promote efficiency. The responsible path is stable, accountable funding that sustains high-quality research without transferring the bill to Texas families or forcing institutions into sudden shortfalls.

I approach these issues with transparency first and respect for parental authority.

Parents have the primary responsibility for their children’s health decisions. Government’s role is to provide accurate, complete information—not to use fear, pressure, or social engineering to force rapid compliance. When officials highlight tragic outcomes, the public deserves full and precise facts rather than selective framing designed to drive policy.

Measles is a serious disease. Declining vaccination rates create real risks of outbreaks, and communities deserve clear data on cases, hospitalizations, and outcomes. At the same time, public health communication must avoid exaggeration or incomplete accounts that erode trust. People make better decisions when they receive honest information and are free to weigh it according to their own values and circumstances.

Policies I would support: • Protect existing parental rights to make medical decisions for their children, including the current conscientious exemption process, without adding new mandates or barriers. • Require state health agencies to publish timely, transparent, and complete data on outbreaks—including vaccination status, underlying conditions, and verified causes of severe outcomes—so the public can evaluate claims for themselves. • Reject coercive measures, school exclusion policies beyond current law, or public campaigns that treat disagreement as ignorance rather than legitimate concern. • Support voluntary access to vaccines for families who choose them, while ensuring no one is penalized or stigmatized for exercising their rights.

Informed consent requires accurate information, not pressure. Texas families are capable of making decisions for their own children when they are given the full picture rather than messaging designed to produce a predetermined outcome. My priority is protecting both public health through transparency and the freedom of parents to act according to their best judgment.

Scientific evidence should inform policymaking, but it does not dictate it.

Science provides useful tools for understanding risks, trade-offs, and likely outcomes. Good policy starts with the best available evidence rather than ideology or emotion. At the same time, science is never complete, experts can be wrong or influenced by incentives, and policy decisions always involve values, costs, individual rights, and public consent that pure data cannot resolve.

How I evaluate competing or uncertain claims: I look first at the quality of the evidence—study design, sample size, replication, funding sources, and whether results have held up over time. I examine whether researchers or agencies have incentives that could shape conclusions. I weigh practical consequences and opportunity costs, not just modeled projections. When claims conflict, I favor transparent data and open debate over appeals to authority or consensus statements that shut down questioning.

When scientific consensus and public opinion diverge: Public opinion and individual liberty still matter. Consensus is not infallible, and history shows repeated cases where majority expert opinion later proved incomplete or incorrect. In a free society, policymakers should present the evidence clearly, explain uncertainties honestly, and respect the right of citizens to weigh risks and benefits for themselves—especially on issues that affect personal health, parental authority, property, or livelihood. Forcing compliance through mandates or social pressure when large numbers of people remain unconvinced damages trust and often produces worse long-term results.

My approach is straightforward: use rigorous evidence, demand transparency, acknowledge limits and uncertainty, and never treat expert consensus as a substitute for democratic accountability or individual judgment. Policy should be guided by facts and constrained by liberty.