US Senate approves national monument recognizing Tulsa Race Massacre
WASHINGTON, DC (KNWA/KFTA) – The United States Senate has approved a national monument establishment for the Historic Greenwood District, also known as Black Wall Street, on Thursday.
The national monument will recognize the area where the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre took place.
In an X-post, Senator James Lankford said the passing of the bill is a reminder of how far we have come.
'Yesterday, the Senate approved the Historic Greenwood District, site of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, to be a national monument. It's a powerful reminder of one of the darkest chapters of our history, how far we've come, and the work still ahead,' the post said.
The bill was unanimously approved.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
9 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But in the Senate, it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. It also provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. But as debate in the state Senate seemed inevitable, dozens of Summit employees and leaders and members of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and labor unions made a big showing as well. The pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said in a May 12 statement after the vote that a majority of the Iowa Senate 'turned their back on Iowa agriculture.'
Fox News
15 minutes ago
- Fox News
House advances Trump's $9.4B spending cuts package targeting NPR, PBS, USAID to House-wide vote
President Donald Trump's $9.4 billion spending cuts package survived a key hurdle on Wednesday afternoon, setting the measure up for a final House-wide vote later this week. Trump's proposal, which was introduced as legislation by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., would cut $8.3 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and just over $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes federal funding to NPR and PBS. The House of Representatives made a procedural motion known as a "rule vote," which passed mostly along party lines. The rule passing now allows for debate on the $9.4 billion spending cut measure, followed by a final House-wide vote. But it's not atypical for House leaders to include unrelated measures in rule votes, as is the case with the spending cuts package – House GOP leaders included a provision with minor changes to Trump's "one big, beautiful bill" to account for the Senate needing to amend the bill. That latter piece of legislation, a vast tax and immigration bill, is moving through the budget reconciliation process. By dropping the Senate's threshold for advancement from 60 votes to 51, it allows the party in power to skirt the minority – in this case, Democrats – on vast pieces of legislation, provided they adhere to a specific set of budgetary rules. House GOP leaders said they needed to make the recent changes to the bill to better adhere to the Senate's "Byrd Bath," when the Senate parliamentarian reviews the bill and removes anything not adhering to reconciliation guidelines. Whereas that deals with the government's mandatory spending processes that are more difficult to amend, the $9.4 billion spending cuts package tackles discretionary spending that Congress controls every year. It's called a "rescissions package," which is a formal proposal by the White House to claw back federal funds already allocated for the current fiscal year. Like reconciliation, the mechanism allows for a 51-vote majority in the Senate rather than 60. Congress has 45 days to consider it, or it is deemed rejected. Republican leaders have held up this rescissions package as the first step to codifying the billions of dollars of government waste identified by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Trump allies have also made clear they view this first package as a test of what kind of cuts congressional Republicans can stomach. And while the rule vote was expected to pass, the bill could have trouble ahead of its expected Thursday afternoon vote. Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., pointed out in a bipartisan statement that the media funding represents less than 0.01% of the federal budget and said taking that money away would "dismantle a trusted source of information for millions of Americans." Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told reporters on Tuesday that he got assurances that USAID cuts would exclude critical medical funding. "I feel better than what I was hearing last week, that was gonna be a total cut," he said, without revealing whether he would support the bill.
USA Today
33 minutes ago
- USA Today
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law A 71-page bill released by Senate Republicans would cut down on repayment plans and deem certain college programs ineligible for federal financial aid. Show Caption Hide Caption Senators grill Education Secretary Linda McMahon over proposed cuts Education Secretary Linda McMahon testified to Congress over proposed budget cuts. WASHINGTON – Congress is closer than it's been in a long time to massively reforming college financial aid. On June 10, GOP lawmakers in the U.S. Senate proposed their version of the higher education section of President Trump's tax and spending megabill. The 71-page portion of the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would set new caps on student loan borrowing while drastically cutting the number of repayment plans. Read more: Republicans propose massive overhaul of student loans, Pell Grants The Senate's version of the legislation is less aggressive than the bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced in late April. While it will likely be further watered down due to congressional budget rules, the scope of the legislation indicates big changes will be enacted soon to how Americans pay for college. Student loan caps proposed When President Donald Trump asked Republicans to find billions of dollars in federal spending cuts, GOP lawmakers in the House drew up measures to eliminate or dramatically curb many student loan programs. In April, they proposed cutting subsidized loans altogether for undergraduates. When students take out a federal direct subsidized loan, the government pays the interest while they're in school (and for a short grace period after the students complete their studies). That idea didn't survive in the Senate version of the bill, which was expected to be slightly more moderate than the House proposal. Read more: Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned Other elements of the House version remain, however. Like the House bill, the Senate measure proposes cutting the number of student loan repayment plans to just two. That change would kill President Joe Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, program, which former Education Secretary Miguel Cardona repeatedly called the "most affordable repayment plan ever." SAVE has been stalled in court for months, placing roughly 8 million people in forbearance. The Senate bill would also dramatically curb lending for graduate students and parents (though at lower caps than House Republicans wanted). Ben Cecil, a senior education policy advisor at Third Way, a center-left think tank, said he was pleased to see the bill appeared to make compromises. "These loan limits are much more reasonable," he said. Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said she was "relieved" some of the "most harmful" provisions of the House bill had been nixed. "Still, there are several concerning aspects of this bill that would ultimately make college less affordable for students," she said, including changes that "may drive borrowers to riskier private loans, which are not available to all borrowers." Less concern over Pell Grants One of college access groups' biggest criticisms of the initial bill was a significant change to Pell Grants, federal subsidies that help lower-income students pay for college. House Republicans wanted to increase the number of credits students would need to take each semester to be eligible for Pell Grants. The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, estimated that two out of three Pell recipients could've lost their grants or received smaller ones if that requirement were enacted. The Senate version takes a softer approach, codifying a provision to more fully exclude higher-income students qualify for Pell funds. At the same time, the bill expands Pell Grants in ways that could waste money, according to critics such as Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, a college affordability group. 'While the Senate nixed most of the House's proposed cuts to the Pell Grant program and averts a looming funding shortfall, it regrettably threatens the program's long-term stability by extending Pell eligibility to unaccredited programs that are unlikely to pay off for students," Gadkaree said in a statement. New accountability rules One of the biggest distinctions between the House and Senate versions of the bill is that they lay out two entirely different sets of new accountability rules for colleges. The House proposal would fine colleges for leaving students on the hook for unpaid student loan debt. The Senate's framework suggests taking federal financial aid away from college programs if they can't prove that students who graduate are earning more than they would have without a degree. Mike Itzkowitz, who served in the Education Department under President Barack Obama, said that concept has bipartisan support. "I don't know anyone who would be willing to fork over their time to take on loans to earn less than a high school graduate," he said. But it's possible that particular provision won't survive special Senate rules. To avoid needing the support of Democrats, Republicans are trying to pass Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" using the budget process. That strategy comes with challenges. However, the bill must only make changes that spend money or save money. Significant reforms to college oversight might go too far, said Jon Fansmith, the senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, the main association for colleges and universities. "This process isn't designed to do complicated policymaking," he said. "I really do worry about rushing something through without understanding what we're doing." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
