PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 2, 2016
This bill amends the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 to include the following named areas as part of the high priority Central Texas Corridor of the National Highway System in Texas:
certain routes in the Corridor and the I-14 system in Texas, beginning in the vicinity of State Highway 338 in Odessa, Texas, running eastward concurrent with Interstate 20, connecting to State Highway 158 in the vicinity of Midland, Texas, then following State Highway 158 eastward to US 87 and then following US 87 southeastward, passing in the vicinity of San Angelo, and connecting to US 190 in the vicinity of Brady, Texas;
US 83 southward from the vicinity of Eden, Texas, to a logical connection to Interstate 10 at Junction, Texas;
US 96 from I-10 at Beaumont, Texas, north to US 84 in the vicinity of Tenaha, Texas; and
US 69 from I-10 at Beaumont north to US 59 in the vicinity of Lufkin, Texas.
The Corridor shall not include the section of US 190 from I-10 in Pecos County to Brady in McCullough County, Texas.
People & committees
Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6429 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6429 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6429 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6429 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.