S. 1051Senate bill · 119th CongressIn committeePublic Lands and Natural Resources

Historic Greenwood District—Black Wall Street National Monument Establishment Act

Sponsored byJames LankfordR-OKIntroduced Mar 13, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 10, 2026) on Natural Resources.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
92Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Areas of law−8

    Amends 2 titles of the US Code (5 and 54) rather than one.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

7 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
7
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Yea4h ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
7
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Nay2d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
5
adaeze_oDemoTX-62d ago
The sunset point is the strongest thing in this thread and nobody's answered it.
5
river_readerDemoIL-10voted Yea22h ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
4
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Yea1d ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
3
sylvie_civicDemoFL-11voted Nay1d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
1
aviva_sternDemoMO-2voted Yea2d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. The committee report would settle it either way.
Your position on S. 1051No positions yet