Bill filed in legislature would abolish the Arkansas State Library, put controls on public libraries
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – A bill filed in the Arkansas legislature on Thursday would abolish the Arkansas State Library and its board and transfer its property to the state Department of Education.
Senate Bill 536 strikes down a significant part of the current state library law and would have the education department transfer its collections to digital archives. Removing the library board would also change the oversight of libraries that receive state funding in communities and schools, including colleges.
Four takeaways from the 10th week of the 95th Arkansas General Assembly
The bill calls for the Department of Education to prohibit access to 'age-inappropriate materials' to anyone 16 years old or younger under its library oversight duties. Sex education materials would also be restricted for those 11 years old or younger.
Libraries would also be required to enact a policy allowing community members to request that material be restricted for youth.
According to the bill's terms, libraries that do not comply with the access restrictions would not receive state funding.
Bill putting Arkansas library board and AETN under Department of Education passes in committee
The legislation includes an emergency clause, meaning it would go into immediate effect if it becomes law.
The bill's primary sponsor is Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Jonesboro), with cosponsor Wayne Long (R-Bradford). Sullivan and Long sponsored earlier-filed legislation to abolish the state library and the Arkansas Educational Television Commission.
In a committee hearing earlier this week, Sullivan said that he had reached an agreement with the television commission and that the bill was no longer going forward. That hearing was for a Sullivan-sponsored amendment to state library funding to de-fund any state library affiliated with the American Library Association.
Amendment to tighten restrictions on libraries fails in committee
The amendment failed, as senators were concerned with its broad language.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour 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 @
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill
House Republicans on Wednesday greenlit a series of 'technical changes' to the party's tax cut and spending package, removing language that would have thrown their effort off course in the Senate. The chamber approved the tweaks — which were tucked inside a procedural rule for a separate measure — in a 213-207 vote, weeks after Republicans passed the sprawling package full of President Trump's legislative priorities. The adopted rule also tees up a final vote on the White House's bill to claw back $9.4 billion in federal spending. House GOP leaders moved to make the changes after the Senate parliamentarian scrubbed through the legislation — a procedure known as the 'Byrd bath' — and identified provisions and language that do not comply with the strict rules for the budget reconciliation process, which the GOP trifecta is using to circumvent a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and approve the bill by a simple majority. Leaving the legislation as it was risked the parliamentarian ruling that it was not compliant, which would have resulted in the threshold for passage in the Senate increasing from a simple majority to 60 votes — allowing Democratic opposition to block it. The changes to the Trump agenda bill — officially titled the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act — pertain to defense funding, energy policy and changes to Medicaid. For defense, Republicans nixed $2 billion for the enhancement of military intelligence programs; $500 million for the development, procurement and integration of maritime mines; and $62 million to convert Ohio-class submarine tubes to accept additional missiles. On the energy front, meanwhile, the changes removed a provision that would have reinstated leases for a proposed copper and nickel mine that had been renewed under the first Trump administration but revoked under Biden. The mine would have been located near an area known as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a nature preserve that contains canoe routes and species including black bears, moose and foxes. While leaders moved to strike some portions of the bill, they still plan to fight for those provisions when the package hits the Senate floor. 'We disagree; ultimately we're going to try it again on the Senate floor,' House Majority Leadere Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Tuesday. ' We disagree with the parliamentarian. … But you can't take the risk on any of them. You cannot take the risk because if any one of them is ruled on the Senate floor to be fatal, it's a 60-vote bill. The whole bill is a 60-vote bill — you can't take that risk.' With the changes made, the House is now expected to formally send the package to the Senate, where Republicans are mapping out their own changes to the behemoth bill. Some GOP senators want to decrease the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, others are pushing to increase the spending cuts in the bill, and a subset are pressing for a smaller rollback of the green energy tax credits that Democrats approved in 2022. Any changes to the House bill in the Senate, however, risks party leadership losing support in the lower chamber, which will have to approve the Senate's tweaks before the bill can head to Trump's desk for signature. Party leaders are still hoping to enact the package by July 4, but that timeline is coming into serious question as Republicans remain at odds over a series of high-stakes issues. Rachel Frazin contributed.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Hegseth takes fire from Republicans at heated Senate hearing
Republican senators came out firing during Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's hearing on Wednesday before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on armed forces. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) immediately pressed Hegseth over the Russia-Ukraine war, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) driving home the point later in the hearing; Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the top Senate appropriator, scolded the Pentagon's delays with budget information; and Sen. Lisa Murkowski closed out the hearing by questioning the administration's focus on Greenland in its Arctic strategy. McConnell, one of three Republicans who opposed Hegseth's confirmation, gaveled in the hearing by calling out the Trump administration for what he views as a flat base-line defense budget. He then launched into strong warnings against the U.S. cozying up to Russia in its bid to end its war in Ukraine. McConnell said Washington's allies are 'wondering whether we're in the middle of brokering what appears to be allowing the Russians to define victory. I think victory is defined by the people who have to live there — the Ukrainians.' The former Senate majority leader who now chairs the subcommittee, McConnell asked Hegseth which side he wanted to win the war. The Defense chief said the Trump administration wanted the killing to end but would not choose a side. 'America's reputation is on the line,' McConnell said. 'Will we defend Democratic allies against authoritarian aggressors?' Later in the hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine Caine if Russian President Vladimir Putin is going to stop at Ukraine. 'I don't believe he is,' Caine replied. Hegseth, meanwhile, said it 'remains to be seen. Graham fired back, referring to his previous allusion to appeasement of Adolph Hitler: 'Well, he says he's not. This is the '30s all over. It doesn't remain to be seen.' The line of questioning laid bare the ideological divide within the GOP as to how the U.S. should confront Russia, seen by defense hawks as a global threat that must be countered with military assistance to prop up Ukraine and assert U.S. force in the European theater. But many in the Trump administration, including Hegseth, have taken a more ambivalent tone, arguing for an America First approach that could see American troops rotated out of bases in Europe and an end to the flow of military aid from Washington to Kyiv. 'We don't want a headline at the end of this conflict that says Russia wins and America loses,' McConnell told Hegseth. The hearing had a far more adversarial tone compared to Hegseth's appearance before the House Appropriations defense subcommittee a day prior, in which the Pentagon chief emerged largely unscathed, particularly at the hands of GOP members. Democratic and Republican senators grilled Hegseth over a sparsely outlined defense budget for next fiscal year, echoing rare bipartisan criticism during the House hearing. Collins reprimanded the Pentagon for being 'unacceptably slow' in submitting a detailed Pentagon spending request for the fiscal year 2026. Congress is waiting on the information as the GOP struggles to agree on Trump's reconciliation package. She also told Hegseth that Trump's budget request represented a reduction in buying power compared to the 2025 military budget, when inflation is taken into account, but suggested the Senate might correct that. McConnell earlier was also critical of the administration's defense spending plan, pushing back at Hegseth's argument that the U.S. would be making the largest investment in the military in 20 years via Trump's reconciliation package. McConnell said putting funneling defense dollars into that package while declining to increase military spending in the regular budget 'may well end up functioning as a shell game to avoid making the most significant annual investments that we spent years urging the Biden administration to make.' There was also no shortage of criticism from the panel's Democrats. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), bashed the Pentagon for cutting military medical research while spending $45 million for a grand military parade marking the Army's 250th birthday, set for Saturday 'This is not consistent with what the men and women in uniform deserve,' Durbin said. Others, including Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) berated Hegseth for the Trump administration's decision to send National Guard troops and active-duty Marines into Los Angeles this week, calling the actions a wildly out-of-proportion response to sometimes violent protests against Trump's escalating immigration crackdowns. 'Threatening to use our own troops on our own citizens at such scale is unprecedented, it is unconstitutional, and it is downright un-American,' Murray said, noting that the actions were undermining the readiness of the U.S. military. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) pressed Hegseth to reveal the cost or timeline of refurbishing Trump's luxury jet from the Qatari government, meant to become Air Force One. 'You have signed a contract with a company to reconfigure the Qatari aircraft. What is the price of that contract?' Reed asked. Hegseth replied that the information 'cannot be revealed in this setting,' prompting Reed to fire back. 'Why can't it be revealed? This is the appropriation committee of the United States Senate. We appropriate the money that you will spend,' Reed said.
