21 bills still waiting on decision by Gov. Stitt
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – Governor Kevin Stitt still has to make a decision on 21 bills that made it to his desk by the end of session.
During the session, the Governor has five days to sign or veto a bill. Now that the session is over, he will have until June 14 to take action on the remaining bills.
'He can sign them. He can do a direct veto or he can do a pocket veto, which is basically where he just holds on to it and it doesn't become law,' said Sen. Julia Kirt (D-Oklahoma City).
Kirt said it was not unusual for a few remaining bills to be waiting on the Governor's signature after the session concludes. But the way legislators wrapped up the final days, with chaotic overrides on 47 vetoes, has some lawmakers worried.
Lawmakers override majority of Gov. Stitt's vetoes
Lawmakers also voted to oust Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Commissioner Allie Friesen, who was handpicked by Stitt.
'I wouldn't be surprised if he'd veto some things just because he's upset with the Senate or upset with the House or specific members,' said Kirt.
Stitt announced an interim preplacement to lead the department on Tuesday. He tasked retired Rear Admiral Gregory Slavonic with the job.
Among the 21 bills, five deal with public education. Senate Bill 235 is one of them. It included a match of $5 million to the state's 'Grow Your Own' program. The program would help school districts grow their teacher pipeline by paying for their certification.
'You are taking dedicated paraprofessionals, teacher's aids, and other support staff personnel who have been in that district – some of them maybe for two decades – and they're on a path to teacher certification,' said Sen. Adam Pugh (R-Edmond).
House Bill 1727 is another one. It would modify and fund 'Oklahoma's Promise' to allow college scholarships for children of state teachers.'If their kid goes to Oklahoma, a higher ed institution for them to get Oklahoma Promise even if they don't qualify financially,' said Kirt. 'It's, I think, meaningful to educators to know they'd have that option.'Here is a list of the remaining 21 bills waiting on Governor Stitt's desk:
SB 130 – Directing Corporation Commission to conduct certain feasibility study subject to certain process.
SB 140 – Creating the Oklahoma Math Achievement and Proficiency Act.
SB 207 – Establishing the Oklahoma Rare Disease Advisory Council.
SB 235 – Providing grant application process, funding for the Grow Your Own Educator Program.
SB 1039 – Modifying grounds for certain denials for medical marijuana license.
HB 1087 – Extending the amount of classroom instruction time; minimum salary schedule for teachers.
HB 1166 – Annexation of territory without consent of majority of owners.
HB1282 – Oklahoma Rising Scholars Award; remaining; eligibility; awards; waivers.
HB1287 – Authorizing the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma to create a math tutoring pilot program for certain students.
HB 1378 – Sales tax exemptions for agriculture, including timber.
HB 1486 – Designating various memorial roads and bridges.
HB 1727 – Oklahoma Higher Learning Access Program; eligibility for children of certain teachers.
HB 2104 – Classification of felony offenses
HB 2262 – Alzheimer's Dementia and Other Forms of Dementia Special Care Disclosure Act.
HB 2513 – Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services; addressing the consent degree.
HB 2610 – Nonrecurring adoption expenses credit.
HB 2645 – Practice of medicine, tax credit.
HB 2646 – Revenue and taxation; adjustments; wagering, tax year.
HB 2752 – Eminent domain of electricity, facilities on private property.
HB 2753 – Rural Jobs Act.
HB 2758 – Preserving and Advancing County Transportation Fund.
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
Forbes
27 minutes ago
- Forbes
How House And Senate Education Proposals Could Reshape Higher Education
Graduation mortar board cap on one hundred dollar bills concept for the cost of a college and ... More university education As Congress navigates the complex terrain of budget reconciliation, education policy has emerged as a major battleground between competing visions for America's higher education system. The House and Senate are advancing dramatically different approaches to federal education funding, with proposals that could fundamentally alter how millions of students access and pay for college. The House reconciliation bill targets higher education with what critics describe as unprecedented cuts, while the Senate is crafting its version that takes a different approach to similar goals. Both chambers face mounting pressure to address rising college costs and student debt, but their proposed solutions diverge sharply on fundamental questions about the federal government's role in education funding. The most significant differences between the House and Senate proposals center on Pell Grant eligibility, the cornerstone of federal student aid that serves nearly 7 million low-income students annually. The House version seeks to expand Pell Grant eligibility for short-term programs, a bipartisan initiative that would allow students to use federal aid for career training programs lasting as little as eight weeks. This expansion could benefit hundreds of thousands of students pursuing high-demand skills in healthcare, technology, and skilled trades. However, the House proposal also includes restrictions based on immigration status that would eliminate aid for specific student populations. The Senate takes a more restrictive approach to existing eligibility. Senate Republicans propose cutting off Pell Grant access for students who receive scholarships covering their full cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, living expenses, and course materials. This provision would primarily affect high-achieving students from low-income families who combine merit aid with need-based grants, potentially forcing them to choose between scholarship opportunities and federal aid eligibility. The impact of these competing approaches would be profound. The House expansion could democratize access to career training, potentially addressing workforce shortages in critical industries. However, the Senate's scholarship restriction could create perverse incentives, discouraging institutions from offering comprehensive aid packages to their neediest students. Both chambers propose significant changes to federal student lending but through different mechanisms. The House bill includes provisions for "risk-sharing" arrangements that would require colleges to assume financial responsibility for a portion of their students' loan defaults. This policy aims to incentivize institutions to improve outcomes and control costs by making them stakeholders in their graduates' financial success. The House approach represents a market-based solution that could drive down costs and improve program quality. Institutions would have strong incentives to ensure their programs lead to employment outcomes that enable loan repayment. However, critics argue this could push colleges to avoid serving higher-risk student populations or eliminate programs in fields with lower earning potential but high social value. Senate proposals focus more on tightening eligibility requirements and modifying repayment terms, though specific details remain under development as the chamber works toward its July 4 deadline for passage. The most controversial element of the House proposal involves new taxes on college and university endowments. The bill would expand existing endowment taxes and impose additional levies on institutions with substantial financial reserves. Supporters argue this addresses the disconnect between institutional wealth and student affordability, forcing well-endowed colleges to contribute more to the broader education system. The endowment tax provisions could generate significant revenue while pressuring wealthy institutions to increase student aid or reduce tuition. However, universities warn that such taxes could reduce their capacity for long-term investment in research, facilities, and student support services that benefit the broader academic mission. Small colleges, including Swarthmore, Pomona, and Grinnell, have banded together to oppose the tax because half or more of their operating income comes from the endowment revenue, and the tax would decimate their financial aid budgets. The Senate has not adopted endowment taxation to the same extent, instead focusing on spending reductions and eligibility restrictions to achieve fiscal goals. The House reconciliation bill extends beyond traditional education policy to affect healthcare access for students. Provisions related to Medicaid and other health programs could significantly impact the millions of college students who rely on these services. The bill's approach to social safety net programs would create additional barriers for students from low-income families who depend on multiple forms of federal assistance. This broader impact illustrates how education policy intersects with other aspects of social policy, making the stakes of reconciliation higher than traditional education legislation. The House takes Title I, II, III, and IV funds into state block grants based on the total student population (excluding the disabled and low-income populations) and allows students to use these funds for private schools. The Senate bill strengthens formulas to target the highest-poverty districts and schools better. The Senate bill generally rejects significant Title I portability beyond district public and charter options. The House bill eliminates federal mandates for state accountability systems (testing frequency, interventions). It proposes that states design their systems (standards, tests, improvement) with minimal federal approval. It maintains basic federal reporting (graduation, disaggregated data). The Senate bill takes the opposite approach, requiring a robust federal accountability system, annual testing in core grades, identification of low-performing schools, evidence-based interventions, public and transparent data, and disaggregated data. The federal requirements for teacher preparation and accountability would be transferred to the states under the House bill, with states setting their standards for certification, evaluation, and professional development. The Senate bill would maintain the federal role and would provide funds for evidence-based professional development in high-need districts. It also has provisions to require states to demonstrate that students have access to experienced and effective teachers. Charter school funding is increased in the House bill, as is access to vouchers to attend private schools. The Senate bill places restrictions on the use of vouchers or Educational Savings Accounts to fund private school tuition and places increasing accountability measures on these funds. The House bill similarly adds early childhood funds to state block grants. In contrast, the Senate bill provides significant new federal funding for universal, high-quality Pre-K programs with state quality standards. It may also expand childcare subsidies and improve quality. Evaluating these competing visions requires considering both immediate impacts and long-term consequences for educational access and quality. The House expansion of Pell Grants for short-term programs addresses a genuine need in the modern economy, where many high-paying careers require specialized training rather than traditional four-year degrees. This provision could significantly improve economic mobility for working-class Americans seeking career advancement through skills training. However, the House bill's overall approach prioritizes fiscal savings over educational access. The combination of aid restrictions, endowment taxes, and risk-sharing requirements could create a more constrained higher education environment where institutions focus primarily on financial metrics rather than educational missions. The Senate's more targeted approach to eligibility restrictions may preserve broader access while addressing specific concerns about the efficiency of aid. However, the scholarship restriction provision could undermine the very merit-aid programs that many institutions use to attract and retain talented students from diverse backgrounds. Both proposals face significant implementation challenges and political obstacles. The House bill's passage required narrow party-line votes, and similar dynamics are likely in the Senate. The fundamental tension between controlling costs and maintaining access will ultimately require compromise that neither chamber's current approach fully addresses. The most promising elements from both proposals involve targeted expansions of aid for career training and workforce development programs that directly address economic needs. However, the broader restructuring of federal education funding requires more careful consideration of unintended consequences. Effective education reform should expand opportunity while maintaining quality and access. The current reconciliation process, driven primarily by fiscal rather than educational considerations, may not provide the optimal framework for achieving these goals. A more comprehensive reauthorization of higher education policy, developed through bipartisan collaboration, would better serve both students and institutions. As both chambers work toward final passage, the ultimate measure of success should be whether these proposals genuinely improve educational outcomes and economic opportunity for American students rather than simply achieving short-term budgetary targets.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ex-Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan arrives at federal court for sentencing in corruption case
CHICAGO — Former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan arrived Friday at the federal courthouse in downtown Chicago for his historic sentencing in a long-running corruption case that shook the state's political world to the core. Madigan, 83, who for years was widely hailed as the most powerful politician in the state, gave a slight smile as he strode past a horde of television news cameras with his lawyers and family members without comment. Carrying a briefcase and umbrella, he then headed to the 12th floor courtroom of U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey, who is scheduled to begin the hearing at 1 p.m. The hearing is expected to last two hours or more. With seating limited in Blakey's courtroom, an overflow courtroom has been set up on the courthouse's 17th floor. Before hearing arguments, Blakey must first determine the sentencing guidelines in the case, though it's no longer mandatory for him to follow them. It's unclear whether Madigan's team intends to call live witnesses on his behalf, but before the judge imposes the sentence, the famously taciturn former speaker will be given a chance to make a statement of his own. It's the most highly anticipated sentencing in a Chicago public corruption case since former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich more than a decade ago, and U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey has a wide range of options at his disposal. The difference between the recommendations of the two sides is stark. Prosecutors have asked for 12 ½ years in prison, while the ex-speaker's team requested five years of probation, with the first year on home confinement. One big question is whether the letters Blakey received on Madigan's behalf will help persuade him to go easy on the longest-serving speaker in American history. Under the federal rules, the judge must also balance the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence, both for Madigan and others who might be tempted to commit similar acts, with the ex-speaker's background, personal traits, family history and other good works. In justifying a lengthy prison sentence, prosecutors have argued Madigan used his public office to increase his power, line his own pockets and enrich a small circle of his most loyal associates. Madigan's legal team, meanwhile, have stressed his age and lifetime of public service, saying that he is a good man whose name was dragged through the mud and will forever be branded as a felon. After a trial that stretched nearly four months, Madigan was convicted by a jury Feb. 12 on bribery conspiracy and other corruption charges The jury found him guilty on 10 of 23 counts, including one count of conspiracy related to a multipronged scheme to accept and solicit bribes from utility giant Commonwealth Edison. Jurors also convicted him on two counts of bribery and one Travel Act violation related to payments funneled to Madigan associates for do-nothing ComEd subcontracts. Madigan also was convicted on six out of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get ex-Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board. But after 11 days of deliberation, the jury's final verdict was mixed, deadlocking on several counts — including the marquee racketeering conspiracy charge — and acquitting Madigan on numerous others. Jurors also deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan's co-defendant, Michael McClain. The verdict capped one of the most significant political corruption investigations in Chicago's sordid history. It also cemented an extraordinary personal fall for Madigan, the longest-serving state legislative leader in the nation's history, who for decades held an iron-tight grip on the House as well as the state Democratic Party. It was a case many thought would never be made. Madigan, a savvy lawyer and old-school practitioner of Democratic machine politics, famously eschewed cell phones and email, and stayed largely above the fray while dozens of his colleagues were hauled off to prison over the years. Ultimately, it took Solis's extraordinary cooperation, including wearing a hidden wire in meetings with Madigan, along with an FBI wiretap on Madigan's longtime confidant, Michael McClain, to break the case open, leading to a series of indictments and pay-to-play allegations against two major utilities, Commonwealth Edison and AT&T Illinois, and more than a dozen other individuals. Madigan held the speakership for all but two years from 1983 until 2021. Along with ruling the House, Madigan chaired the Illinois Democratic Party from 1998 until 2021, resigning both his House seat and the party post after he lost the speakership. Madigan's hold on the House Democratic caucus started loosening in the wake of a series of explosive sexual harassment cases involving misbehaving aides in 2018, including longtime chief of staff Tim Mapes. But the momentum picked up speed in July 2020 when the U.S. attorney's office reached a deferred prosecution agreement with ComEd, which acknowledged trying to influence Madigan by showering his pals and associates with do-nothing contracts, legal work and a seat on the ComEd board of directors. While ComEd agreed to pay a $200 million fine, the biggest political marker in the agreement was that Madigan was referenced clearly when the court document called the speaker of the House 'Public Official A.' McClain and three others were indicted in the separate ComEd Four case four months later. Sentencings in that case, which have been delayed for more than a year due to fallout from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the federal bribery statute, are now expected to unfold in July and August. ______
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -U.S. Senate Republicans have added language to President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies they conclude are unlawful. Text of the Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's contribution to the bill released by its chair, Senator Chuck Grassley, late on Thursday would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned. The bond requirement in the Senate's version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is different from the provision the Republican-controlled House of Representatives included when it passed the bill last month that would curb courts' power in a different way. The House version curtails the ability of judges to enforce orders holding officials in contempt if they violate injunctions. Judges use contempt orders to bring parties into compliance, usually by ratcheting up measures from fines to jail time. Some judges who have blocked Trump administration actions have said officials are at risk of being held in contempt for not complying with their orders. Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 along largely party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure. A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items. Grassley's office said in a statement the language the Judiciary Committee proposed would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that they make a party seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned. Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones. Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, are using complex budget rules to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes needed to advance most legislation in the 100-seat chamber. The Senate Judiciary Committee's piece of the bill would also provide the judiciary funding to study the costs to taxpayers associated with such injunctions and provide training for judges about the problems associated with them. A spokesperson for Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, criticized the Republican-drafted legislative text, saying "Republicans are targeting nationwide injunctions because they're beholden to a president who is breaking the law — but the courts are not."
