According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1353 is not expected to result in a significant fiscal impact to the state. While the bill grants additional state agencies—the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality—the authority to issue bonds and enter into international cooperation agreements with Mexico, any associated costs are anticipated to be absorbed within existing agency resources​.

This suggests that the bill does not appropriate new funding or mandate new expenditures that would create immediate budgetary strain. Instead, it offers a framework for agencies to create funding mechanisms, including joint investment projects with the North American Development Bank. These partnerships would presumably leverage external funding sources, such as international loans or bond proceeds, to support infrastructure initiatives in Texas without drawing directly from general revenue.

Similarly, the fiscal note concludes that HB 1353 poses no significant financial impact on local governments. Since participation in agreements and bond issuance would remain voluntary and subject to approval by the Governor and Legislative Budget Board, the bill is designed to enable, rather than mandate, new financial commitments.

In summary, the legislation is fiscally neutral in the near term, enabling greater flexibility for infrastructure investment without requiring new appropriations or imposing costs on state or local entities.

HB 1353 proposes to expand the authority of Texas state agencies—including the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC)—to issue bonds and enter into international cooperation agreements with the United Mexican States. It also authorizes those agencies to establish funding mechanisms in partnership with the North American Development Bank (NADB) to invest in infrastructure projects within Texas. While the bill’s aim is to promote infrastructure development and regional collaboration, several substantive concerns merit a “No” vote.

First and foremost, the bill significantly expands the scope of state government. By granting additional regulatory bodies the power to issue debt and engage in cross-border agreements, HB 1353 extends bureaucratic authority into areas with financial, policy, and even geopolitical consequences. These are not minor administrative adjustments—they represent a shift in how Texas interacts with international entities and how public debt may be used for that purpose. The bill does not contain meaningful limitations, such as sunset provisions, project-type restrictions, or enhanced legislative oversight. Such omissions raise the risk of unchecked agency discretion.

Second, although the fiscal note suggests no immediate cost to the state, the bill allows new public debt instruments to be issued. This introduces the possibility of future financial exposure if funded projects are not financially sound. Bonds are long-term obligations, and if a project tied to such debt underperforms, state government—and by extension, taxpayers—may be left to absorb the consequences. In the absence of clearer fiscal controls, this potential liability represents a meaningful burden on future budgets and constituents.

Third, HB 1353 invites international entanglements by encouraging partnerships with the North American Development Bank—a binational institution jointly operated by the United States and Mexico. While such cooperation may sound productive, these arrangements inherently reduce the state’s control over decision-making. Cross-border projects may be influenced by diplomatic, political, or economic priorities not aligned with Texas’s interests or constitutional principles of local governance. The legislation contains no language affirming state sovereignty or protecting Texas from potential overreach by international bodies.

Additionally, expanding public-sector financing mechanisms in this way risks distorting the market. By authorizing state agencies to secure preferential or subsidized funding, HB 1353 could inadvertently undermine private investment and entrepreneurship in the infrastructure space. Utilities, developers, and local businesses may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage if publicly backed projects—particularly those with international financing—enter the market under more favorable terms. This kind of government-favored competition runs counter to the principle of free enterprise and could stifle innovation and local job creation.

Lastly, the bill lacks critical safeguards for transparency and accountability. There is no requirement for public disclosure of the terms of agreements, no threshold for legislative review, and no provisions for protecting private property rights if infrastructure projects encroach on private land. These are fundamental omissions in any bill that empowers state agencies to borrow funds and contract with foreign governments.

For all these reasons—expansion of bureaucratic authority, potential taxpayer risk, entanglement with international financial institutions, market interference, and lack of safeguards—the appropriate vote recommendation on HB 1353 is a firm NO. The risks posed by this bill outweigh its stated benefits, and without substantial revisions, it fails to meet core principles of limited government, fiscal prudence, and respect for private enterprise. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 1353.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not impose direct restrictions on personal freedoms, speech, or privacy. However, its indirect effects may be concerning. Infrastructure projects developed through international cooperation—particularly large-scale utility or environmental initiatives—can affect local communities through land use changes, environmental regulation, or eminent domain. The bill lacks any language affirming protections for affected individuals, leaving open the possibility that personal freedoms (e.g., use of private property or local self-determination) could be undermined by agency-driven cross-border projects.

• Personal Responsibility: HB 1353 neither encourages nor discourages individual responsibility in a direct way. However, by expanding the role of government agencies in infrastructure development and allowing them to partner with international financial institutions, it shifts more of the responsibility for infrastructure investment and project execution away from local communities and private actors. While not a clear violation of this principle, the bill reflects a preference for government-led solutions over community- or market-driven ones.

• Free Enterprise: This is perhaps where the bill is most misaligned with liberty principles. By empowering regulatory agencies to issue bonds and enter financing partnerships with entities like the North American Development Bank, the state could introduce subsidized competition into sectors traditionally served by private firms, such as water utilities, energy infrastructure, and environmental services. This distorts market signals, potentially deterring private investment and innovation. Without explicit protections for private enterprise or a requirement to avoid competition with the private sector, the bill undermines a level economic playing field.

• Private Property Rights: While the bill does not mention eminent domain or compulsory acquisition, infrastructure development—especially those involving utilities or environmental remediation—often intersects with private land use. The bill contains no provisions guaranteeing respect for private property rights, nor does it limit the circumstances under which agencies can pursue projects that may affect landowners. Given that state-issued bonds and cross-border cooperation could fund such projects, the absence of these protections raises serious concerns.

• Limited Government: HB 1353 expands the authority of state agencies in both geographic scope (international agreements) and financial power (bond issuance). It lacks structural limitations, such as sunset provisions, legislative approval requirements, or transparency mandates. By enabling regulatory agencies to act more independently in fiscal and diplomatic contexts, the bill broadens the reach of the administrative state without corresponding checks and balances. This violates the foundational principle that government should be restrained, especially in matters involving public debt and foreign policy implications.

• SB 1170 (Same As)