Hundreds of Texas House bills set to die at midnight
The Brief
Hundreds of Texas House bills are set to die Tuesday at midnight
One bill on the chopping block was SB 646, which was saved by a recount
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, State Rep. Gene Wu spoke on the deadline and session overall
AUSTIN, Texas - Texas House members had 21 pages of bills and resolutions to work through before a critical Tuesday midnight deadline.
What we know
Among the items on the chopping block was Senate Bill 646.
The legislation, filed by state Rep. Aicha Davis (D-DeSoto), would create a school loan program for school counselors.
During the debate, state Rep. Donna Howard (D-Austin) noted that the bill faced pushback by Republicans.
"Representative Davis, I understand that there are some in this body who are just simply opposed to repayment of loans no matter what. It has nothing to do with your bill," said Howard.
The loan bill was initially voted down, but a few minutes later was saved by a recount.
What they're saying
The Tuesday debates brought Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to the House floor.
He spent several minutes talking with Republicans and later spoke to FOX 7 Austin. Patrick indicated his threat of forcing a Special Session may no longer be needed.
"This will be the most productive session. Will there always be some bill that didn't make it? Of course. But school choice alone would be a session. The public financing for public education and how we're redoing that and focusing on teachers and students really for the first time. That would be a Session bill. All of these, all of these big issues alone would be a session if you just passed one of them and we're passing all of them," he said.
Some political hard ball has also been played in the final days of the session within the ranks of the Texas GOP. When asked about that, Lt. Gov. Patrick downplayed the decision to twist some arms.
"You know, there's been less arm twisting this session than ever. Better communication than ever, the relationship between the Speaker's office and the Lieutenant Governor's office is lightyears where it's been the last four years where there was no communication, quite frankly. The relationship between the Senators and the House members, Republican and Democrats, better than it's ever been," said Patrick.
What they're saying
The Lt Governor did have a few losses in the House this session and a split decision on one of his priority issues.
Several bail reform bills did pass, but a bail ban for undocumented immigrants in SB 552, and SJR 87, a bail ban for violent repeat offenders, were both blocked by Democrats.
State Rep. Gene Wu (D-Houston), the Chairman of the House Democrat Caucus spoke to FOX 7 Austin about their strategy for hot button issues.
"We're fighting hard on some really tough bills. This is when they put the very, very worst things on the calendar. So, Democrats are going to fight like hell to protect Texans," said Wu.
In an effort to save time, and to move up non-controversial legislation, Republicans postponed votes on several bills. The items were identified as possible targets for long debates and put into legislative time out. State Rep. Wu made no apologies for forcing that move.
"This is the process and eventually what ultimately kills bills here is not us, it's time. And the people who are in charge here, the Republicans who are in charge of this place, have run this place with an iron fist, they had the option of putting big bills that will generate a lot of arguments, a lot of fights or do bills that everyone agrees on. Well, they choose to do the controversial stuff. And we can't, we don't have any control of that," said Wu.
What's next
Another big deadline comes Wednesday in the Senate.
Conference Committee negotiations are still underway on several big priority bills and the Lt. Governor said he expects work will continue Monday.
That means no early Sini Die before next Tuesday.
The Source
Information in this report comes from reporting/interviews by FOX 7 Austin's chief political reporter Rudy Koski.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
13 minutes ago
- New York Post
Musk's father says Elon made a mistake going nuclear on Trump, predicts prez ‘will prevail'
Tech mogul Elon Musk's father lamented his son's scorched-earth war of words with President Trump as a 'mistake' and warned that the US leader would ultimately prevail in the nasty spat. Errol Musk, who has had a strained relationship with his billionaire son, explained that Elon had been under tremendous stress and was optimistic the two personality giants could patch things up. 'They've been under a lot of stress for five months. And it gives them a break. You know, they've had to get rid of all the opposition, try and put the country back on track, and do normal things and so forth,' Errol told Russian media, per Izvestia. 'They're very tired and stressed. And so you can expect something like this. It's not unusual,' the elder Musk added. 'Trump will prevail. He's the president. He was elected as the president, so Elon made a mistake, I think. But he's tired. He's stressed.' Elon had slowly begun to split with Trump and Republicans publicly last month over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act due to his concerns about its impact on the deficit. 4 Errol Musk seemed optimistic that President Trump and Elon Musk could reconcile. 4 Elon Musk's time as a special government employee ended last month. AFP via Getty Images It started with some swipes during an interview on CBS's 'Sunday Morning Show.' Then, Musk ramped up his attacks on the marquee GOP megabill, ripping it as 'pork-filled' and a 'disgusting abomination.' Finally, last Thursday, Musk went nuclear on Trump. The world's richest man argued that without his help, 'Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' At one point, Musk appeared to back impeachment against Trump and then dropped a 'big bomb,' claiming that the president was in the Epstein files, in a since-deleted post. During the epic public feud, Trump threatened to sever lucrative federal contracts with Musk's companies and the tech baron suggested he'd decommission the Dragon spacecraft, the government's main method of getting into orbit, before reversing course. 4 Elon Musk and President Trump had forged a public alliance to trim government waste and bloat. AP Musk's time as a special government employee wrapped up late last month, and Trump gave him a chummy send-off in the Oval Office. Musk had seemingly also grown incensed after the president withdrew his nomination of Jared Isaacman to helm NASA. 'Elon wants to stick to the principles of not giving in to the Democrats [and] their stupid ideas,' Errol added. 'It's normal, it's just a small thing, [it] will be over tomorrow.' Errol was in Moscow to address the Future Forum 2050, an event to promote Russia's development championed by diehard nationalist Alexander Dugin, who is known as 'Vladimir Putin's philosopher.' Trump has publicly downplayed the breakup with Musk, but warned the billionaire that there will be 'consequences' if he starts dipping into his deep pockets to help Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections. Elon has expressed openness to working to patch things up with the president and Vice President JD Vance had been optimistic they could bring the tech baron back into the fold. 'No, I don't have any plans,' Trump replied when asked by reporters if he had plans to reconcile with Musk, adding that he's 'not really interested' in such efforts. 'I'm not thinking about Elon. You know, I just wish him well.' 4 Elon Musk went berserk on President Trump last week as tensions boiled over. The president suggested that Musk had 'lost his mind' and gone 'crazy.' Privately, Trump bashed Musk as a 'big-time drug addict,' according to the Washington Post. Musk denies being addicted to drugs. Errol, who has a frosty relationship with his son, has long been a backer of Trump. The South African engineer had briefly been a politician, serving on the Pretoria City Council as an Independent and then later a member of the Progressive Federal Party, which opposed apartheid.

30 minutes ago
Athletes express concern over NCAA settlement's impact on non-revenue sports
Sydney Moore and Sabrina Ootsburg were surrounded by hundreds of college athletes at AthleteCon when news broke that the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement had been approved by a federal judge. In a room full of college athletes, they felt like the only two people who understood the gravity of the situation. 'I'm about to get paid,' Moore said a Division I football player told her. 'Yes, you are about to get paid, and a lot of your women athlete friends are about to get cut,' she responded. Moore acknowledged that her response might be a stretch, but the sprawling House settlement clears the way for college athletes to get a share of revenue directly from their schools and provides a lucky few a shot at long-term financial stability, it raises genuine concerns for others. Schools that opt int will be able to share up to $20.5 million with their athletes over the next year starting July 1. The majority is expected to be spent on high-revenue generating sports, with most projections estimating 75% of funds will go toward football. So what happens to the non-revenue-generating sports which, outside of football and basketball, is pretty much all of them? It's a query that's top of mind for Ootsburg as she enters her senior year at Belmont, where she competes on track and field team. 'My initial thought was, is this good or bad? What does this mean for me? How does this affect me? But more importantly, in the bigger picture, how does it affect athletes as a whole?' Ootsburg said. 'You look at the numbers where it says most of the revenue, up to 75% to 85%, will go toward football players. You understand it's coming from the TV deals, but then it's like, how does that affect you on the back end?' Ootsburg asked. 'Let's say 800k goes toward other athletes. Will they be able to afford other things like care, facilities, resources or even just snacks?' Moore has similar concerns. She says most female athletes aren't worried about how much – if any – money they'll receive. They fear how changes could impact the student-athlete experience. 'A lot of us would much rather know that our resources and our experience as a student-athlete is going to stay the same, or possibly get better, rather than be given 3,000 dollars, but now I have to cover my meals, I have to pay for my insurance, I have to buy ankle braces because we don't have any, and the athletic training room isn't stocked,' Moore said over the weekend as news of Friday night's settlement approval spread. One of the biggest problems, Ootsburg and Moore said, is that athletes aren't familiar with the changes. At AthleteCon in Charlotte, North Carolina, they said, perhaps the biggest change in college sports history was a push notification generally shrugged off by those directly impacted. 'Athletes do not know what's happening,' Ootsburg said. 'Talking to my teammates, it's so new, and they see the headlines and they're like, 'Ok, cool, but is someone going to explain this?' because they can read it, but then there's so many underlying factors that go into this. This is a complex problem that you have to understand the nuances behind, and not every athlete truly does.' Some coaches, too, are still trying to understand what's coming. Mike White, coach of the national champion Texas softball team, called it 'the great unknown right now.' 'My athletic director, Chris Del Conte, said it's like sailing out on a flat world and coming off the edge; we just don't know what's going to be out there yet, especially the way the landscape is changing,' he said at the Women's College World Series in Oklahoma City. 'Who knows what it's going to be?' Jake Rimmel got a crash course on the settlement in the fall of 2024, when he said he was cut from the Virginia Tech cross-country team alongside several other walk-ons. The topic held up the House case for weeks as the judge basically forced schools to give athletes cut in anticipation of approval a chance to play — they have to earn the spot, no guarantees — without counting against roster limits. Rimmel packed up and moved back to his parents' house in Purcellville, Virginia. For the past six months, he's held on to a glimmer of hope that maybe he could return. 'The past six months have been very tough," he said. "I've felt so alone through this, even though I wasn't. I just felt like the whole world was out there – I would see teammates of mine and other people I knew just doing all of these things and still being part of a team. I felt like I was sidelined and on pause, while they're continuing to do all these things.' News that the settlement had been approved sent Rimmel looking for details. 'I didn't see much about roster limits," he said. 'Everyone wants to talk about NIL and the revenue-sharing and I mean, that's definitely a big piece of it, but I just didn't see anything about the roster limits, and that's obviously my biggest concern.' The answer only presents more questions for Rimmel. 'We were hoping for more of a forced decision with the grandfathering, which now it's only voluntary, so I'm a little skeptical of things because I have zero clue how schools are going to react to that," Rimmel told The Associated Press. Rimmel is still deciding what's best for him, but echoed Moore and Ootsburg in saying that answers are not obvious: 'I'm just hoping the schools can make the right decisions with things and have the best interest of the people who were cut.'
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk and Trump Still Agree on One Thing
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Far be it from me to judge anyone enjoying the feud between Donald Trump and his benefactor Elon Musk over Trump's signature legislation, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. But in the conflict between the president and the world's richest man, the public is the most likely loser. Four days ago, Musk described the bill as 'disgusting,' 'pork-filled,' and an 'abomination.' He also suggested that Trump was ungrateful, claiming that Republicans would have lost the 2024 election without all the money he had spent supporting GOP candidates. Trump fired back in a post on his network, Truth Social, saying, 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Musk then accused Trump of being in 'the Epstein files,' referring to the late financier and sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, whom both men have ties to. Musk later deleted that post, as well as another calling for Trump's impeachment. If all this seems painfully stupid, it is, and it was all made possible by the erosion of American democracy. The underlying issues, however, are significant despite the surreal nature of the exchange. As it happens, Trump and Musk's dueling criticisms are each, in their own ways, at least partially valid. The bill is an abomination, although not because it's 'pork-filled.' And much of Musk's wealth does come from the federal government, which he has spent the past few months trying to dismantle while preserving his own subsidies. According to Axios, among other things, Musk was angry that the bill cuts the electric-vehicle tax credit, which will hurt the bottom line of his electric-car company, Tesla. But neither billionaire—one the president of the United States and the other a major financial benefactor to the president's party—opposes the bill for what makes it a monstrosity: that it redistributes taxpayer dollars to the richest people in the country by slashing benefits for the middle class, the poor, and everyone in between. The ability of a few wealthy people to manipulate the system to this extent—leaving two tycoons who possess the emotional register of toddlers with the power to impoverish most of the country, to their own benefit, speaks ill of the health of American democracy, regardless of the outcome. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' would make the largest cuts to food assistance for the poor in history, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, eliminating $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at a time when inflation is still straining family budgets. Some 15 million Americans would become uninsured because of the bill's cuts to Medicaid, also the largest reductions to that program in history, and because of cuts to the Affordable Care Act. The CBPP estimates that about '22 million people, including 3 million small business owners and self-employed workers, will see their health coverage costs skyrocket or lose coverage altogether.' Not everyone would suffer, however, as the bill does offer significant tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America while adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. Whatever meager benefits there are to everyone else would likely be eaten up by the increase in the cost of food and health care caused by the benefit cuts. [Charlie Warzel: The Super Bowl of internet beefs] For all the insults flying between Trump and Musk, they are both fine with taking from those who have little and giving generously to those who have more than they could ever need. For years, commentators have talked about how Trump reshaped the Republican Party in the populist mold. Indeed, Trumpism has seen Republicans abandon many of their publicly held commitments. The GOP says it champions fiscal discipline while growing the debt at every opportunity. It talks about individual merit while endorsing discrimination against groups based on gender, race, national origin, and sexual orientation. It blathers about free speech while using state power to engage in the most sweeping national-censorship campaign since the Red Scare. Republicans warn us about the 'weaponization' of the legal system while seeking to prosecute critics for political crimes and deporting apparently innocent people to Gulags without a shred of due process. The GOP venerates Christianity while engaging in the kind of performative cruelty early Christians associated with paganism. It preaches family values while destroying families it refuses to recognize as such. Yet the one bridge that connects Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush to Donald Trump is slashing public services while showering tax cuts on the rich. This is the Republican Party's most sacred, fundamental value, the one it almost never betrays. Whatever else Trump and Musk may fight about, they are faithful to that. Article originally published at The Atlantic