Bill to block high-speed rail from altering Texas roads heads to subcommittee
PALESTINE, Texas (KETK) — A bill authored by East Texas State Rep. Cody Harris (R-Palestine) to stop high-speed rail projects from altering state roadways has advanced to a public committee hearing.
Tyler approves study for train services
Harris introduced House Bill 1402 on Nov. 19, 2024. Since then, the bill has been read and referred to the House Subcommittee on Transportation Funding for a public hearing on March 31.
'HB 1402 would stop the use of your hard-earned tax dollars from being spent to alter roadways for this unwelcome project,' Harris said. 'We're one step closer to defending private property rights and protecting Texas taxpayers from this transportation debacle through HB 1402.'
H.B 1402 would amend Section 199.003. of the Texas Transportation Code to say the following:
'This state, a state agency, or a political subdivision of this state may not use public money to pay for the alteration of a roadway related to the construction of a high-speed rail project operated by a public or private entity.'
That section of the Texas Transportation Code was passed as Senate Bill 977 on Sept. 1, 2017. The bill made it illegal for the state to appropriate any money for planning, constructing, maintaining, securing, promoting or operating high-speed rail operated by a private entity.
Trump administration takes aim at $4B in funding for California high-speed rail
Texas Rail Advocates, a non-profit dedicated to promoting freight and passenger rail, rated Harris's bill as counterproductive. The nonprofit noted that the bill would prevent public funds from being used to alter roadways on the public's highspeed rail projects.
State Rep. John Bucy III, a Democrat representing Austin, has filed House Joint Resolution 58, which proposes a constitutional amendment authorizing the state to spend money on transit-oriented projects. Texas Rail Advocates rated Bucy's resolution as productive.
TOWNHALL TENSION: State reps booed off stage during education meeting
Both Harris' and Bucy's proposals are scheduled to be discussed by the House Subcommittee on Transportation Funding in room E2.014 at the Texas Capitol in Austin starting at 10 a.m. on Monday.
Texas residents can submit their own comments for all the bills and topics the subcommittee will be discussing on Monday through the House Public Comment form online. The hearing will be streamed live on the Texas House website.
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
Boston Globe
29 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Advertisement Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' Advertisement House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' The quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Advertisement Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.'
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Senate GOP slashes megabill's tax costs with new accounting method
Tax legislation recently unveiled by Senate Republicans only costs $441 billion when tallied using a novel accounting method requested by the GOP. The new estimate by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which was released late Saturday night, shows how Senate Republicans were able to slash the costs of sweeping tax legislation set to be included in the GOP's sweeping megabill by using a 'current policy baseline' — a never-before-used technique that wipes out the cost of extending existing tax cuts that are set to expire at year's end. The contrast with the traditional method of fiscal scoring, accounting for tax policy as currently enacted into law, is profound: Similar tax legislation that passed the House in May was estimated by JCT to cost $3.8 trillion under the old method. In defending the revised baseline, Republicans have argued that extending current tax law shouldn't be counted as adding to the deficit because the GOP is merely preventing huge tax increases on individuals and businesses around the country. But critics have derided the measure, asserting that it threatens to blow up long-standing budget rules and disguises the cost of the GOP's marquee legislation. 'Extending the Trump tax cuts prevents a $4 trillion tax increase — this is not a change in current tax policy or tax revenue,' said Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) in a statement on Sunday morning. 'This score more accurately reflects reality by measuring the effects of tax policy changes relative to the status quo.' Democrats have requested JCT release a score under the current-law approach. That will 'show the actual cost of the bill,' said Ryan Carey, a spokesperson for Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Finance Democrat. 'Republicans rigged this score with deceptive math designed to hide the true, multi-trillion dollar cost of their proposals, and they wouldn't need to do this at all if their bill actually paid for itself,' Carey said. The new estimate shows the softened math of large tax cuts from those affecting individuals and families to businesses and companies. Extending basic individual tax rates lowered by Trump's 2017 tax bill, for instance, was estimated by JCT to cost around $2.2 trillion in the House-passed bill. In the Senate bill, under the new baseline, a permanent extension and modification of those rates costs only $83 billion. Likewise, an expansion of the Child Tax Credit in the House-passed bill would cost around $800 billion. In the Senate bill, JCT estimates that Senate Republicans' version of expansions to the family credit would cost only $124 billion. In the House bill, a permanent extension of a key deduction for business would cost around $820 billion. Senate Republicans proposal to make the deduction permanent would cost just $6 billion. Senate Republicans also made deviations to the House Republican plan on a number of the proposed tax cuts. The Senate GOP, for instance, dialed back the cost of President Donald Trump's campaign promises to provide tax relief for tips and overtime work by tens of billions of dollars. The GOP accounting gambit is expected to face a challenge from Senate Democrats, who will argue that the novel baseline does not comply with budget rules governing the filibuster-skirting reconciliation process. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is expected to weigh in on legality of the provisions in the GOP tax bill this week. But with Republicans intent on passing their megabill on party lines, they have been laying the groundwork to argue they don't need to heed advice from the parliamentarian on the current policy baseline issue and are preparing to potentially override Democrats' objection on the floor with a simple-majority vote. Fiscal hawks in the House will also likely be watching closely. Under a rule in the House budget set by Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.), the amount of tax cuts in the GOP's megabill needs to be offset by a corresponding amount of spending cuts. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already committed to finding at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. But if the total cost of Senate Republicans' tax bill exceeds $4 trillion under current-law accounting, House Republicans will insist that any further tax cuts will need to be matched dollar-for-dollar by further spending cuts.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
Americans Deserve a Congressional Vote on War With Iran
Before Donald Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear sites in Iran, he was warned that, to quote Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, the Constitution does not permit the president 'to unilaterally commit an act of war' against a nation that hasn't first struck America. After the attack, Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland declared Trump's actions 'a clear violation of our Constitution—ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war.' Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York stated, 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' The judgment that neither the Constitution; nor the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law meant to clarify and limit when the president can wage war; nor any bygone authorization to use military force, such as the one passed after 9/11, permitted the attack is one I share. But I don't just lament the dearth of a congressional vote out of concern for constitutional law. I also fear that bypassing Congress weakens American democracy. Recall the last time that the United States began a war this consequential: George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. Prior to invading, on October 10, 2002, Bush secured an authorization to use military force from Congress by wide margins in both chambers. Even though the Iraq invasion was a mistake—something I have long believed—American democracy was better off for those votes, and not just because the Constitution assigns the war power to Congress. Debating the matter in the House and Senate helped to educate lawmakers and the public about the arguments for and against the war and left a record of who made claims that later proved incorrect. Prior to the vote, citizens could lobby their representatives, allowing for more participation in the process. And afterward, citizens could hold members of Congress accountable for their choices, not only in the next election, but for the rest of the careers of everyone who cast a vote. Government by the people demands opportunities to mete out such consequences. And as voters soured on Iraq, the ability to vote out members of Congress who approved the war provided a civic outlet for dissent. Just prior to the 2006 midterms, the Pew Research Center reported that 'Iraq has become the central issue of the midterm elections. There is more dismay about how the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going than at any point since the war began more than three years ago. And the war is the dominant concern among the majority of voters who say they will be thinking about national issues, rather than local issues, when they cast their ballot for Congress this fall.' Pro–Iraq War senators including Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and George Allen of Virginia lost races to anti–Iraq War challengers. In 2008, Hillary Clinton likely would have defeated Barack Obama, who spoke out against the invasion as an Illinois state senator, in the Democratic presidential primary but for her Senate vote for the Iraq War. And John McCain's vote for the war hung over him in that general election. Later, Senator Bernie Sanders's star would rise in part because he could point back to the vote he cast against the war. All told, voters in hundreds of electoral contests spanning years, if not decades, cast ballots in part based on information gleaned from that 2002 vote. Yesterday, in contrast, a lame-duck president, who will never again be accountable at the ballot box, went to war with Iran. There was no deliberation and no ability for voters to lobby their congressional representatives, and voters will be unable to credit or blame members of Congress for the outcome, or at least not as fully as if all were on the record voting yea or nay. Despite the early majorities that supported the Iraq War, its long-term effect on American politics includes growing popular aversion to wars of choice and foreign interventions. Even so, though Obama and Trump aligned themselves with popular opinion and campaigned on promises to avoid such engagements, they have now both unilaterally launched wars of choice, in Libya and Iran respectively, once they were in office. Their unilateral actions deprived Americans of representation and the ability to hold their representatives accountable after the fact. And the trend of denying the public democratic channels to oppose war isn't merely anathema to a self-governing republic; it is dangerous. In the long run, removing official channels for citizens to effect change can be radicalizing. Perhaps it won't prove so in this case, if all goes well. But if a large cohort of Americans comes to regard the attack on Iran as a blunder, how will that popular anger be channeled? The ideal answer would be, the next election. Trump has made that less possible.
