To prohibit the use of Federal financial assistance for a certain high-speed rail development project in the State of California, and for other purposes.
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Kiley, Kevin [R-CA-3]
ID: K000401
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
January 7, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterclass in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Ah, the noble goal of "prohibiting" federal funding for a high-speed rail project in California. How quaint. The real purpose is to grandstand and pander to constituents while pretending to care about fiscal responsibility. It's like diagnosing a patient with a terminal case of "I'm-a-good-person-itis." The symptoms are obvious: politicians trying to appear virtuous while actually serving their own interests.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill is a beautifully crafted exercise in redundancy, as it seeks to prohibit something that's already been effectively stalled by bureaucratic incompetence and lack of funding. It's like prescribing a placebo to a patient who's already on life support. The "key provision" is simply a rehashing of existing language, with the added flair of pretending to be tough on wasteful spending.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Oh, the usual suspects: California politicians trying to save face, special interest groups angling for a piece of the pie, and voters who are too busy being distracted by shiny objects to notice they're being played. The real stakeholders, of course, are the ones with deep pockets and a vested interest in killing this project – or at least making it appear that way.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "legislative lupus" – a disease where politicians pretend to address a problem while actually exacerbating it. The real impact will be zero, zilch, nada. It's a symbolic gesture designed to appease the masses while allowing the underlying issues to fester. Meanwhile, the California high-speed rail project will continue to limp along, hemorrhaging money and credibility like a patient with a chronic case of "government-itis."
In conclusion, HR 213 is a masterful example of legislative malpractice – a bill that's more concerned with appearances than actual substance. It's a cynical exercise in political posturing, designed to deceive the gullible and appease the powerful. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than waste my time on this farce. Next patient, please!
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Kiley, Kevin [R-CA-3]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Kiley, Kevin [R-CA-3]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 24 nodes and 30 connections
Total contributions: $120,390
Top Donors - Rep. Kiley, Kevin [R-CA-3]
Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes;
Introduction
— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes; — 8 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security, following the lead of a feckless Administration, order border and immigration enforcement agencies to help migrants criminally enter our country with impunity; l Bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms; l Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists; l Woke bureaucrats at the Pentagon force troops to attend “training” seminars about “white privilege”; and l Bureaucrats at the State Department infuse U.S. foreign aid programs with woke extremism about “intersectionality” and abortion.3 Unaccountable federal spending is the secret lifeblood of the Great Awokening. Nearly every power center held by the Left is funded or supported, one way or another, through the bureaucracy by Congress. Colleges and school districts are funded by tax dollars. The Administrative State holds 100 percent of its power at the sufferance of Congress, and its insulation from presidential discipline is an unconstitutional fairy tale spun by the Washington Establishment to protect its turf. Members of Congress shield themselves from constitutional accountability often when the White House allows them to get away with it. Cultural institutions like public libraries and public health agencies are only as “independent” from public accountability as elected officials and voters permit. Let’s be clear: The most egregious regulations promulgated by the current Administration come from one place: the Oval Office. The President cannot hide behind the agencies; as his many executive orders make clear, his is the respon- sibility for the regulations that threaten American communities, schools, and families. A conservative President must move swiftly to do away with these vast abuses of presidential power and remove the career and political bureaucrats who fuel it. Properly considered, restoring fiscal limits and constitutional accountability to the federal government is a continuation of restoring national sovereignty to the American people. In foreign affairs, global strategy, federal budgeting and pol- icymaking, the same pattern emerges again and again. Ruling elites slash and tear at restrictions and accountability placed on them. They centralize power up and away from the American people: to supra-national treaties and organizations, to left-wing “experts,” to sight-unseen all-or-nothing legislating, to the unelected career bureaucrats of the Administrative State.
Introduction
— xxix — Contributors Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ben Lieberman, Competitive Enterprise Institute John Ligon Evelyn Lim, American Cornerstone Institute Mario Loyola, Competitive Enterprise Institute John G. Malcolm, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Masterman, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC Earl Matthews, The Vandenberg Coalition Dan Mauler, Heritage Action for America Drew McCall, American Cornerstone Institute Trent McCotter, Boyden Gray & Associates Micah Meadowcroft, The American Conservative Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation Jessica Melugin, Competitive Enterprise Institute Frank Mermoud, Orpheus International Mark Miller, Office of Governor Kristi Noem Cleta Mitchell, Conservative Partnership Institute Kevin E. Moley Caitlin Moon, American Center for Law & Justice Clare Morell, Ethics and Public Policy Center Mark Morgan, The Heritage Foundation Hunter Morgen, American Cornerstone Institute Rachel Morrison, Ethics and Public Policy Center Jonathan Moy, The Heritage Foundation Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ryan Nabil, National Taxpayers Union Michael Nasi, Jackson Walker LLP Lucien Niemeyer, The Niemeyer Group, LLC Nazak Nikakhtar Milan “Mitch” Nikolich Matt O’Brien, Immigration Reform Law Institute Caleb Orr, Boyden Gray & Associates Michael Pack Leah Pedersen Michael Pillsbury, The Heritage Foundation Patrick Pizzella, Leadership Institute Robert Poole, Reason Foundation Christopher B. Porter Kevin Preskenis, Allymar Health Solutions Pam Pryor, National Committee for Religious Freedom Thomas Pyle, Institute for Energy Research John Ratcliffe, American Global Strategies
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.