PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · May 25, 1994
Taliesin Preservation Act of 1994 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with the owner or operator of the Taliesin site (home of Frank Lloyd Wright from 1911 to 1959) site in Wisconsin, pursuant to which the Secretary may mark, interpret, restore, and provide technical assistance for the preservation of the site. Requires such agreements to: (1) provide for public access to the site through conducted tours; and (2) prohibit any changes or alterations in the property except by mutual agreement. Conditions cooperative agreements and financial assistance under this Act on the owner or operator submitting a comprehensive plan for the continued preservation and public use of the site for the Secretary's approval. Authorizes appropriations. Prohibits the Secretary from providing more than one-third of the aggregate cost of implementing the cooperative agreements, with the remainder to be borne by State and private entities.
People & committees
Sen. Kohl, Herb [D-WI] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S7093)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S7093)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 440.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 103-269.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 103-269.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 103-407.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Referred to Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S582-583)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.150 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.150 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.150 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.150 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.